This concurrent memorial asks the State Board on Geographic and Historic Names to rename United States Route 191 the “Chief Barboncito Highway.” It frames the request with historical findings about Chief Barboncito’s role during the Long Walk and the Treaty of 1868 and directs the Secretary of State to transmit a copy of the memorial to the Board’s chairperson.
The measure is purely commemorative: it asks a state naming board to adopt an honorary name for a federally designated corridor that runs through northeastern Arizona, including access to Chinle and Canyon de Chelly National Monument. For officials and stakeholders, the practical questions are who pays for signage and mapping updates, what authority the Board actually has over a U.S. route, and how tribal consultation and historical accuracy will be handled during implementation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The memorial formally requests that the State Board on Geographic and Historic Names rename U.S. Route 191 as the "Chief Barboncito Highway" and asks the Secretary of State to forward the request to the Board chair. It contains background 'whereas' findings about Chief Barboncito, the Long Walk, and the 1868 Treaty as the rationale for the designation.
Who It Affects
Direct addressees are the State Board on Geographic and Historic Names and the Secretary of State. Indirectly affected actors include Arizona Department of Transportation (signage and mapping work), Navajo Nation leaders and cultural institutions, local tourism and park managers in Chinle and Canyon de Chelly, and digital mapping vendors that use state toponym decisions.
Why It Matters
Although nonbinding, the memorial sets a formal state-level request to commemorate a prominent Diné leader along a major transportation corridor; that can trigger signage orders, update state naming databases, and shape how visitors encounter Navajo history. The measure also raises procedural issues—funding, cross‑jurisdictional authority over a U.S. route, and tribal consultation—that agencies and stakeholders will need to resolve if the Board acts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This memorial is a formal, written request from Arizona’s legislature to the State Board on Geographic and Historic Names asking the Board to give an honorary name—"Chief Barboncito Highway"—to United States Route 191. The text lays out a historical rationale, citing Chief Barboncito’s leadership, the Long Walk and exile at Bosque Redondo, and the 1868 Treaty of Fort Sumner as reasons the corridor should commemorate Diné resilience.
Because the document is a memorial rather than an enacted statute, it does not itself change legal names or appropriate funds. The operative steps in the bill are procedural: request the Board to rename the route and instruct the Secretary of State to deliver the memorial to the Board’s chair.
If the Board accepts the request, implementation would typically involve administrative actions—updating the state geographic names registry, ordering and placing signage, and notifying map authorities—but the memorial leaves those specifics unstated.The memorial’s geographic focus is practical: U.S. Route 191 is identified as the primary corridor serving northeastern Arizona and providing access to Chinle and Canyon de Chelly National Monument. That localization matters because it ties the honorary designation to a route heavily used by residents and tourists in Navajo Nation territory, which raises questions about local and tribal engagement during any naming or sign placement process.Finally, the memorial signals the legislature’s intent to elevate a historical narrative—specifically referencing the Treaty of 1868 and the notation that Chief Barboncito signed with an "X mark." Those textual choices will matter to cultural stewards and historians: they frame how the story is presented on signs and in official descriptions, and they may prompt conversation about accuracy and respectful representation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The memorial requests that the State Board on Geographic and Historic Names rename United States Route 191 the "Chief Barboncito Highway.", It attaches a historical rationale citing the Long Walk, exile at Bosque Redondo, and the Treaty of Fort Sumner (June 1, 1868) as grounds for the designation.
The bill directs the Secretary of State to transmit a copy of the memorial to the Chairperson of the State Board on Geographic and Historic Names.
The text notes Chief Barboncito negotiated and signed the 1868 treaty and records that he signed with an "X mark," language likely to inform inscription and interpretive content.
The memorial is an honorary, nonbinding request and does not appropriate funds or directly change federal route nomenclature in federal databases.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Historical rationale and framing for the designation
This opening series of 'whereas' clauses compiles the memorial's factual and moral justification: Chief Barboncito's leadership, the trauma of the Long Walk and Bosque Redondo exile, and the Treaty of 1868 that allowed the Diné to return. Practically, these clauses are the text the Board will cite if it decides to act; they will also shape any interpretive language used on signs or in brochures, so their wording matters for cultural and historical accuracy.
Request that the Board rename U.S. Route 191
The memorial's substantive action is a formal request that the State Board on Geographic and Historic Names rename United States Route 191 as the "Chief Barboncito Highway." As drafted, this is a petition—its effect depends entirely on the Board's authority and willingness. If the Board follows the request, it would typically change state naming records and could authorize state signage; the memorial itself contains no implementation steps, cost allocation, or timeline.
Transmittal to the Board via Secretary of State
The memorial requires the Secretary of State to transmit a copy to the Board chair. That procedural instruction simply creates an official record and triggers the Board's awareness of the legislature's request. The provision does not require any particular Board action or deadline; it only establishes who should receive the memorial.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Navajo Nation community and cultural institutions — the designation raises public recognition of a Diné leader and the Treaty of 1868, supporting cultural remembrance and educational opportunities around Canyon de Chelly and Chinle.
- Visitors and regional tourism operators — highway signage and interpretive material can increase culturally framed tourism, directing visitors to Canyon de Chelly National Monument and local services.
- Local governments and tribal tourism offices — a named corridor can be leveraged in place-branding, grant applications, and interpretive programming to fund cultural and economic initiatives.
Who Bears the Cost
- Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) — if the Board approves the designation, ADOT likely will shoulder costs for design, manufacture, installation, and maintenance of new signage unless the legislature or donors cover them.
- State Board on Geographic and Historic Names — the Board must process the request, evaluate historical claims, and manage stakeholder outreach, which consumes staff time and may require legal or cultural consultations.
- Mapping vendors, navigation services, and GIS managers — they may need to update databases and map layers to reflect an honorary name, imposing operational work and potential short-term user confusion in routing systems.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is symbolic recognition versus practical authority and process: the legislature asks for an honorific renaming to recognize Diné history, but the memorial does not resolve who has the legal power, the funding, or the consultative mandate to implement that recognition in a way that is authoritative, respectful, and operational across state and federal systems.
Two implementation uncertainties dominate. First, the memorial asks a state board to rename a federally numbered highway.
State naming boards routinely adopt honorary or commemorative names for segments and order state signage, but the memorial does not address how federal agencies, including the Federal Highway Administration or national mapping authorities, will reflect the change. Practically, the Board's action would govern state-controlled signage and state toponym records; separate coordination may be necessary for federal maps and for entities that treat U.S. Route 191 as a federal designation.
Second, the text frames the designation around Diné history but does not prescribe consultation processes with the Navajo Nation, affected local governments, or descendant communities about sign text, language (Din� naming conventions), or placement. The bill’s wording about Barboncito's "X mark" and treaty signing may prompt requests for more precise historical context or different interpretive framing; absent clear consultation requirements, the Board could face disputes over representation.
Finally, the memorial is silent on funding: signage, interpretive panels, and administrative costs are not appropriated, leaving agencies to decide whether to absorb expenditures, seek donations, or decline to act.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.