What happens if the first petition gains enough signatures?

[jimdahl]

Please keep the discussion of the merits of the petitions in the other thread, I'm wondering instead how UND reacts if the petitions pass.

By my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong on this!) the petition would not only add the repeal of 15-10-46 to a ballot for general election, but it would also nullify the repeal until that election?

In that case, until a popular vote this summer, the State of N.D. would again find itself bound by this language (H.B. 1263):

The intercollegiate athletic teams sponsored by the university of North Dakota shall be known as

the university of North Dakota fighting Sioux. Neither the university of North Dakota nor the state board

of higher education may take any action to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname or the

fighting Sioux logo in use on January 1, 2011. Any actions taken by the state board of higher education

and the university of North Dakota before the effective date of this Act to discontinue the use of the

fighting Sioux nickname and logo are preempted by this Act. If the national collegiate athletic

association takes any action to penalize the university of North Dakota for using the fighting Sioux

nickname or logo, the attorney general shall consider filing a federal antitrust claim against that

association.

My prior is that UND will do whatever it can NOT to resume using the name (there's also a distinct possibility they decide they need the goodwill of "abiding by the will of the people", but in that case they would just resume using the name as much as practical without committing too deeply to it).

I suppose seeking an injunction based on the unconstitutionality of the original law is a possibility, though I also wonder if they would effectively ignore the law?

The first sentence seems somewhat meaningless as a law -- "shall be known as" doesn't seem obligate UND to do anything in particular (e.g. bring back fightingsioux.com, FSSN, compel its media partners to use "Sioux" or anything like that).

This part is a little tougher... "Neither the university of North Dakota nor the state board of higher education may take any action to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname or the fighting Sioux logo in use on January 1, 2011. Any actions taken by the state board of higher education and the university of North Dakota before the effective date of this Act to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname and logo are preempted by this Act."

While UND's relatively decreased use of the name/logo, as compared to Jan. 1, 2011, certainly violates the spirit of that paragraph, it seems likely that UND could get away with making no changes whatsoever. The worst case is someone sues them (who has standing to bring such?), though could UND then just stall on that until the statewide election?

Have at it legal eagles... what will UND do if the first petition gains enough signatures?

[82SiouxGuy]

Please keep the discussion of the merits of the petitions in the other thread, I'm wondering instead how UND reacts if the petitions pass.

By my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong on this!) the petition would not only add the repeal of 15-10-46 to a ballot for general election, but it would also nullify the repeal until that election?

In that case, until a popular vote this summer, the State of N.D. would again find itself bound by this language (H.B. 1263):

My prior is that UND will do whatever it can NOT to resume using the name (there's also a distinct possibility they decide they need the goodwill of "abiding by the will of the people", but in that case they would just resume using the name as much as practical without committing too deeply to it).

I suppose seeking an injunction based on the unconstitutionality of the original law is a possibility, though I also wonder if they would effectively ignore the law?

The first sentence seems somewhat meaningless as a law -- "shall be known as" doesn't seem obligate UND to do anything in particular (e.g. bring back fightingsioux.com, FSSN, compel its media partners to use "Sioux" or anything like that).

This part is a little tougher... "Neither the university of North Dakota nor the state board of higher education may take any action to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname or the fighting Sioux logo in use on January 1, 2011. Any actions taken by the state board of higher education and the university of North Dakota before the effective date of this Act to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname and logo are preempted by this Act."

While UND's relatively decreased use of the name/logo, as compared to Jan. 1, 2011, certainly violates the spirit of that paragraph, it seems likely that UND could get away with making no changes whatsoever. The worst case is someone sues them (who has standing to bring such?), though could UND then just stall on that until the statewide election?

Have at it legal eagles... what will UND do if the first petition gains enough signatures?

Not a legal eagle, but I will take a stab. The State Board of Higher Education has hinted that they would ask for a review of the constitutionality of the law if enough signatures were obtained to put the measure on the ballot. My guess is that they would make that decision rather quickly after hearing from the Secretary of State. I don't think the decision would come from UND since the SBoHE is the group that has had the lead on this issue for so long. It is very possible that UND would hold off from making a change until the review of the constitutionality is complete. If the law is reviewed and found unconstitutional, that should eliminate putting it on the June ballot, I don't see how they could put an issue on the ballot that was already determined to be unconstitutional.

If they don't ask for the review, or if the review doesn't find it unconstitutional, I would guess that UND would go back to using Fighting Sioux until the election. But it would probably be a little more limited than before. I don't think they would change the names of the giving levels back, for instance. They might start using fightingsioux.com again, but have it go straight to undsports.com. They would go ahead and use the old uniforms. But the timing of this might limit some of the problem. The petitions go to the Secretary of State next week. He will take some time to review. It could easily be some time in March before we find out. Petitions to put candidate names on the June ballot don't have to be in until April, so it is possible they could go that long, although I think it's doubtful. Then the Attorney General would need time to review it if he is asked. Most of the winter sports seasons will be done or close to done before the ballot decision is made. The real effect would be on the Spring sports like baseball and track. And those don't garner a huge amount of interest, so the name use wouldn't be a huge issue either way for them this year.

[Teeder11]

I'm told that UND is preparing to immediately revert back to the Fighting Sioux nickname once the Secretary of State certifies that there are enough signatures. They aren't planning any shenanigans to remain nicknameless, despite a successful petition drive. UND officials have told me that once the petitions are filed and they are certified, they will abide by the letter of the law and go back to the pre-repeal law that was pass last spring in the legislature. If the primary vote in June fails then the name would be discontinued again, and then the waiting game starts again for the constitutional measure in the fall. What a yo-yo of events this could turn out to be.

All that said, the info above comes from UND officials. The SBHE may have other commands for UND, and history has shown that the UND admin will fall lock step in line with what their bosses on the board tell them to do.

[Goon]

I'm told that UND is preparing to immediately revert back to the Fighting Sioux nickname once the Secretary of State certifies that there are enough signatures. They aren't planning any shenanigans to remain nicknameless, despite a successful petition drive. UND officials have told me that once the petitions are filed and they are certified, they will abide by the letter of the law and go back to the pre-repeal law that was pass last spring in the legislature. If the primary vote in June fails then the name would be discontinued again, and then the waiting game starts again for the constitutional measure in the fall. What a yo-yo of events this could turn out to be.

All that said, the info above comes from UND officials. The SBHE may have other commands for UND, and history has shown that the UND admin will fall lock step in line with what their bosses on the board tell them to do.

It will be interesting to see what happens. This sounds like a potential legal train wreck....

[Fetch]

Thus UND Admin. was unsuccessful in eliminating (destroying) the name until the Spirit Lake Lawsuit is over

Still hope & awareness & if everyone would support Spirit Lake maybe their chances are better

I think this is why they (SL) are having the petition drive

Maybe it's time to really find out if changing the name to Spirit Lake Sioux would be acceptable (Legal) a positive instead of all the negative ? ? ?

UND Admin.& the SBOHE & the Attorney General should do the right thing & at least try to see if Spirit Lake Sioux would work

Asking the NCAA that question will tell us if the NCAA is worried or not

[Teeder11]

Thus UND Admin. was unsuccessful in eliminating (destroying) the name until the Spirit Lake Lawsuit is over

Still hope & awareness & if everyone would support Spirit Lake maybe their chances are better

I think this is why they (SL) are having the petition drive

Maybe it's time to really find out if changing the name to Spirit Lake Sioux would be acceptable (Legal) a positive instead of all the negative ? ? ?

It was never their intention to destroy anything, only to strengthen the University. Now the NCAA, mind you, has every intention of destroying the nickname. If you want to assign blame, make sure you pin it on the right organization.

[82SiouxGuy]

Thus UND Admin. was unsuccessful in eliminating (destroying) the name until the Spirit Lake Lawsuit is over

Still hope & awareness & if everyone would support Spirit Lake maybe their chances are better

I think this is why they (SL) are having the petition drive

Maybe it's time to really find out if changing the name to Spirit Lake Sioux would be acceptable (Legal) a positive instead of all the negative ? ? ?

UND Admin.& the SBOHE should do the right thing & at least try to see if Spirit Lake Sioux would work

Even if the petitions do have enough signatures, that doesn't mean that it will pass in an election. It would keep the name alive until June. The lawsuit isn't going to be started until at least 2013. So the fate of the name would depend on the outcome of the election. Or possibly on the fate of the other petition. Or a vote on a constitutional amendment. All of those are potentially on the calendar before the lawsuit even starts. And the lawsuit could take years. So even if they get enough signatures, it doesn't mean that the name will be around until the lawsuit is completed.

[Fetch]

& I think if UND gave the name back to Spirit Lake Tribe (as is possible per the agreement) then Spirit lake can give us long term use agreement (perpetuity) & then they can benefit per a licencing agreement - this seems more than fair to me

[Fetch]

teeder11 are you being paid by the University ? To be their PR front man - especially online ?

[homer]

Thus UND Admin. was unsuccessful in eliminating (destroying) the name until the Spirit Lake Lawsuit is over

Still hope & awareness & if everyone would support Spirit Lake maybe their chances are better

I think this is why they (SL) are having the petition drive

Maybe it's time to really find out if changing the name to Spirit Lake Sioux would be acceptable (Legal) a positive instead of all the negative ? ? ?

UND Admin.& the SBOHE & the Attorney General should do the right thing & at least try to see if Spirit Lake Sioux would work

Asking the NCAA that question will tell us if the NCAA is worried or not

University of North Dakota Spirit Lake Sioux?? Not a real good ring to it

[Chewey]

With 13,500 signatures collected and with the present state of affairs between the Legislature and the SBoHE, the SBoHE will likely not recommend anything other than adhering to the will of the people - regardless of whether the basis may be unconstitutional. UND and SBoHE has an out to the NCAA in terms of blaming the ND people and would probablly be able to persuade the NCAA to allow it to play out, accordingly especially if the litigation continues. UND would probably start a campaign of some sort against the nickname and logo on the ballot. Persuasion would be the smart way rather than trying to ram-rod anything. The incompetence and duplicity of the SBoHE is why we are where we are. If the SBoHE had not ramped up the date for the transition after the SL vote and had they not specified 30 year timelines not specified in the surrender agreement, etc. we would NOT be in this position.

[ScottM]

Please keep the discussion of the merits of the petitions in the other thread, I'm wondering instead how UND reacts if the petitions pass.

By my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong on this!) the petition would not only add the repeal of 15-10-46 to a ballot for general election, but it would also nullify the repeal until that election?

In that case, until a popular vote this summer, the State of N.D. would again find itself bound by this language (H.B. 1263):

My prior is that UND will do whatever it can NOT to resume using the name (there's also a distinct possibility they decide they need the goodwill of "abiding by the will of the people", but in that case they would just resume using the name as much as practical without committing too deeply to it).

I suppose seeking an injunction based on the unconstitutionality of the original law is a possibility, though I also wonder if they would effectively ignore the law?

The first sentence seems somewhat meaningless as a law -- "shall be known as" doesn't seem obligate UND to do anything in particular (e.g. bring back fightingsioux.com, FSSN, compel its media partners to use "Sioux" or anything like that).

This part is a little tougher... "Neither the university of North Dakota nor the state board of higher education may take any action to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname or the fighting Sioux logo in use on January 1, 2011. Any actions taken by the state board of higher education and the university of North Dakota before the effective date of this Act to discontinue the use of the fighting Sioux nickname and logo are preempted by this Act."

While UND's relatively decreased use of the name/logo, as compared to Jan. 1, 2011, certainly violates the spirit of that paragraph, it seems likely that UND could get away with making no changes whatsoever. The worst case is someone sues them (who has standing to bring such?), though could UND then just stall on that until the statewide election?

Have at it legal eagles... what will UND do if the first petition gains enough signatures?

In my own opinion, if the AG had any more stones than he has common sense, his first tack on behalf of the Board would be to attack the constitutionality of the legislation. However, as I've noted in other threads, Stenjhem is hopelessly conflicted on this matter as he agreed to the settlement, and has to represent possibly opposing parts of North Dakota government. He should have moved on this that as soon as the bill was signed last summer since the legislation and the petition crap go to the Board's very foundation as a constitutionally empowered entity. He probably should have appointed special counsel to represent the various parties at the state level. Having dealt with the esteemed AG when he was in private practice, I can't say I'm surprised by his inaction and incompetence. Nobody's interests are being served by his ineptitude, except those who seek to harm UND by wrapping themselves in the name issue, and very often the Flag.

The original legislation has no penalty provisions, nor does it contain any state or private rights of action. If UND and the board were my clients, I'd tell them to ignore it and then go to court to get an immediate injunction against it in order to litigate its legitimacy. By moving first you can establish the terms of the initial fight and seize the proverbial 'high ground". IMHO, I think the Alumni Association will need to take action one way or another since there seems to be an institutional paralysis on this matter, and it's not going away anytime soon. I could see the Association openly opposing any voter-driven moves this year.

I seriously doubt the SL litigation goes anywhere, and if it succeeds in the next 3-5 years, including appeals, it runs right into North Dakota law. I've never heard of any attorney prosecuting a civil action while also directing legislative/constitutional actions that may be contrary to the interests of his clients.

[82SiouxGuy]

The NCAA isn't going to move on the issue for any reason, unless forced in court. And they aren't going to accept Spirit Lake Fighting Sioux.

Here are some excerpts from a story done the day of the meeting between North Dakota officials and the NCAA, http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/15259301/its-over.

The NCAA says they will not be changing its agreement to drop the nickname and logo on Monday.

Representative Al Carlson says he's disappointed about the turnout. He says the 30-minute meeting with NCAA leaders was cordial, but when it came to changing the agreement four days before the deadline, they did not budge.

Carlson says he and state and UND leaders did bring everything to the table -- pitching that even though Standing Rock was never going to have a vote, but they were the ones who gave UND the name the first place. The Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe gave its blessing through a referendum.

But the NCAA says that was not enough -- and held its ground that the agreement specifically said both tribes have to take a vote. And if they violated it, the effects would be detrimental.

Dalrymple added the only thing the NCAA was flexible about was the process of taking down thousands of logos at the Ralph Engelstad Arena.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the NCAA is going to follow the settlement to the letter. That means, since UND did not get approval by both tribes by Nov 30, 2010, either the name goes away or UND will be under sanctions.

There is a mistake in that report. The settlement agreement does not require a vote of both tribes. As a matter of fact it doesn't mention a vote at all. It required a written confirmation, by someone authorized by the Spirit Lake tribe, that the tribe supports the use of the name. For Standing Rock it required approval by any method allowed in the Tribal Constitution, and that approval be delivered to the NCAA in writing.

[Hayduke]

I am a bit confused. How many signatures are needed and how many do they have?

[Hayduke]

never mind...got it..

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/349472/group/News/

[The Sicatoka]

Mentioning petitions, not only do you have to get the signatures but they must be filed, reviewed, and approved.

There are four petition actions going on around the state right now, two relating to UND's moniker.

The Secretary of State of ND, Al Jaeger, recently put out this "friendly reminder' to all four groups.

Al Jaeger says he's heard reports of petitions being left unattended for people to sign.

Jaeger says that's against the law, and

signatures on those petitions may not be counted

.

Jaeger says sometimes petitions are downloaded and circulated by people who may not be aware of the rules.

The secretary of state says a petition carrier has to personally witness each signature for the name to be valid.

http://kfgo.com/regi...ws.php?ID=17966

Not sayin'; just sayin'.

[Blackheart]

Mentioning petitions, not only do you have to get the signatures but they must be filed, reviewed, and approved.

There are four petition actions going on around the state right now, two relating to UND's moniker.

The Secretary of State of ND, Al Jaeger, recently put out this "friendly reminder' to all four groups.

Al Jaeger says he's heard reports of petitions being left unattended for people to sign.

Jaeger says that's against the law, and

signatures on those petitions may not be counted

.

Jaeger says sometimes petitions are downloaded and circulated by people who may not be aware of the rules.

The secretary of state says a petition carrier has to personally witness each signature for the name to be valid.

http://kfgo.com/regi...ws.php?ID=17966

Not sayin'; just sayin'.

How does one prove that a signature was not witnessed?

[82SiouxGuy]

How does one prove that a signature was not witnessed?

Probably a few ways. I believe that the petitions have to be signed by the person gathering the signatures, and that signature guarantees they witnessed the signatures. If they lie they can be charged with a crime. They will check some of the signatures and compare them to actual addresses. They will investigate any reports of petitions being left unattended. If they find any joke signatures, that could be a sign that it wasn't witnessed. They probably have some other ways or some signals that would give them a hint.

[Teeder11]

teeder11 are you being paid by the University ? To be their PR front man - especially online ?

Well, in a way, yes.... but I would do it for free any day. I love the University and have devoted most of my life to it.

[The Sicatoka]

How does one prove that a signature was not witnessed?

In Chicago, it's not uncommon for the residents of cemetaries to sign petitions.

I'm not saying that'll happen here, but they do spotcheck addresses and citizenship in ND. If they find particular petition undersignees are having "problems" turning in valid signatures in the spotcheck they review every signature they've turned in.

For the legal folks, if an invalid signature shows up on a petition in ND (be it from a dead person or from a non-North Dakotan) is {a} just that signature invalid, or {b} is the entire sheet that signature is on invalid, or {c} is every signature turned in by that undersignee invalid? I know some states do {b} or {c} but I think in ND it's option {a}, meaning just that signature.

[Hayduke]

It seems to me if they are saying that they are 1000 signatures short of what is necessary at this stage of the game they are either:

A. Horrible at petition drives.

or

B. Running into people in the state of North Dakota who understand what is at stake and are avoiding putting their signature on the petition.

Either way, 1000 short is more like 3 or 4000 short. They'll need much more than the number necessary to get over challenges to the names put on those petitions.

[dagies]

I'm told that UND is preparing to immediately revert back to the Fighting Sioux nickname once the Secretary of State certifies that there are enough signatures. They aren't planning any shenanigans to remain nicknameless, despite a successful petition drive. UND officials have told me that once the petitions are filed and they are certified, they will abide by the letter of the law and go back to the pre-repeal law that was pass last spring in the legislature. If the primary vote in June fails then the name would be discontinued again, and then the waiting game starts again for the constitutional measure in the fall. What a yo-yo of events this could turn out to be.

All that said, the info above comes from UND officials. The SBHE may have other commands for UND, and history has shown that the UND admin will fall lock step in line with what their bosses on the board tell them to do.

I'm a little surprised that they would do this. It seems an expensive, and potentially dangerous position for the University to take (relating to conferance affiliation, NCAA relationship, etc) when the petitions aren't forcing the U to use the nickname, they are just putting the referendum on the ballot. After all of the expense to move away from using the nickname, to practically volunteering to go back when it's not required seems a bit surprising to me.

One explanation that makes some sense, then, is that University officials really didn't want to get away from using the nickname in the first place. That's a bit surprising, but possible.

OR, perhaps they want to start using the nickname so that voters, pre-referendum, might get to feel some of the wounds of continuing to use the nickname in a "hostile" environment. As I type this is sounding more plausible. Let the supporters see some of the consequences before they vote to make this permanent.

[Teeder11]

I'm a little surprised that they would do this. It seems an expensive, and potentially dangerous position for the University to take (relating to conferance affiliation, NCAA relationship, etc) when the petitions aren't forcing the U to use the nickname, they are just putting the referendum on the ballot. After all of the expense to move away from using the nickname, to practically volunteering to go back when it's not required seems a bit surprising to me.

One explanation that makes some sense, then, is that University officials really didn't want to get away from using the nickname in the first place. That's a bit surprising, but possible.

OR, perhaps they want to start using the nickname so that voters, pre-referendum, might get to feel some of the wounds of continuing to use the nickname in a "hostile" environment. As I type this is sounding more plausible. Let the supporters see some of the consequences before they vote to make this permanent.

No, dagies, it's even simpler than any of that -- it's the law. They have to. University lawyers interpret the law to say that once the petitions are filed and certified, "the repeal" is on hold, thus, the law on the books before the repeal would go into effect until the June vote decides the matter. Dumb, I know, but that's how they're interpreting the law.

[dagies]

No, dagies, it's even simpler than any of that -- it's the law. They have to. University lawyers interpret the law to say that once the petitions are filed and certified, "the repeal" is on hold, thus, the law on the books before the repeal would go into effect until the June vote decides the matter. Dumb, I know, but that's how they're interpreting the law.

Ok, well, that doesn't seem logical but it's a sensical explanation for the actions they plan to take. But I should be careful to comment that way as I'm not very knowledgeable about the law in such things....

[watchmaker49]

Watching Fetch, DaveK, and Chewey here is like watching three monkeys dancing on barbed wire.