I compliment Dan Billin on his excellent research into the events that led up to the New Hampshire license plate case, Wooley v. Maynard (1977) and Steve Taylor for bringing the story to our attention. (“License plates cause uproar”; Dec. 2). They tell us the story behind the U.S. Supreme Court decision that firmly established the principle that governments cannot compel individuals to carry, exhibit or express a political message of the government.
It was some years ago, while auditing Laurence Tribe’s class in constitutional law at Harvard Law School (with my car parked outside on Mass Ave., with its New Hampshire plate), when I learned that while state governments have a right for their license plates to highlight the natural beauty, culture or historical features of their state, such as Minnesota’s “Land of 10,000 Lakes” or Louisiansa’s “Sportsman’s Paradise,” after Wooley v. Maynard it became unconstitutional for states to require their citizens to drive around with license plates that reflect beliefs or political messages, often linked to values, religion, or social issues.
Thus, New Hampshire requiring its drivers to exhibit on their license plates the government’s political message, “Live Free or Die” — while not the same as “Choose Life” or “Abortion is Murder” — was found to be political and therefore unconstitutional. Good for George and Maxine Maynard, the Claremont couple who put tape over the motto on their license plates. After 1977, individuals across the U.S. cannot be forced to carry their government’s political messages.
But what about the rest of the story?
Since 1977, New Hampshire’s government has chosen to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision. To this day, in our state, one cannot walk into a state DMV office and easily walk out with a plate that does not have “Live Free or Die” emblazoned on it.
I know, because I tried it. At the local DMV office, on Miracle Mile in Lebanon, several years ago, before that branch closed, when I requested a motto-free plate, I was told all standard plates include “Live Free or Die.” While one can apparently request a specialty or personalized plate without the words, none were immediately available at $5 … or at any price, the Maynard decision notwithstanding. When I showed the DMV clerk a copy of the Supreme Court decision (which I happened to have in my breast pocket), I was not told to get “out of the state of New Hampshire” (as citizens were apparently told in the days of Gov. Meldrim Thomson), but I was ushered out of the DMV office by a State Trooper.
So I covered the words on my license plate, which the Supreme Court considers illegal, with tape. Just in case, I drive around with a copy of the Wooley v. Maynard decision in the glove compartment of my car.
It is the critical differences between government speech and private speech — the permissions, protections and prohibitions at play — that make this case important … and that have been ignored for 47 years by New Hampshire judges, legislatures and governors.
Hypocrisy and flouting federal law are alive and well in New Hampshire.
The writer is an occasional lecturer on topics of constitutional law for Osher Lifelong Learning. He lives in Hanover.