Lawmakers sparred last week over the constitutionality of the newest proposed special license plates Arizona car owners could purchase for their vehicles.

At issue is a bill by Rep. Mark Anderson, R-18, to authorize the sale of Golden Rule license plates.

A handful of Democrats, however, say the plates, no matter how well-intentioned, are a non-neutral state speech and violate the separation of church and state by promoting a Judeo-Christian value.

“State-sponsored speech on license plates has been ruled unconstitutional,” Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-15, said during March 9 floor debate.

She said by promoting the Golden Rule — Do unto others as you would have them do unto you — the state is refusing to give other religions the same voice.

The House passed H2424 by a vote of 48-8.

The courts have already ruled on the issue, Ms. Sinema said, in the case of Henderson v. Stadler, in which a U.S. District Judge halted Louisiana’s production of “Choose Life” license plates on the grounds that the plates were an “unconstitutional restraint of free speech as it restricts the forum to only one view — that being the view of the state.”

Supporters of the license plates said the belief is not unique to Judaism and Christianity.

Biggs: Sentiment Encourages Good Behavior

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-22, said Buddha taught the same principle to his followers, as did Confucius. It is a “universal principle,” he said.

Mr. Anderson, the bill’s sponsor, said the plates would not violate the separation of church and state because there is no mention of the divine. The only purpose, he said, is to encourage good behavior.

Rep. Tom Prezelski, D-29, said the state would be better off practicing what it preaches.

“If we’re going to [put] the Golden Rule on our license plates…then we better start living the Golden Rule in the legislation we pass,” he said. —