Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the State Flag Proposals topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Teen's Old Man design defeated in committee; lawmakers split over whether to change state flag

2288670 · February 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee recommended 'inexpedient to legislate' on House Bill 176, a proposal to replace the state flag with a design submitted by a 13-year-old, citing preference for a broader public process or retention of the existing flag.

House Bill 176, a citizen-sponsored proposal carried by Representative Ron Dunn that would replace the state flag with a design submitted by 13-year-old Andrew Flockton, was recommended "inexpedient to legislate" (ITL) by the House Executive Departments and Administration Committee.

Flockton presented his flags and a short testimony explaining the design choices: a silhouette of the Old Man of the Mountain, nine stars to mark New Hampshire’s admission order, a field of white for the White Mountains, and the state motto "Live Free or Die." He described his outreach to vexillologists and said the design follows basic flag-design principles (simplicity, meaningful symbolism, few colors).

Representative Ron Dunn introduced the bill and told the committee that Andrew had driven the effort and consulted residents and vexillology groups. Director testimony and supporters, including town officials and relatives, praised the civics lesson: several members noted the value of a young person participating in the legislative process.

Opponents and some committee members, however, said they preferred the existing state flag or were unconvinced the legislature should adopt a single design when the broader public might prefer a commission or open submission process. Representative Lamb and others said the current flag is a dignified historical symbol and argued against spending committee time to adopt a single alternative.

At executive session the committee voted 12–2 to recommend ITL; committee leaders said the design could instead be considered by a flag commission or in a public process should the legislature create one.

The committee noted the public-engagement value of the submission while declining to send a bill to the floor adopting the design. The motion carried 12–2; the committee placed the bill on consent with an ITL recommendation.