school are married by tribal custom). Despite the seemingly clear language in this Resolution, subsequent Navajo court decisions interpreted the Resolution as making the license requirement “directory” rather than mandatory, and court decisions and subsequent Tribal Council Resolutions recognized the validity of both unlicensed traditional and common law marriages. This apparent conflict between the desire to formalize marriage by requiring a license and the desire to respect tribal custom and belief concerning traditional marriage reflects the tension between the necessity of proving marriage in the modern bureaucratic slate, and Navajo law’s commitment to incorporate Navajo tradition as a source of law. See Bennett v. Navajo Board of Election Supervisors, No. A-CV-26-90 (Navajo 1990) (<HOLDING>); Navajo Tribal Council Res. CAP-36-80 (Apr.
recognizing plain or fundamental error holding right to be fundamental holding that the right to vote is fundamental holding that fundamental navajo customs and traditions are part of higher law recognizing that new mexico courts will enforce a contractual choiceoflaw provision unless to do so would violate fundamental principle of justice or deeprooted traditions of new mexico