Image of the cover of an illustrated explainer book called “Lake in Limbo by Maddy Buck.” The cover shows a collaged blue lake with greenery around it and some skyscrapers in the background, depicting Bde Maka Ska, in Minneapolis.

The text on this page says, “3 (or so) miles around. Surrounded by walkers, runners, bikers, sitters, loungers, fishers, volleyballers, and ice-cream-cone eaters of all ages and backgrounds. An urban lake. But what is it called?” Illustration shows a collaged lake with greenery around it and purple skyscrapers.

This illustration includes two pages from Maddy Buck’s illustrated guide to the Bde Maka Ska lake litigation. The text says, “Many call it by the name it has had for over a century - named after a 19th century Secretary of War, Senator, and Vice President who was a fierce defender of slavery. But have you read the text of one of his famous speeches?” On the right-hand side is an illustration of this man, in all his 19th century attire. He is saying, in a large bubble, “I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding states, between the two is, instead of an evil positive good.” Below, to the right of the illustration of this man, are some thought bubbles that say,

“That’s who this lake was named for?”

“Yep”

“Yikes.”

On this page of the illustrated guide to the Bde Maka Ska lake renaming litigation, it says “Many others have pushed to officially abandon that name and its hateful legacy and officially restore its Dakota name.” A few floating heads below the text, with collaged hair, say, in reference to the longstanding name of the lake:

“Think of the message that name sends.”

The text on this page says, “In 2015, the Minneapolis Park Board changed the signs on the lake to ‘Bde Maka Ska.’ But that didn’t make it official, legally. Minnesota law has a special procedure for naming and renaming lakes. Here are the basics:” The illustration shows someone adding letters to the Minneapolis Park Board sign that says, “Bde Make Ska.” It also shows a few pieces of paper denoted as “laws” next to a Minnesota shape with arms and legs saying “Lake names? We’ve got a law for that!”

The text on these two pages says, “1. The legislature can’t change lake names. It can only make general laws about how to name and rename them. 2. The department of natural resources has authority over lake names.” The right side of this spread of the illustrated book excerpts the relevant statue (Minnesota Statutes 83A.02). The illustration here is minimal, it’s mostly just colored text and a drawn copy of the MN constitution.

The text on these two pages of the picture book says, “3. There’s a process for how the county boards must work with the department of natural resources to change names. 4. There’s a limit to the County board process: it won’t work for names that have existed over 40 years.” The illustration shows the different steps in the process, and a few people discussing the issue.

The text on these two pages of the picture book says, “In 2017, the Minneapolis Park Board and Hennepin County Board of Commissioners went through the process to change the name. Then the department of natural resources approve the new name. Some people sued.” The illustrations show some blobs of people saying some things and the DNR, with arms and legs, saying “Bde Maka Ska is the name!”

The text on these two pages of the picture book says, “The Minnesota Court of Appeals decided the Department of Natural Resources was wrong to change the name. But were they? Is there another interpretation?” The illustration on the left shows three justices on the Court of Appeals and excerpts some text from their opinion. On the right, we see a very simplified collage of a laker with some greenery around it.

The illustrated text on this page of the guide to Bde Maka Ska litigation explains statutory interpretation. It says, “Let’s pause for a moment to talk about statutory interpretation. This is a technical term for how the court chooses to read a statute. How does it work? 1. Pay attention to the words and the literal meaning. 2. Is it CLEAR? If yes, then you’re all set! 3. Not clear? Then proclaim it “ambiguous.” 4. If it’s not clear just from reading, then you can bring in some extra tools like history and context to figure it out.

** There’s a lot more nuance to this process. Maybe I’ll share in another book. There are a few illustrations on this page, a person waving a wand, saying “ambiguous,” but mostly it is illustrated text in red, yellow, and pink.

The text on these two pages is dense and says, “Unpause: so the court of appeals looked at the literal meaning of the statute about the department of natural resources’ powers. They saw the tit has a part about CHANGING a name. So “logically” that is the only way to change a name under the statute. So: the only way to change a lake name, they said, is “in cooperation with the county board process, which, you may recall, does not allow for the changing of a name that’s been in place over 40 years. These pages have minimal illustration, aside from a few collage blobs of painted watercolor paper.

The text on these two pages of the picture book says, “But is it so simple? Isn’t this a big on ‘changing’ names just about avoiding repeat names? Meaning, the department of natural resources only works with county boards to change repeat names? What about restoring a former name? Or abandoning a culturally insensitive name? The illustration shows a woman with a question mark coming off of her head.

The text on the right-hand page says, “Also, if the Court of Appeals is right( and they could be) the legislature has to change the RULES for changing lake names if we ever want to change a name we’ve used for over 40 years. (Recall that that getting laws passed is hard.) The illustration on the left hand page is a lake, made out of a collaged painted watercolor paper.

This is a mood page. It says “pause for soothing blobs….or are they lakes?” The blobs are relatively large. On the left page, there are three ovals that are wide and on top of each other, yellow, blue, green. On the right, there are four different ovals of different sizes. These are all collaged pieces of watercolor paper that has been painted.

The text on these two pages of the picture book says, “In some ways, the law really doesn’t make sense within itself. In a year, the Minnesota Supreme Court will decide the case, explaining the law as if it were obvious all along… Possible results: ‘it’s not up to us!’ Or ‘Name can change!’ Or ‘Name can’t change that way!’ The illustration shows the MN Supreme Court justices behind a big yellow MN Supreme Court bench.

The text of these two pages says, “The law is one thing. But how will this time in limbo affect how we think about the lake? People don’t like change. But the more time goes by, the more we get used to the new name. Will the law catch up to that momentum?” The illustration on the left show another variation of a collage lake, with bits of greenery around it. oN the right is a person saying, “It’s Bde Maka Ska!”

The text on these two pages says, “We’ll see. In the meantime, who is up for a run around Bde Maka Ska?” The illustration shows a woman with an enormous blonde ponytail going for a run. On the right, we see another collaged lake, in front of skyscrapers, this time with a very prominent trail around it.

This photo show the last page of the illustrated book. We see the name, “Maddy Buck 2019’ on it.

Bde Maka Ska: Lake in Limbo

DACA in the Courts

Law Vocab 101