As the petition to bring back the Fighting Sioux nickname circulates on its final day, one has to wonder what is to become of UND athletics. Supporters of the University of North Dakota’s Fighting Sioux nickname said Monday they believe they have enough signatures to force a statewide referendum on whether the school should keep it. Backers of the nickname, which the NCAA considers demeaning to American Indians, planned to turn in petitions to Secretary of State Al Jaeger’s office Tuesday night to demand a vote on whether the Grand Forks school should be required to use it. The nickname’s advocates need signatures from at least 13,452 eligible North Dakota voters to put the question on the June 12 primary election ballot. The vote would be about whether to restore a state law that says the University of North Dakota’s athletics teams “shall be known as the … Fighting Sioux.” The Legislature repealed the law last November. The NCAA has said it would sanction UND for using the nickname by barring the school from hosting postseason tournaments and its athletes from wearing uniforms with the nickname or logo during postseason play. Sean Johnson, a member of the referendum’s sponsoring committee, said signature-gathering efforts would continue until shortly before the midnight Tuesday deadline for turning in petitions. One signing location Tuesday night will be in front of the state Capitol itself, a few hundred yards from Jaeger’s office on the Capitol’s ground floor. Johnson said Monday he believed the nickname’s backers had the minimum number of signatures they need to qualify for a vote.
However, having extra names is important in case some signatures are disqualified, as often happens when the secretary of state reviews the petitions, Johnson said. “The University of North Dakota belongs to North Dakotans, and they should have a say in what the team is called,” he said. Since the Legislature repealed the law in November, UND already has taken steps to retire the logo and nickname.
The American Indian profile logo has been removed from university websites, and the school has asked news outlets to avoid using the Fighting Sioux nickname. Peter Johnson, a university spokesman, declined comment on the issue Monday. If the petitions are turned in Tuesday and appear to have the required minimum number of names, the pro-nickname law that the Legislature agreed to repeal in November will be allowed to stand. Jaeger has 35 days to review the petitions and undertake a random sampling of names to see if they are valid. He will then decide whether to certify the petition for a June vote. Should the petition fall short of its signature goal, the repeal of the pro-nickname law will again take effect. Nickname supporters are also circulating a separate petition that advocates a pro-nickname amendment to the North Dakota Constitution. It would add this sentence: “The University of North Dakota and its intercollegiate athletic teams shall be known as the Fighting Sioux.” The constitutional amendment initiative requires at least 26,904 petition signatures. The petition must be turned in to Jaeger’s office by midnight Aug. 8 to qualify for the November general election ballot.
So if this petition has enough support, once again the University of North Dakota will be called the Fighting Sioux, but will be sanctioned by the NCAA. To what degree? I guess we will have to wait and see but I have a feeling the petitioners will wish they had never circulated that petition. My opinion: let the nickname go and move forward; this is going nowhere good.
Even Before June Vote, Measure 2 Could Stop City Projects
A proposed measure to eliminate property taxes in North Dakota has Grand Forks city leaders unsure of what will happen to city finances if it passes. The Grand Forks City Council is beginning to assess the potential effects if Initiated Measure 2 is approved by voters on June 12. There are several questions and possible implications City Attorney Howard Swanson has outlined to the council, including many uncertainties that would impact the city.
In two memos he wrote to council members on Jan. 23 and Jan. 31, Swanson indicates that if the measure is passed, it will have a big impact on the way the city issues debt and on the way it adopts the annual budget. Budgeting would be greatly impacted by the legislature’s decisions and could result in a loss of local control. Swanson also points out the impact the measure could have on special assessments issued by the city. “We’re in a period of time now where even special assessments are affected as to what we can do until we know if for sure whether Measure 2 passes or not. It will be our recommendation that the city probably not do business as normal as it relates to special assessments until we know what happens with Measure 2,” Swanson said. If the measure passes, it will be retroactive to Jan. 1 of this year. Because of that, Swanson says it impacts a number of types of projects the city could be doing this year but will now wait until some of the rules that would come with the measure are more clear. The city council will meet in a work session to assess the impacts this has for the interim period between Jan. 1 and June 12.
WDAZ-TV
Super Bowl Ahhhhhhh
As I still continue my 10-day grieving of the Patriots’ loss to the Giants on Sunday, I have to say it was a great game. Although the best team did not win, I tip my hat to the NY Giants for putting on a great show with New England. To Gisele Bundchen, whose post game comments are stirring up a mess, I agree with you whole heartedly – Tom Brady can’t do it all. If he could, we would be the Super Bowl Champions today. Eli Manning will always be known as Peyton’s little brother. Hang on Patriot fans in Patriot Nation – there’s always next year.