Choose Some Other License Plate

Yesterday the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the state of Arizona was wrong to ban the "Choose Life" specialty license plate, citing free speech. Arizona "clearly denied the application based on the nature of the message," wrote Judge Richard Tallman in the 3-0 ruling. You won't get an argument from me on that one, Your Honor. But what makes you think that's the point?

Perhaps some of you readers don't know anything about this ruckus. You might live in some lovely civilized place -- say, California, where both I and the 9th Circuit live -- in which case you've probably never seen one of these plates. Permit me to enlighten you. They're yellow. They have a cute child's drawing of a boy and a girl on them. And they say "Choose Life" in a child's scrawl. Then there are your license plate numbers. As if the state endorses all of this.

These plates are ubiquitous in states like Florida, which approved them all the way back in 2000. Their owners pay a $22 annual fee that goes to support organizations that encourage girls with unwanted pregnancies to give up their babies for adoption. If an organization even mentions the word "abortion," it's disqualified from receiving any proceeds from the plate. In case you were wondering, there's no "Choose Choice" license plate on the list of Florida's offerings.

We have specialty plates here in California. I own one myself. It says, "Yosemite National Park," and my annual fee goes to the Yosemite Foundation. I had other options, too. Real controversial stuff. There's Lake Tahoe Conservancy. Also, California Coastal Commission (aka Save the Whales). And Firefighters. And the Child Health and Safety Fund, which goes toward child injury prevention. In other words, every California specialty plate offers a message you can be sure that California, as a state, sanctions on some level. You can tell by its offerings that California wants to preserve the health of its whales, its lakes, its mountains, its firefighters, and its kids. What California doesn't do is provide a state-sponsored platform for a moral argument.

When Arizona rejected the Choose Life group's application, it said the state was concerned that people would come to the conclusion that Arizona had endorsed the plate's anti-abortion message. And since the plate is a means to funnel funds to a special-interest group, Arizona can hardly be blamed for wanting to avoid the appearance it had chosen sides in such a divisive debate.

So I hardly think the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court is focusing on the key issue when it used free speech to overturn a lower court's decision to allow Arizona to regulate the messages that appear on its license plates. Now what? Arizona can't ban a group that wants a license plate that says "Preserve Traditional Marriage"? That message qualifies as free speech too, though I doubt that when that message is embossed onto Arizona plates you'll also find its counterpoint: "Marriage is For Everyone." If this is where the courts are going, I am more than pleased to lose my ability to own a license plate that supports Yosemite. I'll write the damn check myself.

I have a suggestion for Choose Life -- which, by the way, is a 42-state organization that is pursuing law suits across the nation. Choose this: Bumper stickers.

Comments

[JakeWentToCal]

I think this issue comes down to more of a operational question. Are states allowed to contribute to any special interest in regards to proceeds gained via license plates or stamps or infomercials, etc.

It looks like you are raising the issue because of the particular argument being supported by that particular license plate. The broader issue is where does the state/fed lay in the issuing of fees and do customized license plates fall within this taxable category. What stops an individual from creating their own license plate in which the alphanumeric characters appear as if they have been created by the state? What if they put a swastika behind it? Where does the responsibility fall there? I'm the devil's advocate, please respone.

[akhmed]

The first paragraph of the opinion says:

"Messages conveyed through special organization plates— although possessing some haracteristics of government speech—represent primarily private speech. Through its special organization license plate program, Arizona has created a limited public forum for all nonprofit organizations that meet the State’s statutory requiremen­ts."

So, basically, the 9th Circuit (an appeals court not known for its conservative views, so I can't chalk this up to political bias) says that the state isn't sanctioning what's on your license plate, any more than it sanctions who gets to protest in a public square. If you meet content-neutral requirements, you're on - even if it means the KKK is marching through town. They have rights, too.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I'm against 'yuppie' plates, I think it causes undue burden on the taxpayer by preventing the DMV from running a 'straight shop' where what they do is really straightforward and cost-effective and stuff. I agree, if you have the urge to talk some sort of political smack, buy a bumper sticker, don't make the taxpayers have to pay for it.

[RHR]

In Colorado, a "Choose Life" plate was added allegedly as a salute to remember the tragedy at Columbine. The Columbine flower, also on the plate, is tiny, and clearly neither has anything to do with what happened at the school.

Since no one in this state wanted to look like an enemy of memorializing the unfortunate event, few people bothered to protest the wording, which of course, enjoyed significant lobbying support from Focus on the Family and other evangelicals in the state.

[HansUnfeit]

If you don't like the message on the plate, don't buy it. You will (hopefully) NEVER see a plate in the US saying "Choose Abortion".

[slg]

It would be sad if it wasn't so ironic. The fetus is sacred but the child is someone elses brat.

[jfoxx]

In my state, NC, any group that can get enough people to commit to purchase a plate can have a specialty plate created, "which allow citizens with common interests to promote themselves and/or their causes." (from NC DMV). These plate offerings currently range from animal lovers, autism society members, Carolina Hurricanes fans, harley owners, anti-littering, SCUBA divers, and yes even shag dancers. There is no implication that the state officially sponsors or endorses any of these organizations. I've even seen NC plates with University of Florida Gator on it. And not once did I assume that the state of NC endorsed a Florida University.

[Sciguy]

I live in Kentucky, which has an astonishing 96 different license plates (not including personalized plates) http://mvl.ky.gov/MVLWeb/PIServlet . The Choose Life plate is among them, but there is no plate for the opposing point of view. This is not a surprise - everybody wuvs widdle kids, but personal freedom and women's health? Not so much.

[LeftRight]

Please explain to me how this is a free speech issue? If the state had agreed to this plate and then refused the other side (or vise-versa), THEN I could see it being a freedom of speech issue. If the state were telling that organization that they couldn't distribute literature, THEN it would be a freedom of speech issue. But the state choosing to not endorse a particular side of a divisive issue, that's just smart politics.

The state requires license plates, and if you don't support anti-choice, you are free to not choose that license plate, but either way, that plate on a car looks like state sponsored support of anti-choice.

[jrockbg]

Our governments take moral stands all the time: Use of the death penalty, banning of partial birth abortions, animal cruelty and so on. All of which do not hinder another person's freedom. What makes this case in Arizona different?