Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Symbols topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers debate creating commission to study redesigning New Hampshire flag; public input process proposed
Summary
Representative Tom Corman’s bill would create a commission to study the state flag and recommend a redesign process. Supporters argued the current seal-on-blue design is unremarkable; opponents urged caution and pushed for an open submission process rather than a single commission-designed flag.
Representative Tom Corman introduced legislation creating a commission to study the New Hampshire state flag and recommend whether and how to redesign it. Corman said the current flag — "a state seal on a blue bedsheet" — fails standard vexillological principles and does not convey the state's distinctiveness.
Corman proposed a commission that would include three House members, a senator, the president (or designee) of the New Hampshire Historical Society and the head (or designee) of the New England Vexillological Association. The charge would be to review the flag’s history, examine vexillological principles, and recommend a process for proposing and implementing a new design. The commission could propose a design but would not be required to do so.
Testimony ranged from full support, urging a citizen-driven design process, to concerns that a committee-designed flag could produce an inferior result. Representative DeVries suggested amending the bill so the commission would design a process to solicit public-submitted designs rather than authoring a single design itself; sponsor Corman said he would be open to removing the commission’s authority to produce its own design and instead instructing it to set a public process.
Public testimony included artists and youth supporters who praised the idea of a design process, and at least one witness urged avoiding a standing commission due to cost and past examples of costly commissions in other states. The New Hampshire Vexillological community and civic groups were repeatedly cited in testimony as resources to shape criteria and outreach.
Committee members discussed possible amendments to allow open submissions and methods to narrow entries (for example, a shortlist and public hearing). There was no final committee vote on the bill in the hearing; members asked staff and the sponsor to prepare amendment language that would require public solicitation of designs and a clear public-selection process.
