Hawkster

The one big difference between the June referral and the November amendment would be that even if they get the November one on the ballot, it still doesn't take effect until after it's voted on. So, the name would be discontinued for now, and hopefully people are educated enough on how to vote. Plus, that will be a yes means yes and no means no worded question. No confusion.

Totally new issue. If the REFERRAL gets thrown out, the supporters will then circulate new petitions calling for a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment. A constitutional amendment can't be declared unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court. We'd either have to live with it or get the Legislature to repeal it, but since they saddled us with this mess in the first place, you have to wonder how that would turn out.

Maybe someone should tell them there is a big, beautiful world out here for them to see. They just need to get out of that deep, dark hole they live in

I forgot that it's a Thursday game, so I doubt there will be much here in the way of Mines fans. So, 9,000 is probably a maximum and I'd be surprised if it got any higher.

I think a lot will depend on how well Mines travels. I doubt UND can do it on our own, but if a great number of visitors show up, then it's possible.

Actually, athletic departments at public colleges don't get much for tax money. It's mostly private donations and gate receipts. I think the only time tax money is used is to pay salaries on, say assistants that do other things like teach a PE class or something like that. There may be a few other exceptions too, but for the most part, it's the fans and supporters who keep the athletic department going, including ours.

Doing a great job, as usual there WS. Thanks for all the effort.

Kristo and Rowney

Call up Notre Dame and tell them you never attended school there, but you'd like to dictate to them how to run their athletic department. Please report back how that goes.

I agree. The biggest problem is that this is going to have far reaching results from this ruling. It's not just the UND nickname, it's who controls the higher ed system, the SBoHE or the ND Legislature. Don't assume anything.

Looks like the guys came to play tonight.

I'd worry more about UND fans voting to harm the university.

Thanks for the updates

This has gotten so far out of hand. It's to the point I wish Kelley and Faison would simply ignore the law and stop using the name. Everyone has admitted there is no penalty. I say retire it and fight it out in the courts rather then put up with the sanctions and bad press that seem to keep piling on.

Friday Nelson, Saturday Rowney

I've got another question on the petition. I remember a fair amount of ND law from my Poli Sci days. If a legislative bill contains an emergency clause and is passed by 2/3 of both houses and is signed by the governor, it becomes law immediately. (so far, so good). If a law with an emergency clause is referred, the law remains in effect until it is voted on in the next statewide election and the results of the vote become immediate upon the votes being counted and certified. (rather then be suspended until the vote) So, why didn't the november repeal bill stand until the June primary? The bill removing the name went into effect immediately, so I'm guessing it had an emergency clause, and I'm sure it got 2/3 majority in both houses. The reason I remember the way referals work is because of the ND Sunday opening law. In 1989, Sunday opening had the emergency clause and went into effect immediately. That way, when it was referred, (and it was), ND still had Sunday opening until it was voted on in June of 1990, almost a year and a half later. That way people would get used to Sunday opening and it would pass. So, why didn't it apply in our case? I just can't figure out what was different, but obviously something was. I'm not sure it would have made any difference on the end either. We'd still be at the mercy of the vote and still be dangling in the wind. This scenerio only applies to emergency clause bills, btw.

Not the BEST hope, I think it's the ONLY hope.

I'm not promising I have it right, but this is how I think it's interpretted. The original April bill forced the nickname, and the November bill repealed it. When a bill gets referred, the bill is stopped, but the wording on the ballet is essentially "Shall this bill be approved". In this case, approval of the November bill and referal repeals the April mandate, thus discontinuing the name. At any rate, it's going to be confusing, no doubt about it.

This is what scares me. You have it worded backwards. If the June measure fails (more NO votes), the repeal fails, and the original April bill mandating the name stays. It takes a YES vote to get rid of the nickname. If it passes, then presumably the nickname at all cost crowd will come with a constitutional amendment. Guys, we have to get this right or our own supporters are going to be confused on which way to vote.

Well, it seemed like every week he added another guy to ignore list. By now he probably has the entire board on ignore.

The problem is, Terry Wanless won't be anywhere near the closed room where this vote will take place The guy calling the shots will be the Sac State President and it wouldn't surprise me if the guy has never been to ND I wouldn't take anything for granted if the name is allowed to stay.

Ask our friends at the NCAA and the save the name crowd if we can host ANYTHING right now?

That still doesn't explain the Mines cupcake game. Let's try and avoid this junk about who plays a better OCC schedule.

The way I understand ND law is that the petitions stopped the repeal of the original law, so the ballet question will be "Do you support the repeal of the bill mandating the use of the Sioux nickname. In other words, a YES vote gets rid of the name, a NO vote keeps the name. As I said before, good luck getting that explained to some people.

Do you really think that U of Sioux Falls and SD School of Mines are better? They are NAIA/D2 schools for crying out loud. You are starting to embarrass us.