How did Native American leaders and tribes in Minnesota participate in the flag and seal redesign process?
Executive summary
Native American leaders and tribal representatives were explicitly included in Minnesota’s State Emblems Redesign Commission, played public and advisory roles in pushing for a symbol that honors Indigenous history, and influenced specific design choices—while some critics disputed the characterization of the old seal and argued for preserving tradition [1] [2] [3]. Key Indigenous voices—from elected officials of Native descent to reservation leaders and designated commission seats—participated in the process through legislation, commission membership, public testimony, and the symbolic elements adopted in the final designs [4] [5] [6].
1. Legislative architecture that guaranteed Native participation
The redesign process began with a legislative mandate that built Native representation into the commission: the 13-member State Emblems Redesign Commission included one member representing the Dakota community and one representing the Ojibwe community, alongside other appointed public members and designees from state offices, ensuring formal, institutional participation by Indigenous communities [1] [2]. The law also required public solicitation of feedback and expert consultation, creating multiple official channels for tribal input to be registered, reviewed, and incorporated in the commission’s final report to the legislature [2].
2. Native elected leaders anchored the effort politically
Native elected officials were prominent in advancing and framing the redesign. State Sen. Mary Kunesh, a Standing Rock Lakota descendant, was a chief author of the bill that launched the redesign and served as a nonvoting member of the commission, signaling direct political sponsorship from Indigenous leadership within the legislature [4] [7]. Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan, a member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, publicly rejected using the old seal in official documents and framed the redesign as corrective to imagery that “literally [showed] the Native person being driven off their land,” adding moral and symbolic weight to Native participation in the process [5].
3. Tribal leaders, communities, and public comment shaped substance
Reservation leaders and tribal authorities weighed in publicly: Kevin Jensvold, leader of the Upper Sioux Community, noted that few reservations would fly the old flag containing the seal, reflecting on-the-ground tribal opposition to the previous imagery and reinforcing calls for change [5]. The commission solicited and considered thousands of public submissions and comments in its deliberations, a process officials described as attentive to diverse viewpoints including those from Indigenous communities, and materials presented in public forums referenced historical context and Indigenous perspectives to justify redesign choices [2] [8].
4. Design outcomes reflected explicit Native recognition
The commission’s adopted seal and flag incorporated elements aimed at honoring Indigenous presence: the December 2023 standard specified 98 gold "boxes" around the outer seal to symbolize 87 counties and 11 recognized Native American tribes of Minnesota—a numerical and symbolic recognition of tribal nations—and the new seal featured motifs such as the loon and the Dakota wording “Mni Sóta Makoce,” centering Indigenous language and natural symbols rather than settlement-era confrontation scenes [5] [9] [3]. These choices show concrete translation of tribal recognition into the graphic and textual language of the new emblems.
5. Contested narratives and opposing voices
Not all commentary accepted the premise that the old seal was uniformly offensive: critics argued the 1983 revision altered earlier meanings and that current law describes the figure’s posture and direction differently, framing the redesign as responding to a “false narrative” about the seal’s intent [10]. Others, including historians and former officials, urged preserving tradition and warned against erasing historical complexity [3]. The commission attempted to balance these views by documenting symbolism, soliciting expertise, and explaining design rationales in its final report [2].
6. What reporting does—and does not—show about tribal agency
Available sources confirm formal inclusion of Dakota and Ojibwe representation, active roles by Native elected officials like Kunesh and Flanagan, public testimony by reservation leaders, and design decisions that explicitly acknowledge Minnesota’s tribes; sources also record debate and dissent over the history and interpretation of the old seal [1] [4] [5] [10]. Reporting does not fully detail every tribe’s internal consultation process or how each recognized tribe voted or advised within the commission beyond designated representatives, so claims about unanimous tribal positions across all eleven recognized tribes cannot be substantiated from the provided reporting [3] [2].