| Here in Texas, the "Choose Life" plates are one of Governor Perry's top legislative priorities (not even joking), and last week the Texas State Senate approved the use of them. From the Statesman: Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, the author of the bill, said the goal of the license plates is to raise awareness about adoption. Carona, who is an adoptive father, said 19 states have such license plates. The measure, if it passes, would let Texans buy a license plate that would benefit groups that provide counseling and other services to pregnant women considering placing their child with adoptive parents. Typically, specialty plates cost $30; of that, $22 goes to the designated cause.
Now, from The New York Times, we get this interesting story about "Choose Life" license plates. It turns out that several states are refusing to allow for "Choose Life" license plates, and groups that support/want those plates available are suing those states for not allowing them, arguing that it is a matter of free speech. Here are the relevant paragraphs from the NY Times article, titled, "‘Choose Life’: Justices Asked to Weigh Free Speech vs. License Plate": Illinois, on the other hand, has refused to issue a “Choose Life” plate, a decision that was challenged by a group called Choose Life Illinois, which promotes adoption. The federal appeals court in Chicago upheld Illinois’ refusal in November, and this month the losing side asked the Supreme Court to return to the question of what the constitution has to say about speech on license plates. The Supreme Court has turned back at least four requests to hear cases concerning “Choose Life” license plates in recent years. But the volume of litigation on this question and the doctrinal free-for-all it has given rise to in the lower courts have convinced many legal scholars that the court must soon step in. There have been lawsuits in Arizona, California, Missouri, New York and New Jersey challenging denials of “Choose Life” plates. And there have been a similar number of suits on the other side, challenging approvals of such plates, in Florida, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee.
That's where this whole discussion is coming from. Here is the First Amendment discussion, from the same article: Illinois says that it should be allowed to decide what goes on its license plates because they convey government rather than private speech. If that is right, the First Amendment drops out of the equation, as the government is free to say what it likes. But most of the appeals courts to consider “Choose Life” license plates have ruled that specialty plates convey the positions of the motorists involved. The appeals court in Chicago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, ruled against Illinois on this point. Specialty plates, the court said, are “mobile billboards” for “organizations and like-minded vehicle owners.” But a Supreme Court’s decision in February, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, may have complicated matters. The court ruled that a Utah city did not have to allow a minor religion to erect a monument to its Seven Aphorisms near a Ten Commandments monument in a public park, which for many purposes is a classic public forum open to all sorts of viewpoints.
It's an interesting discussion, and one that could affect what is (sadly) one of Governor Perry's top legislative priorities. Is this a free speech issue? Should the state grant whatever groups want on the back of license plates? Should this be a legislative decision, or is it a free-speech question for the masses? It's an interesting puzzle. The purpose of the specialty plates is to collect funds for a specific purpose. In that sense, they are more than just speech -- they are mechanisms of revenue collection. However, since they are optional, and no one is required to own them then I think any state that decides they want a plate should be able to have them. But, should a state be required to offer a certain plate? Is it really a "free speech" issue if it's a mechanism for raising funds? Well, it's not like drivers are denied "speaking" their minds elsewhere on their car -- bumper stickers are still very possible. I don't see a license plate as a forum for free speech -- its a tracking mechanism for public safety, and its a (in the case of specialty plates) a revenue enhancement mechanism for specific causes. So while I don't think a group should be able to sue that, "we don't like these plates!", I also don't think a group should be able to sue to demand certain plates. Basically, I think the state legislature -- which is responsive to its citizens -- should be able to decide how to proceed with these revenue enhancement devices. But that's my take. Discuss your opinions in the comments... |
