The Indiana Law Blog caught an AP story about the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana suing the state over “In God We Trust” license plates because, unlike other specialty plates, no additional fee is charged.
The plaintiff bringing the case, Mark Studler, said he pays an additional $40 for one of the popular environmental plates depicting an eagle above the word “Environment.” Of the total fee, $25 goes to a state trust to purchase land set aside for conservation or recreational purposes and the remaining $15 is for the administration fee.
The 2006 law establishing the “In God We Trust” plate waives the administrative fee.
“Therefore, those who obtain an ‘In God We Trust’ license plate are afforded the opportunity to make an affirmative statement through display of the plate without any additional cost while Mr. Studler must pay additional fees for his environmental license plate,” the complaint said.
I think this makes some sense. The suit won’t be popular — lawsuits over civil liberties rarely are — but I think challenging the preferential status the “In God We Trust” plate gets over other “message” plates is correct. Why should one message, particularly a religious endorsement, be subsidized by the state when others are not?
As I said on my blog, I won’t support the God license plate until they allow versions for other religions or philosophies.
I’m holding out a “On the Road to Nirvana” plate personally.
I attend a Christian/non-denominational church.
I don’t want government in my religion.
I don’t want religion in my government.
Thanks to ACLU for filing this lawsuit. Too bad we can’t pass the legal fees to Woody Burton.
The fact that the plates are “free” (i.e. taxpayers as a whole subsidize them) seems to make this blatantly unconstitutional. What was the General Assembly thinking? The cynic in me thinks wingnuts knew it was unconstitutional, would eventually get overturned thanks to the “commy” ICLU & “activist” judges, and bingo! There’s another wedge issue for them to use in the 2008 election!
Yeah, it’s funny how that works, isn’t it Glenn?
They ought to charge $100 for the environment plates. The less of that nonsense the better.
If they want to pursue policies that will drive up the price of almost everything, then let them start the ball rolling themselves with extra-expensive license plates.
The default plates are expensive enough when you look at our taxes. I’ll pay that, but I won’t pay extra for so that some folks insecure with their faith can “make a statement” on the cheap.
If you’re too cheap to pay for a fish on the back of your car, or a bumper sticker that tells the world how you feel, but you feel like you need to tell everyone you’re religious with a license plate, what’s that say about your faith? What’s that say about how you treat your fellow man?
Maybe it’s just me, but it doesn’t sound like God is to hip on the plate either. Matt. 6:1-8 kinda sounds like He knows the score and wants to make sure we do what we do for the glory of Him not ourselves.
Then again, I’m gay, so I obviously have NO right to interpret the Holy word ;)
Matt. 6:1-8
1″Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2″So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Prayer
5″And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
Last I knew, “In God We Trust” is the motto of the United States. Are you going to tell me that the ACLU is going to sue a state for putting the national motto on a plate displaying the American flag? This lawsuit will not go anywhere.
You sure that motto doesn’t violate the separation between church and state? The 9th Circuit held that “under God” in the Pledge violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court found a way to reverse the decision without addressing the question of whether or not a First Amendment violation had occurred.
I mean, sure, we needed the “In God We Trust” motto in the 1950s to defeat the Godless Communists, but the Cold War is over.
In any event, this case has a subtle distinction — it’s not the standard plate. It’s a specialty plate that’s being treated differently than other specialty plates. Can the Indiana General Assembly give a preference to a religious message? That’s the question the courts need to address.
Why don’t you think the “In God We Trust” plate constitutes a mix of religion and government? And, if it is such a mix, why do you think the mix is justified in a way that doesn’t violate the First Amendment?
Doug –
How do you “violate the separation of church and state”?
By requiring a religious test for holding public office, or “mak[ing a] law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?
“Separation of church and state” is not found in the Constitution, or in the Declaration of Independence.
And referencing the most-overturned circuit court in a case where they were overturned is strangely non-compelling.
Making people take the plates and/or not making people pay for them as specialty plates is dumb in its own right – but not everything dumb is a burning constitutional question.
Our state government has proven they can be dumb in so many ways…
If they start requiring anyone to worship the plate, call me.
Bingo, Glenn
I think you’re on to something. Myself. I think I’m gonna get one of these no extra cost plates and put the name Mitch over God. I think that would accurately represent what this state has been going through. I encourage others to do the same.
Ahh, well, if you don’t think the First Amendment requires that church and state remain separate, then we probably wouldn’t get anywhere with a discussion. Kind of like I’ll never get anywhere discussing tax issues with folks who think that the 16th Amendment was never ratified and, therefore, the U.S. Government has no power to implement an income tax. There just isn’t any common ground on which to approach a consensus.
I’m glad the ACLU takes on the little stuff when it comes to civil liberties. That makes it far less likely that we’ll ever get to the big stuff. Vigilance of groups like the ACLU is one of the things that helps limit the government.
To me, this is missing the forest for the tree. The state shouldn’t be in the business of issuing special interest group-driven license plates at all. The bickering has largely been over the ‘correct’ way to achieve what shouldn’t be achieved at all.
If you want a message on your bumper, apply a sticker.
Why do people need the government to reinforce their religious choices? IIRC from the book of Acts, the apostles didn’t exactly get a warm greeting from the Romans. However, that didn’t stop them.
I look at history and see so many instances of this faith attacking that faith, the Crusades, etc. Why would we want to repeat that? Isn’t the answer less religion in government, not more?
How can so many folks complain about the government – then they want to intertwine it closer to their faith? Doesn’t this just pollute things?
Why do we want to fight Muslim extremists by becoming Christian extremists?
Enough. I personally want a free specialty plate that reads “I *Heart* DST”. I suspect that one would get a huge response around here …. :)
Perhaps this is a minor quibble, but since I occassionally post here I thought I should note that the “Josh” commenting above is not me.
Three things.
First, as I mentioned over at my blog there was a Sikh gentleman in Anderson with IN God We Trust plate. I have no idea what that means but it does open a variety of possibilities. One is this{ in whose God are we trusting?
Second, for those who talk about no separation of church and state in the constitution, have you looked at Indiana’s Bill of Rights?
Third, as I understand the thrust of the case, it is because these plates are subsidized by the state and no other vanity plate is likewise subsidized.
Yep.
Look at it this way: Purdue and IU both have specialty plates. Let’s say you’re a Purdue fan, and you have a Purdue plate that cost you $40. Let’s say you just found out the IU plates are free to those who want them. Then, you find out the state’s covering the difference out of the highway budget, so that everyone’s roads suffer so that folks can drive around and show how much they ‘support’ IU.
How would you feel about that?
I see your point Joe, but I disagree. I think the IU plate should be free. In fact, I think it should be the standard plate and everyone should be required to have it and if they want anything else, then they should have to pay a fee.
I think that sounds like an excellent idea!
Doug –
Probably not, since the First Amendment does not require that, and would be to some extent self-contradictory if it did.
(“O.K., you can freely exercise your religion – EXCEPT for ANYTHING that is REMOTELY associated with the concept of the STATE…”)
I know! Let’s ask the U.S. Senate Chaplain’s Office about it. Since the office was created by people who WROTE the constitution, perhaps they would be able to tell us!
Or, we can just assume that repetition of things makes them so – that is one of the principles of some schools of magic, after all.
After my post this morning, wouldn’t you know I spent 20 minutes going 4mph in bumper-to-bumper traffic staring at an IU license plate on the car in front of me.
God has a sense of humor. He has to.
Amy, I would think that with your family living near Purdue now, you’d eventually come around. Or, at the very least, you’d develop a taste for peanut butter hamburgers from Triple XXX.
I just read the complaint (there’s a link to it on the Indiana Law Blog). The ICLU is making NO First Amendment claim. They’re proceeding strictly under Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution, i.e. “equal privileges and immunities.” With all due respect, what are they thinking? That’s almost an automatic loser argument. Courts basically NEVER overturn a law based on that provision. Is the ICLU afraid of a backlash if they raised the First Amendment?? If so, that’s not like them…
The fact that I didn’t wedge in a Purdue jab is a profound example of how far I’ve come!
If you are going to eat at the Triple XXX, how can you pass up the biscuits and gravy?
A couple of thoughts. First, re: Indiana and Purdue. I appreciate the good things Purdue does for Lafayette, but Indiana is the University of the State. It’s not just a good idea, it’s The Law.
Second, while this suit primarily focuses on the disparity between price of the IGWT plates and other vanity plates, it has to be at least somewhat about religion. I don’t think there is any challengeable issue if the General Assembly prefers to give away Future Farmer’s of America plates but decides to charge for Girl Scout plates. It’s the traditional concerns about the toxic mix of religion and government that, in my mind, make this subject to challenge.
That’s how I would have brought the suit. Glenn is right though. A copy of the suit is available here. The sole legal claim is under Art. I, Sec. 23 of the Indiana Constitution which states:
The lawsuit says nothing about religion, and just complains that the Plaintiff has to pay more for his environment message than other Hoosiers have to pay to proclaim that “We” trust in God. I tend to agree with Glenn’s analysis that the Plaintiff probably doesn’t have a very good shot under this section.
I suppose they can argue that the unequal fee structure violates this part of the equal protection analysis:
Johnson v. Gupta, 682 N.E.2d 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). But, I suspect a court is going to say that the General Assembly has a great deal of discretion in how it designs and distributes its license plates, particularly if the Plaintiff does not attempt to argue Church & State issues.
I just got the “If There Really Was A God Would Mitch Daniels Be Our Governor?” plate. It had a $15 administrative fee but it was worth it . . .
And.. someone already anticipated this attack. It *isn’t* a “specialty” plate – it is, get this, an “alternate standard” plate (or, as the BMV website now words it “alternate regular” plate – yes, my mind is reeling as well). They aren’t charging for the “regular” plates; only the “specialty” plates.
I like the quote “Cook of the BMV said the “In God We Trust†plates cost the agency $3.69 each to produce, compared with $3.19 each for the standard plate with the Web address.”
Um… wouldn’t that be true of all the specialty plates as well? Can’t imagine why they would cost more than IGWT (eye-gwat?)plates. The $15 is an administrative fee, not a production fee… I assume for selecting anything other than the “default.”
By the way… they have also added “Support Our Troops” as a “regular” plate.
Joe: I think “I HATE DST” would be a real winner, except perhaps in Marion County. ;)
Peanut butter on hamburgers? No offense, but that sounds Nass-TEE! I love peanut butter, but there’s a limit, and evidently the Boilermakers have reached it. :)
Does anyone suppose that the state is gonna claim: you don’t have to accept the plate, as there is another “free” alternative? Or perhaps: The IGWT plate isn’t for any special interest group, but the environmental plate is. Not saying those are great arguments, by the way.
Sorry Brenda: I didn’t see your post at #24. :(
Doug, try to be careful quoting the 9th Circuit, arguably the laughingstock of the entire judicial system
I’d be more upset if these plates were mandatory in any way, but they aren’t. You have the right to go to the DMV and select the plate you want.
And let’s be completely honest here. If there were a fee attached to this plate, the ACLU would still sue, likely claiming the fees themself establish some sort of government support of religion.
They, and the rest of you quoting the case to support your arguments, are being quite facetious by claiming the fees, or lack thereof, are the problem here. What’s getting you worked up is any mention of God in any form. Hey, nothing is stopping you from getting some “In Dawkins we trust” plates or bumper stickers.
To those attempting the weak put-downs of Christians by claiming we need these plates to strengthen our beliefs, your cheap shots do nothing to improve your arguments. I don’t need a license plate, fish, WWJD bracelet, or any of that crap to proclaim my faith. My prayer is that my faith is known through my deeds, not by external trappings.
I’ve been driving with enviro plates since their inception. They are primarily a voluntary fund raiser for acquisition of natural areas. It’s an area where Indiana needs funding and lots of people consider it non-essential. They do have a secondary function of providing a state approved way to ‘fly the green flag’, and the tree-haters have been bugged by their success. No doubt the ‘In God We Trust’ plates are partly motivated as a counter volley to all those evil nature lovers, but I don’t think there’s any major legal objection to them…they are optional and bland, and I think, harmless.
To be fair, these are put downs of any monotheists proclaiming their faith through a BMV issued license plate.
But, I don’t know if other monotheists were admonished against ostentatious prayer by their Lord & Savior.
Kind of the cool thing about science is that it doesn’t really require any long-term trust. With falsifiable hypotheses and repeatable experiments being part of the operating instructions, unlike revealed truth, it’s not ultimately necessary to take anyone’s word for its propositions.
The question for me is… what is the validity of the administrative fee? Does it, or does it not, cost extra to create and issue plates other than the default? Either they are collecting a fee for no reason at all (wouldn’t that be a shocker), or the taxpayers are subsidizing this specific plate which seems wildly inappropriate.
The BMV has said it costs $0.50 more to produce than does the standard plate. Not sure how production costs figures into total administrative costs.
Doghouse Riley is, as always, worth reading
Hmm… funny that neither Dawkins or his ilk were in much demand after the VT shootings, or Katrina, for that matter.
Not that the global warming hoax requires much “long-term trust”, nor are there any “falsifiable hypotheses” involved with that “fact”, are there?
There’s no denying how good the biscuits & gravy are, but when you only get to eat there 2 or 3 times a year, you have to go with what’s special.
I recall the mornings where we’d down a pitcher of beer before 8am at the Boiler Room, stumble down the hill to Triple XXX, eat a big plate of biscuits & gravy (the full order comes with its own blood pressure pills on the side, plus it’s the size of a hubcap), then head off to the football game. Good times.
That’s what my wife said too. Then she had a bite of my Purvis burger, and gets the Purvis every time we go to Triple XXX.
Sounds gross, tastes great.
Why does the state of Indiana need to pay over $6 million out of the highway fund so this plate can be free to you? That’s the question.
How many charitable plates– you know, for children’s funds, health charities, veteran’s cars, universities– are not being bought, because this plate is free?
It’s not just that religion and state should be separated — this was a bone headed FINANCIAL move.
Since it’s so popular, what kinda windfall– say for Hoosier healthcare — coulda been raised by just charging the same amount as the regular special plates? 500,000 x $15 = $7.5 million!!
It’s not about shoving your religion or your patriotism in my face. It’s about common sense!
Just think of someone worse than Dan Burton as far as being an elected official, and you’ve got his brother Woody. So if you’re expecting common sense, I’d tell you it doesn’t run in the family.
I mean, Woody showed up for an interview on this lawsuit on local TV here in Indy… driving a blue Corvette with the plate on the back. You can afford a Corvette but you’re too cheap to a pay a fee for a specialty plate?
Throw in that the interview took place at Jonathan Byrd’s cafeteria (and Woody could stand to skip the buffet) and it tells me Woody’s not very bright. (Watch the video here).
Woody, as the author of the bill that brought these plates into being, mandated they have no fee. If you suggested the money go to health care, I’m sure he’d get all high & mighty that the government has no place in health care, expansion of federal programs, etc etc.
Doug,
Regarding science as coming “With falsifiable hypotheses and repeatable experiments being part of the operating instructions” I have to differ a bit, at least as to the “repeatable experiments” part. To a large extent astronomy, and to some extent geology and biology, demand, at their core, inferences from unrepeatable past events the consequences of which simply hiss or wink at us from the ether, or are poorly etched or disolved into the rocks at our feet. An anti-evolutionist, but none-the-less fairly intelligent Lutheran (Missouri flavor) pastor I know who has a gift for sophistic argument has repeatedly tried to convince me that no true science can be based on such inferences. (Obviously better read young earth anti-evolutionists have to be as hostile toward geology as they are Darwinian biology.) Let’s not accidently agree with these folks!
A friend suggested that possibly the “Administrative Fee” was for collecting, recording, and transferring the Group Fee. Which, then, it would actually make sense that they wouldn’t collect it for the IGWT plate as there isn’t a Group Fee associated with it. Since the whole thing makes me gag, I was happy to discover that this argument doesn’t track as the BMV has no administrative fee on the the “Support Our Troops” plate even though it *does* have a $20 Group Fee. I’m thinking this is the one the ICLU should have targeted with the “equal privileges and immunities.†argument and gone after IGWT with a “church/state” argument.
Getting back to the original post, I tend to think the lawsuit is a tactical mistake. I don’t see putting “In God We Trust” on the plates so much as an endorsment of religion as I see it as pandering to a certain element of the electorate, and somewhat clever pandering since the vehicle (no pun intended) used happens to be the motto of the United States. The lawsuit, adroitly spun, will only confirm this group’s paranoid notion that they are so how being persecuted.
BTW, this whole episode smells to me of Bosma’s grandstanding over denominationally specific prayer in the legislature. Has anyone run down who was the source of the idea behind these plates?
Woody Burton had been trying to get this plate through for years. I don’t know who, if anyone in particular, was making the request of him.
Something that strikes me as a bit odd about the news coverage is that a lot of the articles seem intent on mentioning how popular the plates are. I can see that making its way into a couple of pieces, but seems like I’ve seen it in most of them. As a non-critical element of the story, you wouldn’t think the various authors would decide to mention that independently.
Popularity is all that matters? Maybe the reporters are saying that since the IGWT plates are popular, the lawsuite won’t be. :)
Scribe: Wow! The 9th Circuit is a laughing stock? Global warming is a hoax? Because you don’t agree with 9th Circuit decisions and you don’t want to believe in global warming, you feel free to make fun?
Joe: Sorry, but I don’t think I could get a peanut butter-covered burger past my nose! :)
Pila, this thread as been hijacked enough that I’m not interested in a Global Warming debate. Suffice it to say it has to be the greatest hoax of the 20th and 21st centuries. I mean 1 degree increase over 100 years and now we’re all going to die?
To say Woody Burton is worse than Dan is like saying Rosie O’Donnell is fatter than Ann Coulter. Technically true, but it doesn’t go far enough to elaborate the difference.
Pila –
I don’t agree that the Ninth Circuit is a laughing stock, per se – but they are the most frequently reversed circuit court, and Doug referred to one of their decisions that was, in fact overturned.
Doug was straightforward enough to note that the decision he mentioned did not stand – still, it didn’t make for a compelling argument.
IANAL, but my brother is – I remember him telling me back in his law school days that if a circuit court decision seemed bizarre, your best guess was always that it had come from the Ninth.
[My current position on global warming is that I am glad that Spring is here, and that I am intrigued by the thought of ocean-front property in Indiana…]
Woody comes from the same area of Indiana which found Bob Garton too liberal of a Republican because he wouldn’t make their anti-abortion issues his reason for being in the Senate. Instead, they sent The Flogger.
My flip statement has been that Jesus himself would lose in that district if he ran as anything other than a Republican.
Ooops, sorry Joe but that’s not quite why Garton lost, but it does make for a funny quip.
He lost because he took his seat for granted, and his arrogance grated on many in the district. Certainly, we traded one clown for another, but anyone running in the primary against Garton would’ve won.
Don’t forget, it was the Senate district directly to the north (and which included Woody’s district) that elected Brent Waltz over Larry Borst. Don’t underestimate Rex Early’s involvement in the Garton defeat as well.
Rest assured that we know full well another District Christ wouldn’t have a prayer in, the Indiana Seventh.
Scribe, I don’t know if Garton lost solely on arrogance. I think it was a combination of arrogance and the abortion issue – an example being that “I know this abortion issue isn’t as important as you people think it is” but you are correct, both Borst and Garton had a definite “Don’t you know who I am!” to ’em.
IMO, Waltz is another right-wing nut in a safe district. He’s also the nephew of Greenwood ‘mayor’ Charlie Henderson (another guy who needs to go), though I’ve heard that relations at the annual family reunion may be a little frosty between the two.
But Jesus definitely wouldn’t win as a Democrat down here. As much as folks in Center Township in Marion County vote for any Democrat, folks in Johnson County vote for any Republican. It almost seems as though there are more Libertarians on the ballot than Democrats.
Waltz/Burton types seem to grow on trees in Johnson County.
I see they are running a poll about this in the Indy Star asking whether people agree with this lawsuit by the ACLU.The last time I checked it was 66% disagreeing with this lawsuit with 34% agreeing out of 8400 votes.This is not a scientific poll but I would venture to guess a scientific statewide poll would yield the same results.
This issue makes no difference to me.I do not have one of these plates and do not intend to get one.I do see a lot of them on the road though.
I always find it interesting that some on the left always speak of the seperation of church and state but remain very quite as the Catholic church and Cardinal Mahoney run around Washington D.C. kissing Ted Kennedys behind and other politicians while peddeling the churchs want for a amnesty and guest worker program for illegal immigrants in a effort to increase their flock and collection plate take.
Although the majority opinion on this blog agrees with the ACLU on the lawsuit over the plates and was also against my position of no amnesty for illegals and strict border enforcement a while back in a discussion I would venture to guess that this is not the majority opinion on either issue in this state.
I’m not saying that makes anyone’s opinion here right or wrong.I very much enjoy the discussions that happen here.Like I stated the plate issue makes no difference to me but I would say the majority opinion within the state would be against the ACLU.
The majority opinion is usually against the ACLU. That’s kind of the whole point of the ACLU. The majority rarely needs protection from the minority when it comes to civil rights or liberties.