(The Center Square) – Washington lawmakers have introduced a bill that would create a committee to redesign the state flag, though voters would have final say. Proponents of the bill claim the current flag is uninspiring and should better reflect the state, while critics argue that the process would ignite unnecessary debates about George Washington’s role in state history.
The current state flag, designed by Olympia jeweler Charles Talcott, is green and depicts the state seal featuring Washington, the nation’s first president, with the year of statehood, 1889. Presently, Washington is the only state in the U.S. to be named after a president or have one featured on a state flag.
However, House Bill 1938 sponsored by Rep. Strom Peterson, D-Seattle, would create a State Flag Redesign Committee that would look at up to five potential new flag designs, with one sent to voters for approval. The new design with be done “with an eye for historical relevance and the ability to represent the state’s diverse population and landscapes.”
The committee would consist of members that include:
Director of the Arts Commission, or their designeeFour legislators from both political partiesThe secretary of state, or their designeeA historian appointed by the Washington State Historical SocietyFour tribal representatives appointed by the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest IndiansFour citizen representatives appointed by the governor
Testifying in favor of the bill at a Tuesday public hearing before the House State Government & Tribal Relations Committee, Peterson pushed back against perceptions that the bill is intended to “erase” George Washington from the state.
“What this bill wants to do, or what I hope this bill is attempting to do, is really create an opportunity for civic engagement across the state,” he said. “We really have an opportunity here to design a flag that reflects that, reflects the history, reflects the culture, reflects our diversity, and the physical beauty of this state. As far as I know, George Washington might end up on the new flag as well. Who knows what the commission will put together.”
However, Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, asked Peterson whether he supported removing Washington from the state flag. “What is the proper measure of George Washington’s historical nexus with our state?”
Peterson replied that “I don’t think there’s a measure that really could be calculated, but we do know that George Washington never was in Washington state. We’re not asking to change the state seal. We’re not asking to change the name of the state. So again, certainly not asking to remove George Washington from the history of Washington state.”
The bill language states that “while George Washington is an important national figure, he has limited historical connection to the state itself. This makes his image less meaningful as a symbol for the state.”
Among those to testify in favor of the bill was Emmit O’Connell, who said “nothing in this bill requires us to remove George Washington, but we know he was against monarchs and against deifying leaders. He turned down a chance at a third term as president and he rejected royal titles. This bill gives us a chance to engage the public in a meaningful way and to choose a flag that represents who we are today. Our state deserves a flag that isn’t just something we inherited but something that inspired us.”
Yet, Ryan Jewel said the process would be akin to “a husband and wife trying to decide on dinner and imagine bringing the kids into the conversation. I think you can see where I’m going here.”
He added that the redesign process would create “tension and division. This bill suggests that our flag does not resonate with states evolving identity. I believe that statement to be false. President Washington has been flown powerfully over our state for more than 100 years. Let’s not be the generation responsible for ripping him off of that sacred place.”
No further committee action is scheduled for HB 1938.
