FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) – The Navajo Nation Supreme Court has settled the question of how to pay for a belated presidential election in a case it says has been fraught with political self-interest.

The tribe's acting controller can access money from a fund used to satisfy legal judgments and claims against the Navajo Nation, the justices wrote in an opinion released late Monday. It came after the tribe's Department of Justice asked the court to clarify how the acting controller legally could transfer $317,000 to the election office.

Navajo Attorney General Harrison Tsosie said Tuesday that his office is evaluating the court's opinion.

The election for president on the country's largest American Indian reservation now is more than five months behind its original scheduled date. It's set for April 21 between former President Joe Shirley Jr. and former lawmaker Russell Begaye.

The tribe's election office is using its operating funds to move ahead with the contest that has sparked debates over fluency in the Navajo language after a candidate was disqualified for failing to prove he met the requirement. Some voters

Window Rock District Court Judge Carol Perry on Tuesday scheduled a hearing on a request to halt the election, but she did not immediately issue a ruling. One of the petitioners, former Navajo Board of Election Supervisor Wallace Charley, said he doubted it would be granted. The Supreme Court has decided many of the issues raised in the request.

In their latest opinion, the high court justices said the tribe legally is obligated to fund a presidential election. Tribal President Ben Shelly, whose term was extended on agreement with some lawmakers, and the tribe's Justice Department argued that the controller could not unilaterally transfer funds without legislative approval.

The Supreme Court said those officials weren't upfront in their arguments and failed to identify the Contingency Management Fund as a source to fund the election.

“Unless the special election is funded, every Navajo voter will be deprived of the right to implementation of the election code and the right to elect a qualified candidate of their choice,” the justices wrote. “The legitimacy of every possible vote is compromised by the non-funding.”