Humboldt County judge is weighing the future of Arcata’s Earth flag

In the November 2022 election, voters in Arcata faced a seemingly simple question: Should the Earth flag fly at the top of city-owned flagpoles? “It’s time to recognize the primacy of the Earth over nations and states when we fly their symbols on our town square,” Measure M’s ballot text stated in part. “We cannot have a healthy nation without a healthy Earth. It is time to ‘Put the Earth on Top.'” In the end, the answer was yes, with the citizen-initiated ballot measure passing by a vote of 3,051 to 2,781, with around 52 percent in favor. So, for the last year, the “Blue Marble” image of the Earth photographed from the Apollo 17 mission in 1972 has flown above the United States and California flags on city property, after the Arcata City Council voted unanimously to certify the results a month after the election. But in making that decision during a closed session, the council also directed the city attorney to preemptively seek a “judicial resolution” on whether the flag’s placement conflicts with state or federal law in an attempt to avoid potentially costly legal challenges. Now the future of the Earth flag’s position is in the hands of Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Timothy Canning, who is tasked with navigating the unprecedented legal and constitutional questions raised by Measure M. The initiative is believed to be the only one of its kind in the nation, not only in dispensing with the traditional protocol of flying the American flag above all others but in enacting a local law as a form of political expression. But it also leaves Arcata — a general law city that’s required to adhere to California law — caught between state statutes that dictate the arrangement of how flags “shall” be displayed and those obligating the city to implement voter-approved initiatives. On Dec. 8, the city of Arcata and Measure M proponents filed briefs with the Humboldt County Superior Court outlining their views on the matter after both sides agreed there were no factual issues in dispute but a question of what takes precedence, the right of citizens to voice their opinion via the initiative process or the city’s obligation to follow state law, and which one. A complicating factor is there doesn’t appear to be any case law that directly addresses the issue now before the court. Tracy Weston, a public interest attorney…