Can A US State Change Its Name?

Factual Questions
1

While I’m almost certain that a state can change it’s name, I was wondering if there are any rules or any guidelines. Let’s say Illinois wanted to change its name to South Wisconsin or East Iowa, or Bob.

I read that the Canada passed an amendment in 2001, to change the name of change of the province of Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador, although the province itself was already using the name since 1964

Since states aren’t named in the US Constitution, other than the original 13, I’m thinking there’d be no need for an amendment but what about a congressional resolution or what?

2

Rhode Island is considering exactly this and it appears that the decision will be made based on a statewide referendum. (The idea is change the name of the state from the “State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations” to simply the “State of Rhode Island”. The reason is that the word plantations is associated with slavery.)

3

That is either racist reasoning or being P.C.

A better reason is that there are no longer an plantations in RI if any ever existed there heretofore.

4

North Dakota has considered changing its name to simplyDakota a couple of times. The state legislature voted it down in 1989. I don’t know what would have happened had the proposal succeeded.

5

It would be even more interesting if South Dakota tried to change its name to Dakota at the same time.

6

For Illinois, I recommend Mesopotamia Fabulous.

7

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_re_us/us_providence_plantations

It’s an interesting history.

8

Dakota is a name for one of the division of Sioux–the others are generally called Lakota and Nakota. I think a smart idea for North Dakota would be to change its name to Nakota–it is a different name that is a contraction of the first and doesn’t piss off South Dakota and retains a connection to history. Then South Dakota could be just Dakota or stay South Dakota or something completely different.

9

How about South Dakota becomes Dakota, and North Dakota just becomes Flat. :smiley:

10

“Look! A hill!”
“Get out of the way, you idiot! You’re standing on it!”

North Dakota should assume its rightful name: South Saskatchewan. :slight_smile:

11

I forbid North Dakota from changing its name on the grounds that then the “Fargo North, Decoder” joke will be ruined.

12

South Dakota could go for Lakota (Lower Dakota) or Suckota.

13

There is no North Dakota. Or South Dakota, or, for that matter, Oklahoma.

14

I thought it was Baja Manitoba…
But I see no reason a name change could not happen.

And the explanation for wanting to dump Providence Plantations is lame.

15

Well, for that matter, it’s not an island either.

16

Whuh?

I see Abe “Grandpa” Simpson’s letter was finally acted upon!

“Dear Mr. President: There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three. [P.S.:] I am NOT a crackpot!”

17

But originally it was constituted mainly by the island then known as Rhode Island and the plantations associated with Providence. Hence the name. Aquidneck Island - Wikipedia

18

I should imagine that if any of your states wanted to change its name the USPS would be a tad miffed.

I mean, it would totally screw up all the Zip code thingies you have…and WTF does ZIP code mean anyway?

19

Zonal Improvement Plan.

I don’t think a name change would mess them up, tho. They are not based on the names of the states–they’re just numbers that increase going from East to West, only if you physically moved the land the states were on would they get messed up.
As for the OP, you’d have to get an act of Congress to change a state’s name.

20

What is racist about associating plantations with slavery? Antebellum plantations were mostly supported by slave labor, and the plantation economy largely disappeared after the Civil War. Certainly in the US, it is not incorrect to associate plantations with slavery, and use of the term plantation for agricultural developments is not widely used here any more.