The Minnesota State Flag and the Work of Building Community

Symbols matter because people matter.

Flags, seals, monuments, and other civic symbols are more than designs or pieces of fabric. They carry stories about who we are, where we have been, and who we hope to become. Their meaning is found not only in their colors or imagery, but also in the memories, identities, experiences, and relationships people attach to them.

That is why changing a longstanding symbol can produce such strong reactions.

For many Minnesotans, the debate over our state flag was—and continues to be—about much more than preferring one design over another. It became a conversation about history, identity, belonging, and whose experiences are reflected in the symbols representing our state.

Leadership begins by recognizing that those feelings are real, even when people reach different conclusions.

Every person has a fundamental desire to be heard and understood.

That does not mean we will always agree. Listening does not require agreement. It requires taking another person's experience seriously enough to understand why they see an issue differently.

I believe people on both sides of Minnesota's state-flag debate were often motivated by values and experiences that deserve to be heard.

For some Minnesotans, the former flag represented generations of family history, military service, civic pride, hometown traditions, and a lifelong connection to the state they call home. They did not necessarily view its imagery through the lens of exclusion or harm. They experienced it as part of their identity as Minnesotans. Replacing it therefore felt like losing something that belonged not only to the State, but also to them.

For other Minnesotans, particularly many Indigenous residents, the imagery contained within the historic seal represented a version of Minnesota's story that minimized displacement, conflict, and the experiences of people who lived on this land long before statehood. They believed Minnesota's official symbols should better reflect the dignity, history, and belonging of all the people who now call our state home.

Neither experience should be casually dismissed.

People can love Minnesota deeply and still arrive at very different conclusions about how its history should be represented.

Minnesota's historic state seal traces its roots to statehood.

When Minnesota became a state in 1858, Governor Henry Sibley authorized the temporary use of the territorial seal while revising its design for the new state. He replaced the previous motto with "L'Étoile du Nord," meaning "The Star of the North," reversed the scene so the sun appeared to set in the west, and placed the words "The Great Seal of the State of Minnesota 1858" around the design. The Legislature formally adopted the revised design in 1861.¹

The seal later became the centerpiece of Minnesota's first official state flag, adopted in 1893. That flag displayed the seal along with the state flower, dates of historical significance, decorative elements, and the state motto.

The flag was redesigned and simplified in 1957. The revised version used a single blue field, but retained the historic seal at its center. In 1983, the Legislature adopted a more detailed description of the seal to reduce the wide variations that had developed through different artistic interpretations. The same core imagery, however, remained connected to the design that had represented Minnesota since the nineteenth century.¹

For more than a century, Minnesotans therefore encountered the same central imagery through both the official state seal and successive versions of the state flag.

That long history helps explain why replacing the former flag felt to many people like more than a routine design change. Although the familiar blue version of the flag dated to 1957, the imagery at its center was connected to Minnesota's identity from the earliest years of statehood.

Understanding that history does not require us to reach the same conclusion about whether the flag should have changed. It does require us to recognize why that change carried significant emotional weight.

History is rarely simple.

We should neither ignore the achievements of those who came before us nor pretend they possessed the same understanding of justice, equality, and human dignity that many people hold today.

Most generations understand the world through the knowledge, customs, assumptions, and moral frameworks available to them. Recognizing that context does not mean every past decision was right. It also does not require us to condemn every person who lived within that time as though they possessed the benefit of everything later generations would learn.

Human societies grow by examining both their accomplishments and their failures.

Every generation inherits something worth preserving, something requiring fuller understanding, and something that should be changed. Acknowledging painful or incomplete parts of our history is not an attack on our ancestors. It is part of accepting our responsibility to learn from the past and build a more just future.

History and identity are often closely connected. People naturally want to believe the best about their families, communities, and those who came before them. When a historical symbol is challenged, people may experience that criticism personally—even when it was not intended as a judgment of them.

That is one reason these conversations require humility.

We can tell the truth about the past without treating people today as though they are personally responsible for it. We can honor what earlier generations built while also acknowledging where their understanding or actions fell short. We can preserve history without requiring our official symbols to remain unchanged forever.

I support Minnesota's current state flag.

I support it, first, because it is the official flag of the State of Minnesota, adopted through a lawful process established by the Minnesota Legislature.

In 2023, the Legislature created the State Emblems Redesign Commission and directed it to develop and adopt new designs for both the state flag and state seal. The law required the commission to seek designs that respectfully reflected Minnesota's shared history, natural resources, and diverse cultural communities. It also required the commission to solicit public feedback and suggestions.²

The commission included members of the public and representatives connected to Minnesota's cultural councils, Tribal communities, arts, tourism, history, and state government, along with legislators from both political parties. Its meetings were subject to Minnesota's Open Meeting Law.

Minnesotans were invited to submit flag and seal designs online or by mail. The commission received thousands of submissions, narrowed those proposals to finalists, gathered additional public feedback, publicly discussed and refined the designs, and selected the final flag in December 2023. The commission then certified its selections to the Legislature and governor, and the new flag and seal became Minnesota's official emblems on May 11, 2024.³

The final selection was made by the commission under authority granted by the Legislature rather than through a statewide public vote. That distinction became an important part of the debate, and I understand why some Minnesotans believed the final decision should have returned to the Legislature or been submitted directly to voters.

Could elements of the process have been handled better? Yes.

A change involving a symbol so closely connected to history and identity could have benefited from stronger change-management practices: broader public education before the change, clearer communication about why it was occurring, more explanation of how public input shaped the final design, and a more intentional transition that acknowledged what the former flag meant to many Minnesotans.

At the same time, no process would have made a change of this significance universally accepted. Even the most inclusive process would have produced disagreement because Minnesotans hold deeply different views about the meaning of the former flag and what our official symbols should communicate.

The process was not perfect. Few public processes are.

But the State established a process, invited public participation, completed that process, and adopted a new official flag. I believe Champlin should recognize that lawful outcome while continuing to listen respectfully to residents who disagree with it.

I also support the current flag because I believe it succeeds as a flag.

The former flag primarily placed a detailed state seal at the center of a blue background. Although historically significant, it was difficult to distinguish at a distance and required a complicated image to carry most of its meaning.

The current flag was intentionally designed as a flag: simple, distinctive, and recognizable. Its dark-blue shape reflects Minnesota, its North Star connects to our state motto and identity, and its light-blue field reflects the waters that shape our geography and history.⁴

No design can fully represent every story, culture, region, or experience within Minnesota. A flag cannot carry all of our history by itself. But it can provide a shared symbol around which we continue the work of becoming a community where more people recognize that they belong.

I view the change not as an attempt to erase Minnesota's past, but as an effort to learn from it and move toward healing.

Healing, however, cannot be accomplished simply by announcing that a new symbol has replaced an old one. It requires listening to people who experienced the change differently and finding thoughtful ways to preserve and honor the history that preceded it.

When Minnesota adopted its current flag, I publicly supported the change.

Since then, I have listened to Minnesotans who experienced that decision differently. What I came to understand more fully is that, for many people, the former flag was never merely a piece of cloth or a political symbol.

It represented family stories, military service, community traditions, hometown pride, and a lifelong identity as Minnesotans.

Listening to those perspectives did not change my support for the current flag.

It did change how I believe we should treat the flag that came before it.

That distinction matters.

Listening is not meaningful only when it causes us to abandon our original conclusion. Sometimes listening changes our decision. At other times, it deepens our understanding, changes how we communicate, or reveals a solution we had not previously considered.

Leadership should not begin by deciding which perspectives deserve consideration and which people should simply "get over it." It should begin by recognizing that people can hold different views in good faith and that their experiences deserve to be taken seriously.

Every Champlin resident should know they can express a thoughtful disagreement without having their character, intelligence, patriotism, or concern for others immediately questioned.

That is the kind of community I want us to build.

I support preserving and displaying Minnesota's former state flag as an important historical artifact.

Champlin should explore creating a permanent historical display at City Hall that includes the former flag and explains:

• the history of Minnesota's original state seal;
• the adoption and evolution of the former state flag;
• the historical meaning attached to its imagery;
• the concerns that contributed to the redesign;
• the process through which the current flag was selected;
• and the significance that both the former and current flags hold for different Minnesotans.

Such a display would not challenge Minnesota's current official flag or suggest that Champlin refuses to recognize it.

It would acknowledge that a symbol representing Minnesota for generations should not simply disappear from public memory.

The former flag can be preserved as part of our history while the current flag is proudly displayed as Minnesota's official symbol.

Those actions are not contradictory.

We do not strengthen communities by asking people to forget the past. We strengthen them by remembering it honestly, learning from it together, and making room for people whose relationships with that history differ from our own.

The state-flag debate offers a lesson that extends far beyond flags.

Political and cultural disagreements increasingly encourage people to sort one another into opposing groups. We are often pressured to decide quickly who is right, who is wrong, and whose concerns deserve respect.

Community requires something more difficult.

It requires listening before judging.

It requires understanding before assuming.

It requires recognizing that another person's experience can be sincere even when it leads them to a different conclusion.

It requires telling the truth about history without using history as a weapon against our neighbors.

Building community does not mean eliminating disagreement. It means creating a culture in which disagreement does not eliminate respect.

Champlin's current flag and banners policy provides for displaying neither the current nor the former Minnesota state flag on City property. The policy was approved by the City Council on July 13, 2026, following months of community debate.⁵

As Mayor, I will:

• proudly support the recognition and display of Minnesota's current official state flag on City property;
• work with the City Council to revisit Champlin's current flag policy;
• support preserving the former state flag as an important part of Minnesota's history;
• explore establishing a permanent historical display at Champlin City Hall that presents the history, evolution, and significance of both flags;
• encourage honest conversations about our shared history without reducing people to political labels;
• listen to residents whose experiences and conclusions differ from my own;
• distinguish disagreement from disrespect;
• and lead in a way that helps every resident feel heard, seen, and valued.

Displaying Minnesota's current official flag and preserving the former flag as part of our history are not contradictory actions.

One recognizes Minnesota as it is represented today.

The other honors the generations of Minnesotans for whom the former flag carried history, identity, service, tradition, and belonging.

Leadership is not about forcing people to compete over whose history, identity, or sense of belonging deserves recognition.

It is about creating space where people can tell their stories, where history can be understood honestly, and where recognizing one community's experience does not require dismissing another's.

We can affirm people who have historically felt unseen while also listening respectfully to those who experience change as a loss. Those responsibilities are not contradictory.

Listening does not always change our conclusions.

But genuine listening should always deepen our understanding.

That is how trust is built.

That is how division begins to heal.

And that is the continuing work of building community.

1. 1.Minnesota Secretary of State, "Historic State Seal." https://sos.mn.gov/about-minnesota/minnesota-in-profile/historic-state-seal/
2. 2.Minnesota Legislature, Minnesota Laws 2023, Chapter 62, Article 2, Section 118 (State Emblems Redesign Commission). https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/62/laws.5.36.0
3. 3.Minnesota Secretary of State, "Secretary Steve Simon Statement on Public Submissions for the State Flag and Seal." https://www.sos.mn.gov/about-the-office/news-room/sec-steve-simon-statement-on-public-submissions-for-the-state-flag-and-seal/
4. 4.Minnesota Secretary of State, "Secretary Simon's Statement on Minnesota's State Flag." https://www.sos.mn.gov/about-the-office/news-room/sec-simon-s-statement-on-state-flag/
5. 5.Star Tribune, "Champlin Minnesota State Flag Debate." https://www.startribune.com/champlin-minnesota-state-flag-debate/601867557