Fresno County has filed a lawsuit against the state in the Superior court of California claiming the state’s decision to change the name of Squaw Valley to Yokuts Valley was unconstitutional.
The state changed the small, unincorporated community’s name earlier this year after declaring the term “squaw” offensive.
In August, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill [AB] 2022, banning the term and paving the way for the name change. The move was made after the U.S. Department of the Interior banned the use of “squaw” in the federal government.
More than 100 place names in more than 25 counties in California use “squaw,” including Squaw Valley, Squaw Creek, Squaw Peak, and Squaw Hollow.
In its lawsuit against the state, filed April 11, Fresno County claims it doesn’t have to comply with the state law because it’s invalid.
“The compelled name change is, fundamentally, an erasure of its very existence and long history,” the county wrote in the lawsuit filed April 11. “Squaw Valley is also known to the hundreds of thousands of people who traverse Highway 180 to and from the Fresno area to the Sierra Nevada and places in between.”
The unincorporated community in Fresno County affected by the name change is home to about 3,000 people. It has been recognized as Squaw Valley since at least 1871, according to the county’s court filing (pdf).
Changing the name would also create an extraordinary financial and cultural burden on the residents and business owners of the community, the lawsuit claims.
Fresno County voted March 14 to sue the state over the new law, saying the community was not in favor of changing the community’s designation.
“A consultation of residents in the community never took place by the state or federal government,” County Supervisor Nathan Magsig told The Epoch Times in March. “Residents in the community have communicated to me they don’t want their name changed, and if it is changed, they want to be part of that process.”
This is the first time California has ordered any city or community to change its name, the county contends.
The county is asking the court to find that the state has no authority to order the county to change the name of any community, or to dictate what the new name should be, or to order the replacement of sings, markers, or any other materials with the new name.
The county also alleges that the new state law is void. It is asking for a permanent injunction, or order, to stop the state from imposing any new name on the community and mandating sign or maker changes.
“Most people wouldn’t get upset if they wanted to change a creek,” the county’s attorney Brian Leighton told The Epoch Times. “This is a whole community.”
Residents and businesses in the town would have to change drivers licenses, insurance, business names, placards, and redo other paperwork to comply. This can be costly and time consuming. The state law said it would reimburse the county’s costs for any changes, but it doesn’t cover residential and business costs, according to Leighton.
“It takes a lot of time, especially for people who may be older and can’t do it online,” he said.
The two sides are expected to meet in the Superior Court of California in Fresno County on Aug. 10 but that date may be rescheduled. The Attorney General’s Office has not yet filed a response to the lawsuit and did not return a request for comment.
The movement to cancel the word “squaw” started two years ago when Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, an indigenous cabinet member from New Mexico, signed an executive order declaring the term derogatory against Native American women. She banned it from all federal communications and ordered the federal Board on Geographic Names to remove the term from federal usage.
Over the next year, the board changed nearly 650 geographical places and five unincorporated towns.
In California, 70 state locations and geological features, as well as Squaw Valley and Squaw Hill, a town in Tehama County, were renamed.
