Recount ordered in tight race involving tribal member running to lead non-tribal town
A recount is scheduled for Saturday in a tight race involving a Lac du Flambeau tribal member who ran to lead a non-tribal town caught in a well-known road dispute with the tribe.
Stephanie Minisinookwe Thompson requested a recount of the votes for chairperson of the town of Lac du Flambeau. Unofficially, Thompson is down by just seven votes, 583 to 590, against incumbent Matthew Gaulke.
The use of four roads — Elsie Lake Lane, Center Sugarbush Land, Ross Allen Lake Lane and Annie Sunn Lane — by non-tribal members on the reservation has divided the community. It also appears to have brought a record number of voters to the polls, doubling the town's turnout for last year's presidential election.
'I'm beyond proud of my community for showing up to vote in record numbers,' Thompson said. 'Regardless of the outcome, this election demonstrates our community's growing engagement and commitment to local politics.'
Even if election results are confirmed, a tribal member won election to the town's board of supervisors. Raymond Wildcat is an LDF tribal member and Thompson's work partner as paramedic. He won with the most votes of any candidate with 693.
Thompson said another person, Bob Hanson, who won with the second most votes for town board supervisor at 614, is non-tribal, but an ally to the tribe and well-respected by tribal members.
Two others who won seats, Stephanie Greeneway and Dennis Pearson, are non-tribal homeowners within the reservation whose properties have been impacted by the roads dispute.
The conflict started in January 2023 when tribal officials barricaded the four roads. Tribal President John Johnson Sr. stated that the roads were built illegally decades ago and leases for non-tribal citizens to use them had expired long ago. He said tribal requests to renegotiate the leases were ignored.
Tribal officials removed the barricades later that year after an agreement was reached with the town to pay a fee to keep them open while a more permanent solution was negotiated.
The tribe threatened to barricade the roads again this year when those payments from the town stopped. However, a federal judge ordered the roads to remain open during pending litigation.
The issue has made national news and prompted top elected officials in the state to call for some kind of resolution.
Gaulke did not return requests for comment.
More: As Lac du Flambeau road dispute drags on, latest threat is to ticket non-tribal drivers
Sign up for the First Nations Wisconsin newsletter Click here to get all of our Indigenous news coverage right in your inbox
Frank Vaisvilas is a former Report for America corps member who covers Native American issues in Wisconsin based at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Contact him at fvaisvilas@gannett.com or 815-260-2262. Follow him on Twitter at @vaisvilas_frank.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: The non-tribal town board of Lac du Flambeau remains divided
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump gets the OK to end protections for national monuments, from the Statue of Liberty to the Grand Canyon
President Donald Trump has the authority to abolish national monuments protected by his predecessors, the Justice Department recently said. In a legal document dated to May 27, the department overturned a nearly 90-year-old opinion that said presidents did not have that ability, saying that its conclusions were 'wrong' and 'can no longer be relied upon.' 'The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits a president to alter a prior declaration of a national monument, including by finding that the 'landmarks,' 'structures,' or 'objects' identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the act's protections; and such an alteration can have the effect of eliminating entirely the reservation of the parcel of land previously associated with a national monument,' the Office of Legal Counsel's Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora Pettit wrote. ' The contrary conclusion of the Attorney General in Proposed Abolishment of Castle Pinckney National Monument, 39 Op. Att'y Gen. 185 (1938), was incorrect.' The document specifically refers to former President Joe Biden establishing California's Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands National Monuments. The monuments, that have particular significance to Native American tribes and extend over some 848,000 acres of land, barred oil and natural gas drilling and mining there. The Trump administration told The Washington Post in March that it has plans to eliminate them. In April, the paper reported that Interior Department Officials were studying whether to scale back at least six national monuments, and a person briefed on the matter said the aim was to free up land for drilling and mining. Biden established 10 new monuments during his tenure. 'America's energy infrastructure was on life-support when President Trump got into office; and in nearly six months, the administration has shocked this critical industry back into life, making good on another promise to the American people,' the White House's Harrison Fields, principal deputy press secretary, told The Independent in an emailed statement responding to question about the Justice Department's opinion. 'It's imperative that the Senate passes OBBB to completely end Biden's war on American energy, and will liberate our federal lands and waters to oil, gas, coal, geothermal, and mineral leasing.' The Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Independent's request for comment on the matter. While this opinion does not overturn any national monument, it hints at future action. Trump has taken steps to shrink monuments in the past. During his first administration, he moved to slash Utah's Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments: the first such move of its kind in more than 50 years. Biden reversed Trump's decision before the courts could make a final ruling on the matter. Earlier this year, Trump opened the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine national monument to commercial fishing while leaving the monument in place. The Interior Department is weighing changes to monuments across the country as part of the push to 'restore American energy dominance.' The National Park Service alone manages more than 100 national monuments established under the authority of the Antiquities Act. Some are also co-managed by the U.S. and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Army, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Some of those include the Statue of Liberty, the Stonewall Inn, the Grand Canyon, Sequoia National Forest, and the Lincoln Memorial. While Congress must approve the designation of national parks, a national monument is designated by a president via the Antiquities Act. Around half of the nation's national parks were first designated monuments, and all except three presidents have used the act to protect areas both offshore and on land. Presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower, have also diminished monuments. Responding to the document, environmental advocate groups have asserted there might not be much legal standing and that moves to eliminate or shrink monuments would be less than popular. "There's no reason to think the OLC opinion should make much difference to the White House. National monuments have broad public and political support, and shrinking or revoking them will only damage the Trump Administration's popularity,' Aaron Paul, the staff attorney for the Grand Canyon Trust, told The Independent in an emailed statement. 'Besides, if the president tries to shrink or eliminate monuments, it would send the question to the courts, which is the real test of whether the OLC's views have any validity or not." 'The Trump administration can come to whatever conclusion it likes, but the courts have upheld monuments established under the Antiquities Act for over a century. This opinion is just that, an opinion. It does not mean presidents can legally shrink or eliminate monuments at will,' Jennifer Rokala, executive director of The Center for Western Priorities, said in a written statement. 'Once again the Trump administration finds itself on the wrong side of history and at odds with Western voters,' she said. With reporting from The Associated Press
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
North Dakota governor's veto ‘clear and unambiguous,' attorney general says
Attorney General Drew Wrigley and Chief Deputy Attorney General Claire Ness talk to reporters June 11, 2025, about an opinion related to Gov. Kelly Armstrong's veto. (Mary Steurer/North Dakota Monitor) North Dakota's attorney general said Wednesday Gov. Kelly Armstrong's veto was 'sound,' dismissing a differing conclusion by legislative staff that his intent was unclear and the Legislature should hold a special session to fix the error. The opinion by Attorney General Drew Wrigley means $35 million for housing programs Armstrong's office unintentionally crossed out in a May line-item veto can move forward unless the matter is challenged in court or the Legislature reconvenes. Armstrong's veto message for the Industrial Commission budget described cutting $150,000 set aside for a Native American-focused organization to fund a homelessness liaison position. But a markup of the bill also crossed out a $35 million appropriation for affordable housing and homelessness — funding Armstrong had intended to leave intact. His office later said there had been a 'staff markup error.' 'Prudent remedy' for veto error is special session, Legislative Council advises Since then, the Legislature has been trying to figure out what actions, if any, must be taken to address the veto — including the possibility of calling a special session. Wrigley found that the unintentional markup does not change the substance of the veto because Armstrong's written veto message was 'clear and unambiguous' about what parts of Senate Bill 2014 he intended to cut. He said in a Wednesday press conference that a 'visual image' should not 'take precedence over the written orders, the detailed description offered by the one person with the power to veto.' Attorneys for North Dakota's legislative branch in a Friday memo took a very different position, advising the Legislature that calling a special session would be the 'prudent remedy' for the mistake. In its memo, Legislative Council said legal precedent suggests the marked-up bill is part of the official veto document. 'It would not be appropriate to allow the Governor and Attorney General to resolve the ambiguity by agreement,' the memo states. Doing so could have unintended consequences for how ambiguous vetoes are handled in the future, Legislative Council said. Wrigley called the Legislative Council memo a 'political document' and said the Attorney General's Office has the final say on the matter unless the issue is challenged in court. 'The power in question is strictly the governor's power and it has to be in compliance with the constitution and laws of North Dakota,' he told the North Dakota Monitor last week. 'That's the only assessment here. There's no role for this in Legislative Council. They have no authority in this regard.' Armstrong, whose office requested the opinion, in a statement agreed with Wrigley's findings. 'We appreciate the Attorney General's determination, which clarifies the matter, avoids the cost of a special session and nullifies the flawed interpretation that initially blew this up into something much bigger than it needed to be,' he said. A special session is estimated to cost $65,000 per day, Legislative Council has said. The Legislature could still decide to reconvene for a special session to override the veto if it chooses to, Wrigley said. Legislative Council Director John Bjornson said the office did not immediately have a statement on the opinion. This story was updated. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Attorney General Opinion
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
DOJ: Trump can abolish protected monuments set aside by past presidents
President Trump can abolish national monuments that were protected from energy development and other activities by past presidents, the Justice Department (DOJ) has determined. The department issued a legal opinion this week that Trump can shrink or eliminate national monuments, overturning a 1938 opinion saying presidents did not have the power to abolish them. 'The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits a President to alter a prior declaration of a national monument, including by finding that the 'landmarks,' 'structures,' or 'objects' identified in the prior declaration either never were or no longer are deserving of the Act's Protections,' the new DOJ opinion states. While this opinion does not in itself overturn any national monument boundaries, it sets the stage for doing so in the future. The document specifically names two national monuments set aside by the Biden administration, the Chuckwalla National Monument and the Sáttítla Highlands National Monument. These monuments, located in California, encompass a combined 848,000 acres of particular significance to Native American tribes in the region. The White House told The Washington Post that it planned to eliminate them after saying in a later-scrubbed fact sheet that it was 'terminating proclamations declaring nearly a million acres constitute new national monuments that lock up vast amounts of land.' President Trump has, in the past, sought to shrink monuments designated by past presidents, including Utah's Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments. The legal opinion issued Tuesday said the prior 1938 opinion, named for monument Castle Pinckney, made reducing the size of those monuments more complicated. 'The ongoing existence of Castle Pinckney has needlessly complicated litigation challenging the President's authority to alter the declarations of his predecessors,' it stated. 'Following President Trump's 2017 decision to substantially reduce but not eliminate the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, the parties spent considerable resources litigating whether those actions should be considered revocations … in no small part because Castle Pinckney opined that reduction but not elimination of a parcel was permissible.' Environmental advocates criticized the new opinion. 'The Trump administration can come to whatever conclusion it likes, but the courts have upheld monuments established under the Antiquities Act for over a century. This opinion is just that, an opinion. It does not mean presidents can legally shrink or eliminate monuments at will,' Jennifer Rokala, executive director of The Center for Western Priorities, said in a written statement. 'Once again the Trump administration finds itself on the wrong side of history and at odds with Western voters,' she added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
