THE ISSUE: “I Believe” license tags

OUR OPINION: S.C. should cease battling over specialty license plates

Bumper stickers and personalized tags have for years been a favorite American vehicle for expression. The courts have backed up people’s right to express themselves with some outrageous messages.

State-issued license tags are another matter. So-called vanity license tags in which drivers are allowed to compose their own messages or select state-sanctioned messages have raised constitutional issues.

Previously, a federal judge overturned a South Carolina law that allows citizens to select a “Choose Life” tag. The decision was upheld in a decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction in South Carolina, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.

The appeals court ruled the plates violated the First Amendment because they gave anti-abortion advocates a forum to express their beliefs while abortion rights supports have no license plate of their own. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

Now South Carolina is waging a new legal battle over license plates. This time it is the religious-oriented “I Believe” tags.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie ruled South Carolina can’t issue license plates showing the image of a cross in front of a stained glass window along with the phrase “I Believe.” The judge said the license plate is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment ban on establishment of religion by government.

The ruling overturned a law pushed through the Legislature in 2008 by Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer. The statute authorized the S.C. Department of Transportation to issue a tag that “must” contain the words “I Believe” and a cross superimposed on a stained glass window.

“Such a tag amounts to state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular,” Currie said in her decision.

Bauer and S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster have argued differently, contending the tags do not violate the Constitution’s mandate that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof.”

Bauer called Currie’s ruling “another attack on Christianity.” He said the judge was “using her personal wishes to override the Legislature and the will of thousands of South Carolinians who want to purchase the tags.”

The issue of separation of church and state is a complex one about which people disagree markedly. The debate won’t be settled in this case — and shouldn’t be.

Bauer has indicated he wants the state to appeal the ruling even as a group says it will seek such a tag by using a state law allowing private organizations to apply for tags with a message.

The Palmetto Family Council, a South Carolina faith-based public policy research group, says it will seek an “I Believe” tag. Organizations opposing the tag indicate that if it is state-issued, there is still a problem.

South Carolina has no business being embroiled in this battle. No matter the continuing cost (the state was ordered by Currie to pay the legal costs of those who challenged the tag), the state should not be in the business of politicizing license tags on any issue.

It’s one thing to allow tags with college colors and quite another to get in the middle of the most controversial and emotional debates on the American landscape.

There is no reason to fight over messages being expressed officially on license plates. Putting the state in the business of officially endorsing religious or political views is simply not a good idea.

The official state licensing mechanism has a clear purpose. Embroiling the tags in court battles over religious rights is not it.

The court decisions are reason enough for South Carolina’s leaders to reconsider sanctioning specialty license tags.

You must be logged in to comment.