Allkholollick

Way to go! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

GodLessWarriorTM

Outstanding. Nice work.

freemonkey

Good work, Bill.

Bill Snedden

Thanks to everyone for the support! I'll keep you all advised on the progress.

I do need to correct a possible misunderstanding:

Actually, these are commercially available "vanity plates" like one might find for sale in a Christian bookstore (were one to actually venture inside).

The issue isn't that the state is printing them, but that this license tag office is selling them. The office is operated by a vendor, under contract to the state, however the only business conducted at the location other than these "vanity plate" sales is that of the NC DOT. The office exists solely for the purpose of transacting official NC DOT business and therefore it is my contention that regardless of whether or not it's operated by a vendor, it is in reality an agent in fact of the state of North Carolina.

Anyway, I'd also like to know if anyone thinks that the line of reasoning I presented in my letter to make my case is unclear or faulty at any point. Again, thanks for all the feedback so far!

Bill

Vorkosigan

I don't know Bill. Does the contract with the State preclude it from selling any other plates, including vanity plates?

Seeker630

That could pose a problem and I don't know what the precedent might be. I have just moved to Florida, and there are a couple of subcontracted branch post offices here in strip malls. I've been to one of them. I think they had some Christian stuff for sale, greeting cards and such. But it is still a private business and the postal counter is only a part of it. They sell other non-religious stuff too. I'm from Michigan originally and we didn't have anything like that there.

I know this is a different situation than a license plate, but it is still in a similar vein. It is still a government function being mixed with private enterprise. I'm not condoning the practice especially, but I don't know that there is any legal precedent dealing with it either.

Just before I moved down here, they had a big deal in the Tampa/St Pete newspapers about a guy who had a license plate that said "Atheist1" or something to that effect. They suspended his plate after he'd had it for years because a handful of Christians objected to it. There was such an uproar that the State backed down and let him keep it. Bill you might want to try and get hold of that information as ammunition. I recall that the information was on a message board and should still be in the archives here at II, or possibly at Beliefnet or About.com.

RufusAtticus

Not only that, but in the Florida case, the government didn't actually check to see if the twelve names on the complaint even existed. Last report I read said the newspaper was unable to verify them.

~~RvFvS~~

GaryP

I see lots of pro-god plates around Lancaster;e.g.(NOW PRAY, IB4 GOD). Do you think Ohio would threaten those people with losing their plate if I could find 11 more people to complain?

And our official state slogan is "With God, all Things are possible". But it is not on our plates. If the state is so damn proud of the motto, why don't they go all the way and put it on everybody's plate?

Bill Snedden

In this instance, the state has "outsourced" the job of operating locations at which citizens can apply for license tags, renew tags, report them stolen, etc. These functions are all without question part of the proper duty and responsibility of the NC DOT, part of the state government. My contention is that this vendor, as an agent in fact of the state of NC, is bound by the same constitutional limitations as any state agency.

I think there are precedents that exist within other areas of state agency, notably public education.

In the state of NC (as well as many other states), we have allowed private individuals and corporations to own and operate public schools (called "charter schools"). One of the benefits of this program is autonomy from the bureaucracy of the public education system. However, because these schools are still in the business of public education and receive funding from the state, they are required to adhere to state & federal laws and standards dealing with public education. This means that they are constrained by the establishment clause, just as with any public school.

In the case of the license tag vendor, we have an agency that, like the charter school, exists primarily for the purpose of conducting business that is a proper function of the state. Like the charter school, therefore, they should be bound by the same laws that bind any state agency.

There are also numerous examples from law enforcement. Private citizens who act at the request of law enforcement officials can be considered de facto agents of the state and as such bound by constitutional limitations (Miranda, etc).

I should point out that were the state to have contracted with Walmart (or a similar vendor) to operate license tag offices inside their stores, I would have no complaint and (IMO) no legal grounds for one. The Walmart store does not exist for the primary purpose of serving the state and is therefore not in the same position as a state agency. However, this vendor location has no other purpose for existing other than to conduct the business of the state government. The fact that they also sell vanity plates, some of which are religious in theme, is ancillary to their primary operating purpose.

To me, it seems rather the same as a U.S. Postal Worker distributing Chick tracts on his rounds. He may say that he's doing it as a private citizen, but he wouldn't be making those rounds except on official duty of the United States. He would thus be prohibited from proselytizing while carrying out his duties.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

ohwilleke

It is, at least, a pretty good case which I'm sure the NC ACLU would be willing to help with, if need be.

I think that you are right about the state action issue being the central issue. The fact that everyone is required to get license plates for their cars certainly helps with the compulsory notion. That is a regulatory function and not a mere commercial function. Not a slam dunk, however. The closest analogy would be, not a postal delvery guy distributing jack chick tracts, but a postal contract station (perhaps a grocery store) selling devotional candles and icons, or Christmas decor, particularly, if you were a customer who needed say, registered mail due to some law. It could be cheap to litigate, however, since many facts would be undisputed and it would involve primarily legal issues.