HB 1938 had a brief but illuminating journey: introduced, heard in a public hearing, and then left to expire without a vote out of committee. While its quick demise might seem discouraging, the process provided valuable insights and reasons to be hopeful for future efforts to redesign Washington’s state flag.
1. Sometimes You Don’t Need to Say Everything in Your Heart
Reflecting on the debate, I realized (thanks in part to a KUOW interview with a vexillologist) that centering the discussion on George Washington was the wrong approach. The focus should have been on what a new flag could look like, rather than defending or attacking a historical figure. My own blog post being picked up by the Daily Mail (which I admit had a certain appeal to me as an Irish American) probably distracted from the core issue and didn’t serve the movement well.
2. It Really Doesn’t Have Anything to Do with George Washington
Despite how much time the bill sponsor and I spent addressing concerns about Washington’s presence on the flag, the bill itself never mandated his removal. The design competition had no predetermined outcome, a point emphasized by many testifiers. The opposition’s fixation on Washington overshadowed the actual intent of the legislation: to allow for public input and a democratic design process.
3. Lots of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing
The number of people signed up for the public hearing was pretty stark: 11 people signed in support, one was neutral, and 37 opposed the bill. Yet, those who actually showed up to testify were more evenly split in favor of change. Leading up to the hearing, the Republican caucus and aligned groups worked hard to stir up pro-Washington sentiment. I even saw a pro-gun rights channel discussing the bill. But when it came time to show up and testify, opposition voices largely lacked the passion or patience to engage. Meanwhile, pro-change advocates were more invested and willing to participate. While the decision to let the bill die this year is understandable, the nature of the testimony suggests there is a foundation to build upon in the future.
4. History Repeats Itself
Ironically, the argument over Washington’s place on the state flag mirrors the debate from 102 years ago when the very idea of a state flag was controversial. A 1913 bill similar to HB 1938 aimed to create a state flag but failed due to opposition from veterans’ groups, who saw it as unpatriotic and a challenge to the national flag. It wasn’t until a decade of advocacy, led in part by the Daughters of the American Revolution, that Washington finally adopted its current flag in 1923.
5. This Idea Is Far from Dead
If the primary opposition consists of defending Washington’s image and feigned confusion about what vexillology even is, I welcome the next iteration of HB 1938 or a similar bill. Over the past few weeks, several pro-new flag advocates emerged on short notice. Moving forward, it will be exciting to see who else steps up in support of a new, more representative flag for Washington State. The conversation isn’t over, it’s just a start.
Truly a fucked up idea and an even stupider article.