Texas Rejected the Confederate Battle Flag On Its License Plates. The First Amendment Will Survive.


Texas offers its driving public a vast array of specialty license plates. Most of them are designs submitted by private organizations, which then go through an approval process by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board. If they approve it, it goes on sale.

Recently, the Sons of Confederate Veterans submitted a design that included the Confederate battle flag. They were turned down. Yesterday the Supreme Court upheld the Board’s decision on the grounds that license plates are government speech, not private speech, and therefore the government gets to decide what it does and doesn’t want to say. The dissenting minority called this ridiculous: If you see a license plate that says “Drink Pepsi,” would anyone seriously think the government of Texas was endorsing Pepsi? Of course not. It’s private speech.

It’s a sticky wicket. It’s also one I don’t understand. Here’s an excerpt from the majority opinion:

The Board must approve every specialty plate design proposal before the design can appear on a Texas plate. And the Board and its predecessor have actively exercised this authority. Texas asserts, and SCV concedes, that the State has rejected at least a dozen proposed designs.

….This final approval authority allows Texas to choose how to present itself and its constituency. Thus, Texas offers plates celebrating the many educational institutions attended by its citizens. But it need not issue plates deriding schooling. Texas offers plates that pay tribute to the Texas citrus industry. But it need not issue plates praising Florida’s oranges as far better. And Texas offers plates that say “Fight Terrorism.” But it need not issue plates promoting al Qaeda.

Right. Nor do they have to approve a design celebrating the KKK or Lee Harvey Oswald. Doesn’t this seem more germane than a fight over First Amendment issues? Unless Texas is literally required to accept anything and everything that’s submitted, they obviously have to be allowed to reject designs they find offensive. At that point, it’s just a matter of what process is required to decide a design is offensive. That’s it.

Now, if the Supreme Court thinks their process is defective, that’s fine. Tell them what minimum requirements they have to fulfill. But surely that’s the only real issue at hand. The Board plainly has the right to turn down designs. The only question is how they go about it. Why not issue a ruling on these grounds instead?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.