State Rep. Chris Swedzinski announced on Apr. 29 his opposition to a House Democrat bill that would reduce state funding for cities and counties choosing to fly the previous Minnesota state flag instead of the new design.
The proposed legislation, known as H.F. 5077, seeks to decrease local government aid by 10 percent for municipalities or counties displaying any flag other than the official version adopted in 2024. This comes after several local governments decided to continue flying the customary 1983 flag rather than the newly designed one selected by a commission in 2023.
Swedzinski said local government aid is an important source of funding for essential services such as police and fire departments, making this penalty significant for communities not complying with the mandate. “This is the ultimate big-government bill that shows how out of touch some people are,” Swedzinski said. “They go out and rally against perceived authoritarianism, and then turn around and push authoritarian legislation through bills mandating what flag Minnesotans must fly, with financial punishments for not complying.” He added: “We should spend more time focusing bills to help make Minnesota more affordable and crack down on fraud instead of looking at ways to coerce people into displaying only Democrat-approved flags.”
The law enabling the redesign specified that the commission’s final choice would automatically become Minnesota’s official state flag on May 11, 2024, without direct approval from voters or the legislature. Since its adoption, there has been resistance from some residents and municipalities—including Champlin, Zumbrota, Elk River and Inver Grove Heights—which have continued flying the former flag on public property. Current law does not require local governments to display only the official state flag.
“Democrats could have spared themselves from this embarrassing debacle if they’d just bothered listening to Minnesotans in the first place,” Swedzinski said. “Most people weren’t asking for a new flag and then neither the public nor the legislature had final say in the redesign.” Apart from opposition among House Republicans resulting in a tied vote in committee, Swedzinski said H.F. 5077 also faces procedural obstacles because it was introduced after legislative deadlines had passed and does not yet have a companion measure in the Senate.
