violation of the right to free speech. >> your argument first this morning, john walker vs. the texas division of the sons of confederate veterans. >> thank you mr. chief justice. may it please the court. message's on texas plans plates are government speech. the state of texas etches its name on each license plate and texas law gives the state sol control and approval authority of everything that appears on a lance -- license plate, texas is not abridging free speech rightsful motorists me remain free to speak with a bumper sticker or window decal but the first amendment does not mean a motorist can compel any government to place its imprimatur on a battle flag. >> one of the problems of the standard whether it is regarded as offensive to many people. is it government speech to say mighty fine bourbon to advertise a project? >> yes the government can approve the messages just because it has endorsed messages or is accepting and generating revenue to proven gait the messages doesn't defeat the fact it is government speech. when the library of congressship takes sponsorship for the national book festival that's still government speech on the web site. >> suppose texas erected 500 electronic billboards around the state, and on the billboards they posted some government messages wear a seatbelt when you're driving burt at the bottom people could put a message of their choice. would that be government speech? >> justice alito the portion the government has sole control over that would be government speech. of the government doesn't have final control or approval authority over another portion -- >> that was the bottom. the government has the same kind of approval authority it has here. it will allow people to say inoffensive things but if they say something that is offensive, they won't allow that. that would be government speech. >> it would be government speech under the best reading of -- that you have final approval authority and the government isn't abrimming other traditional free speech rights. >> i'm sorry, i don't understand. almost anything the government does it has final authority to veto. whether it's a school or a government web site. it always retains the authority to say no. the issue is when can it say no? the constitutionally. so i don't think it's merely that. and in summer the government actually created the words that were being advertised. so isn't that substantially different because the government is not creating these words? >> just sotomayor, on summan, the court indicated -- >> the monument case. i'm talking about johan unanimous. >> that's right. in summan though, a private organization put it name on the monument and donated it to the park. in johanns the government created a program to espouse the message, beef is what for dinner, but even then, as the court recognized the secretary of agriculture didn't write ad company. the government had control but just not at every step of the way saying this is how the message must be. but the end of the day had final approval authority. but returning to justice alito's discussion about the tests. the test can include other elements and this is government speech. texas has its name on every license plate. there's a formal process here of notice and the board takes a public vote before approve anything specialty license -- >> do you want us to hold that because it's government speech, the government can engage in viewpoint discrimination? >> that's right. and the court has recognized that in sumam. >> does hat have any limits? suppose somebody submitted a license plate to texas that said vote republican and texas said yes that's fine. and then the next person submitted a license plate to texas and it said, vote democratic. and texas said, no, we're not going to approve that one. what about that? >> justice kagan, our position wouldn't allow that -- >> why wouldn't it? >> the establishment clause the equal protection clause due process clause other constitutional bars. >> this is not an establishment clause issue. i'm curious what constitutional constraints you think there are and how they would play out as to the kind of hypothetical i just gave you. >> absolutely, justice kagan. there could be other constitutional bars such as equal protection clause. the oregon supreme court -- >> all you had to say is whatever prevents texas itself in all of its other activities never mind license plates. from saying vote republican. right? >> absolutely. >> you put the same question. what stops texas from saying it -- its election literature it passes out. vote republican. i think something prevents that and whatever prevents that would prevent it on the license plates too. no? >> that's correct, justice schoola, which is why the issue is government speech in general but the court recognized unanimously the government speech doctrine does not -- excuse me -- the government can speak even if it takes certain viewpoints -- >> what case do you want me to read to show that the government can engage in viewpoint discrimination when it's his own speech? the monument cases? >> yes justice kennedy. sumam would be the best example. >> is this a case where the state, the government, has aided in creating a new kind of public forum? people don't go to parks anymore. if the government bought 17 soap boxes to put around the park, that government property but the government can't prohibit what kind of speech goes on. the why is this a new public forum in a new era? >> i don't think it's a public forum for private speech. the court never recognized a public forum for private speech when the government places its name on the message when it completely controls the message, receiving notice and comment from the public. >> that's -- already. the whole question is whether you -- that is circular. the question is whether you can control the message. you're assuming the answer to the question. >> justice kennedy, i think the court has looked at governmental intent to determine whether there's a public forum for private speech. for all of the reasons that we're pointing out this is government speech, it is the same -- the flipside of why a public forum has not been created. so, -- >> i'm not quite shoe why it's government speech since there's no clear, identifiable policy, at least art arguable there's non -- that the state is articulating. they're only doing this to get the money. >> i don't income a message can be part of any test for government because government must supreme in all sorts of ways. the court in sumam indicated the 52 structures in central park were all government speech yet it's a wide array of res imagine -- messages such at alice in wonderland. >> here you could have conflicting messages. what's the government policy between allowing university of texas and university of oklahoma plates. >> the state of texas can promote the educational diversity of citizen is. >> okay. the policy permitting mighty fine burger plates and pretty good burgers plates. >> mr. chief justice as an austin texas, establishment, the state of texas could promote that message, but even if mighty fine burgers weren't a texas establish. , texas is allowed to endorse speech, and just because it would be generating -- >> so it's endorsing speech. >> it is the government speech. the analogy would be an endorse. such as a professional athlete. the professional athlete, for instance places a logo or product or otherwise on some apparel the athlete is wearing. that's still the speech of the athlete. >> but the athlete done advertise nike on his jersey and adidas on his shoes. you can see one message. that athlete is endorsing this brand. but texas well put its name on anything, and the idea this is their speech, the only thing that unnyes it is they get money from it. >> mr. chief justice -- >> better be good. >> the state of texas does not put its name on everything. it follows a formal process with a public vote -- >> you told me yourself you said its name i etched on the license plate. >> every message on the license plate, yes that is the state's message. >> how many of them are there? >> as of the beginning of this month, there were 438 specialty plates, 269 of which were vrabel -- available for general public use. >> how many have you disapproved other than this one. >> texas agencies have denied about a dozen plates. some of that information is in the record, some is not. >> what other ones have you disapproved? >> the board's predecessor denied a prolife plate. the board denied a texas dps trooper foundation plate, and the board's predecessor denied a dozen other plates. >> on theground of offense? >> the information is not clear as to what the grounds for those denials were. the legislature itself has repealed multiple specialty plates that it created. >> could i ask, mr. keller, if you good down to texas and just stare at license plates are most of them just the standard license plate and then these 400 license plates you see very rarely or do most people actually have one of these specialty plates? >> well, there's a wide range of -- i believe most platers still the standard plate. >> but there's a substantial percentage that are not and it's not by any means unusual to see a specialty plate. >> not unusual to see a specialty plate in the state of texas, but the state of texas by etching its name on it can keep control of what appears on license plates. still the state's message. >> what is the limit to this argue. that's what concerns me. your answer to my billboard question was disturbing but suppose people still did good to parks and the state had an official state soap box at the park and every once in a while a state official would mount the soap box and say -- give some official state announcement. other times people who paid a fee would be allowed to go up there and say something they wanted provided it was approved in advance by the state. would that be official state speech? >> justice aleta, i think we're starting to cross over into a situation what is called -- what this court called a subterfuge. if you are abridging traditional prespeech rights and limiting access to a traditional public forum, that's an instance where -- >> why hasn't this become traditional? i don't mean to interruptity -- justice alito. you have opened a new forum. >> i don't think it's become extra tra divisional because texas has always main maintained control over is plates and exercisedder toal control. so unlike a park, which has been held since time immillion morial for the public to speak -- >> you want us to say the public are not involved over time -- people don't go to parks anymore. they drive. >> absolutely. the public traditional public forum can't evolve over time. but the indicia of a traditional public forum has to be one that is open, and texas is not open license plates. if other states -- >> in a world in which you have approved 400 license plates and they're pretty common in the state of texas, and you have only disapproved a very select few, it does seem as though you have basically given -- relinquished your control over this and made it's people's license plate for whatever private speech people want to say. >> justice kagan, it would be odd to say it's private speech when the board is taking a public vote and receiving notice in common governmental function of when the government wants to act, and it's placing its name on the license plate. when the government is placing its name on the license plate, it is accepting and signifying this is the government's message -- >> does it have notice for every one of 430 that it's approved every time there's a request, is there a notice incumbent procedure? >> if it's a legislature created plate, the legislature would do and it there wouldn't be an agency notice. but under existing law, notice and comment would be required for every specialty plate approved by the agency which is all specialty plates not approved by the legislature. >> i think a good analog to this case would be the u.s. postal service's postage stamp program. there, the u.s. is placing its name directly on the medium thousands of stamps have been issued in the past and yet there's also private input that is allowed on to what the postage stamps will look like. just as the respondents can speak in all sorts of ways on a bumper sticker right next to a license plate or in the envelope on which a stamp would appear, that doesn't mean that someone is allowed responsive speech to whatever appears on the stamp or a license plate. >> does texas also have specialty plates insofar as the letters or numbers of the plates are concerned? can you get a license plate that says hot stuff, or something like that? >> ity scalia, we do have personalized license plates in texas. >> are those sensorred in can -- censored? >> the speech is controlled completely by the state of texas. texas -- this is not in the record -- >> even though the individual selects hot stuff or whatever other message. so i guess if this is not allowed, we can't allow that, either. >> yes, sir. >> right, dirty words are -- people are entitled to use dirty words. >> justice school ya -- justice scalia, the court's holding would affect -- >> i'm not sure your analogy to the postal service works because none of us can imagine the postal service having commercial advertisements on its stamps. re/max reality, you won't see it on a postal stamp. >> it may be true the u.s. postal service has not chosen to engage in that type of expression but it development think that defeats the fact this is still government speech. even justice souter's dissent in johanns, we have that here. have texas' p name etched on the license plate. also untenable consequences, fall from an opinion recognizing that texas has to offer responsive speech. texas should not have to allow speech about al qaeda or the nazi party simply because it offers a license plate propagating the message fighting terrorism. >> there's an easy answer which is they don't have to get into the business of selling space on their lance plates to begin with. i if you don't want to have the al qaeda license plate, don't get into the business of eye louing people to buy a space to put on whatever they want to say. >> mr. chiefity that would be an answer to all of the government speech cases and i assume, for instance, that the court didn't say, well, if you don't want to accept the monument, just don't allow monuments and that's because government -- it allowed the selected messages to propagate and is allowed to speak -- >> that might be because they've done that since the time of the pyramids or whatever but they haven't had license plate messages since time immemorial. so maybe that's why they shouldn't be considered just like the monuments. >> mr. chief justice, don't mean to suggest they're just like the monuments but it's still a fixed medium and a tangible message is being displayed to a captive audience as the court recognized in leeman. and in those situations the government is entitled to select the messages it wishes to propagate and are going to be close the identified -- >> identity rather have the license plates than the pyramids. i don't know that we want to drive texas to having pyramids. >> justice scalia, we also want to retain our license plates. >> that shows what this case is about. the respondents want texas to place itself stamp of approval on the confederate battle flag through license plates and texas doesn't have to make that judgment. >> i don't want to beat a dead horse. what's the best distinction you can give me between what you do with license plates and billboards, a soap box, an official state web site where people can put up a message they want subject to state approval? if we were to write an opinion that tried to draw a distinction between the license plates on one side and those other things on the other side what we say? >> the very first thing is texas has its name on it -- >> it has its name on all the other things. >> in this situation we have exercised selectivity and control as my previous answer addressed. also we market this program to the public, saying specifically that no one is entitled to whatever design they want. rather, the board of the legislature has to approve it. that's the final line of the joint appendix. so this is not a situation where out in the world, if you see a soap box in a park that you would wonder, if this the government speaking or not the government speaking? is the government abridging traditional spree feature rights? is this a case where texas wants to maintain and has maintained control of what it says on license plates, and respondents -- everyone remains free to speak in all sorts of ways speeches leafletting -- >> i don't think you answered justice alito's question in every park you need general lay permit to do certain kinds of speech. so the government controls that permit process, and tells you that it can say no. so why is that different in the situations that -- it can't me merely control is what i'm saying. the ability to veto. because that would then give you the ability to veto -- you could create a program in every public forum that basically controls in the same way. >> justice sotomayor, there's a difference. we need to be clear about what approval means. if approval means access to a forum, and it's not government controlling every single word of the message then i don't think you have government speech. if it's simply you have a demeanor. >> have we held you can deny access to a park or to a forum on the basis of the content of the speech? >> content-based regulation -- >> absolutely. access on the basis of content. a different situation entirely. >> justice, that is correct. we are denying access -- >> mr. keller, one concern that raises -- this goes back to what justice kennedy said -- is that outside the traditional area of streets and parks, this is a new world, there of all kind of new expressive forums being created every day. and as those come into play, as long as the state says, hey, look we're going to regulate everything for offense, we're going to keep anything offensive out of this expressive forum, it does create the possibility that in this new world, with all these new kinds of expressions the state will have a much greater control over its citizens' speech than we have typically been comfortable with. >> that's right, justice kagan and i think for all of those reasons a anywhere rove ruling -- a narrow ruling in this case would possibly be a beneficial way to go. >> do you know of any other expressive fora opened by the state, manufactured by the state, that a have the said's name only it as license plates do? if there are lot of -- >> this is a unique -- >> what can you tell me to help me which might not help others that i don't think these categories are absolute, think they help but they're not absolute. so i would ask the question first, this isn't government speech in common english. it is the speech of the person who wants to put the message on the plate. the plate is owned by the state. the state says we don't want certain messages to be displayed. and my question is why? why not? what is the interest that the state is furthering in keeping certain messages off the plate? >> justice breyer the state -- >> you have the republican example, democrats, not every interest is a justifiable interest. some are and not some are. that's why i ask my question. they keep some off and let some on. what is their interest -- which are the ones in i'm asking a factual question. why have they kept off the ones they kept off while letting on the ones they left on? >> justice breyer -- >> they have no interest at all in making such a distinction, then i think since speech is heard a little they ought to lose but if they have a justifiable interest since you can put the bumper sticker next door, think they win and therefore i'd like know what their interest is. >> the state of texas' interest is propagating messages that show the diverse backgrounds educational backgrounds, products of texas -- >> yes. >> no, i'm -- >> texas each one of those interests that they allow to be put on the license plate, they like texas hamburger joints, and they probably would not approve a chicago hamburger joint being on the texas license plate. they like some of these messages others they don't particularly like. am i right? >> i'd like to get my answer. i'm asking you, what is the interest in texas and why does it keep off the messages it keeps off? >> in this particular example -- >> no, not just this exam. there are a set of things they've kept off. why? >> justice breyer -- >> don't try to general rules itch think the justice is asking you for a specific. why would you -- >> justice breyer, i'll use the dps trooper foundation plate that was denied. texas didn't want that on he license plate because it was concerned if a motorist were pulled over, that then the the police would see -- >> look, i can think of many reasons i could make up. man they want to keep controversial political messages off? i'd say they have an interest in that in suggesting to people, texas doesn't sponsor this -- i just want to know what they really are and now you have said one. what was the one you just said? >> the transportation -- texas dps troopers foundation. >> you're on the license plate approval board. what standard do you follow? when do you grant a request and when do you deny? what is the rule. that's what justice breyer is asking. >> in texas regulations provide the board can deny those that might be offensive or for any reason established by a rule -- >> then i think they lose. the reason they lose is because i don't see the state can come in and say we keep off a private message and we'll tell you the reason later. we can do it for any -- any reason we want. you're hurting speech and i don't see texas' interest in saying we can keep it off for any reason we want. that would be the republican democrat too. i'm saying questions. but i think you have to have some kind of legitimate reason for keeping off -- doesn't have to be much. it could be just a little -- >> texas can have legitimate reasons for not allowing -- >> why don't you tell us what they are. >> i think that would be requiring something like a formal process -- >> don't assume. i just want to know what they are. >> texas does not have to associate itself with messages that it doesn't want to and finds offensive. and because texas has given that explanation here we know that. many times government officials speak and don't disclose shire motives and that's -- >> except texas did and now full circle back to my first question. justice -- it said this message would be offensive to maybe people so that's -- to many people so that's -- if the message would be offensive to many people, that's the standard they're applying. ask, isn't that too broad a discretion? >> no, the fact we have that much discretion confirms this is government speech. mr. chief justice let me reserve the remainder of my time. >> thank you counsel. >> mr. gorge. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. we're here representing the sons of confederate veterans because they wanted to have a license plate to raise money and in fact for the state of texas to keep up monuments which was the purpose of their whole process in this case. and the state of texas has gone about issuing an open invitation to everybody to submit to them public designs for license plates and to create and -- thus created a limited public forum for these license plates. >> can texas itself formally let's say, by a joint resolution of the legislature, endorse the grand army of therepublic and not the son's the confederacy. >> the legislature can endorse anything it -- >> can the legislature endorse austin hamburgers dish. >> the legislature has created a confederate heroes day and people on my side of this -- this side. >> what about american heroes. >> the government created a holiday for people -- for juneteenth we the slaves were free. >> why does this sncc your craw when it's on a license plate but you acknowledge texas can do the things so long as it's texas speech. the only question here is whether this is texas' speech or not? if it is texas' speech, all of these things can be said can't they? can't all of the things on the lance plate -- >> texas speech by itself and is not joint speech -- >> doesn't seem like a very significant issue. >> well, if that's -- >> what's what we are concern about. as long as texas says it's okay bit if you put it on a license plate, what -- i don't understand what the theory is. >> the state has created a very successful money-raising program in which it solicits people to come in and submit their design for their license plate, so they can -- they have to submit the design, have to put up some money to make the plate, and then the plate doesn't ever get published to anybody until the person -- somebody ordered it from the -- >> suppose the message that the applicant said we want this design, and the design is the swastika. is that speech that -- whoever is in charge of the license plates, do they have to accept that design? >> i don't believe the state can discriminate against the people who want to have that design -- >> it has a swastika and somebody else wants to have jihad on my license plate. >> bigin -- >> jihad. >> jihad on the license plate can be -- there's obviously a district court from ohio in which infidels was held to be -- >> what is your answer in this case as to justice ginsburg's hypothetical, yes or no? must the state put the symbols or messages on the plates at the request of the citizen. yes or no? >> yes. >> how about make pot legal? >> say again. >> make pot legal. >> yes. >> that's okay? and bong hits for jesus. >> yes. >> the you're arguing for the opened of texas specialty plates. >> i couldn't make a better argument in that direction. >> we have got along about it for a long time -- >> but in a way, your argument curtails speech. only if you prevail you're going to prevent a lot of texans from conveying a message. you have to agree with that. >> i would -- if the state continues to use the same standard which is it might offend anybody the state can deny the plate. if that's the standard then the -- and they exercise their discretion on the statutory standard that it might offend somebody you -- >> you have no alternate standard in order to have a proper or solution that seems wise for justice ginsburg's hypothetical. you have no standard. >> the answer to having a standard that controls people's speech is that the standard has to be pretty low hanging fruit as -- and the christian law students association college of hastings vs. martinez justice alito in the dissent for the centers in that case said that offensive speech is something that speech that we hate is something we should be proud of protecting. >> that in that context. >> you say they can or they cannot. have a standard which says we're trying to keep offensive speech off the license? >> as long as -- >> yes or no. >> -- offensive is in the eyes of the beholder of course. they can't have that. >> can or cannot. >> cannot. >> i see what you're saying. but if i were to go back to sort of the basic underlying thought here is speech heard? >> yes. >> the answer is, yes. the private speech is somewhat hurt. a lot, put up a bumper sticker. you can't say a lot. how is it hurt? you get the official imprimatur. is there something to be said for texas? yes. what they're trying to do is to prevent their official imprimatur from being given to speech that phones people. people don't like it, put up a bumper sticker. we have two interests in opposite directions and many, many cases. we try to weigh those things when the other things don't tell us the answer, and i guess -- i don't really see the big problem that people who are putting up with speech even the texas considers offensive, put up a bumper sticker. what's the problem? >> well, i -- the culture of creating specialty plates began in texas in 1965. we have been doing this and we have gone bonkers with people buying these things. there's 50,000 people with the -- >> that's a lot of money isn't it? about $8,000? >> say what? >> is it about $8,000 to get a plate? >> i think it's more than that. and that -- >> i have a different question which is -- i actually do think this is hybrid speech. it's both government and the individual speaking at the same time. but that goes back to what justice scalia said we said we can't compel the individual to put something on their license plate that they disagree with. >> we have that case. >> so why isn't the reverse true for the government? if you're going to ask me to put my name -- >> because -- >> the law requires it. the state's name on a license plate, why can you compel us to do something we don't want to endorse? >> the re -- >> why shouldn't it work both ways when it's -- >> the reason is that this has become -- and it's the numbers -- it's become a limited public forum for putting up messages -- >> how do i know which is the government's and which is only the individual's? i wouldn't have known that -- that pro anything was sponsored by some states and not others. or endorsed by some states but not others. how do i know that a particular license plate the government doesn't endorse? >> you can't tell whether the government wants your speech in advance in this program. you have to submit what you think you want and then the -- >> that implies to a certain degree of approval. >> of course there's approval. just like approval for someone to speak in a park. the columbus, ohio case where -- >> but that's brought it earlier. you have regulations for speaking in the park. you can't have content-based regulation. this is a content-based. this content, the state doesn't want. >> and they have a standard that is -- that the lowest common denominator. if any person could be offended they can deny it. that is their standard. >> it would be offensive to many people. >> no, ma'am i think the statute says actually, any person. >> of course mr. george, if you had a standard like that in a case in a normal case where we were regulating private speech of course we would find that imper miss illinois. but the question is whether this is a very different kind of context and let's go back to i think justice scalia said about the nature of license plates. i think there's a clear regulatory purpose here. it's the government that actually makes the license plate. i think the license plate continues to be public property, if that right. like you have to return the license plate. it has the state's name on it. it's clearly the official identification that the state gives with respect to a car so why doesn't all of that make this a very different case from the typical forum cases that we usually address? >> well, the reason is that we do have hybrid speech and they opened up and created this billboard, as justice alito said. they created a billboard opportunity, and they have since they can make everybody have a license plate, they said we're going to create a billboard opportunity, and put messages -- let you put messages on it and pay us money for using our billboard. that's what they've done. then they say to some people, if i don't like your message because you're a republican or you're a democrat or you are -- you want to say mighty fine burgers instead of whopper burger, they can do that. that's sort of arbitrary control of speech based upon a standard that it might offend anybody, is they either need to get rid of the program or open up the program to just everybody else and if somebody publishes a speech they don't like, justice o'connor in the thomas vs. ohio case suggested you might put a number on it from the klu klux klan, put the cross on the hill. >> i asked my question before because i wanted an answer. i'll try again. it was -- i'm trying to get rid of all the conceptual basis here. you just go back -- forget the public forum, et cetera. go back to look to see is speech being hurt? and the answer is, yes. but not much. because they can put a bumper sticker. and you look at the other side of it and you say does the state have legitimate interest here? and the state says, yes. -under interest is that there are messages we like, messages we don't care about and messages we don't like, and we have a system for keeping the last off because it is the government speaking, which represents the citizens and the citizens do -- it's their government and they don't want just in the example justice scalia gave, to have their government associated with messages that this commission doesn't want. and maybe there are limits on that but that's the basic idea. now, i think you would say, harm to speech we see the other, da dow da -- dah, dah, dah. what your response. >> the response is the forum has been created -- >> forum. i can't tell who a license plate is a forum or not a forum or a three-part test. i can't get that. i'm trying to go back to the basics. >> one of the ideas that you have articulated and others on this court is what would the reasonable observer believe this was? for example, the -- would they believe that the speech is the state's speech or would they believe it's the person who bought the plate because there's no -- nothing gets communicated -- >> how about both? how about both in answer to that? it is the state's license plate, has texas on it in big letters. yes, we have to approve it. yes, we approve a lot but there's some we don't approve because it's our speech. it may be the speech itself but it is our speech. >> both those are state created and they charge more money -- >> but answer the hypothetical. justice scalia said first colleges, next scenic places. >> they can actually -- >> have the money. and suppose there's some little town that thinks it's really scenic and there's a way to petition to get on this list. you see where i'm going? at some point, if you have just a standard state plate of course that's government speech. if you have 5,000 different variations that people can create for themselves, it becomes a lot harder to say that's government speech. so where would you draw the line? >> my view is that when the people get to create a message themselves and then an organization in this case create the message for themselves, and then the people who look in the catalogue, pick out the license plate that they want and put it on their car then the speech is the speech of the person who communicated it -- >> my problem with this is how do i know? there are three categories of plates i understand. there's the official state plate, there are specialty plates created by the legislature, and there are specialty plates created by an individual. how do i tell the difference between the legislative plates which are government speech and the private plates? do i need to? what i do know is what i said at the beginning. it's both people speaking and i think both people endorsing each other's message in some way. why should the government be compelled to accept speech it rejects because it thinks it's wrong? >> in the first place -- >> does it want to be associate with directly. >> in the first place, the way people pick out plates there's a big long catalogue with 400 different organizational plates, 480, and it gross every day. of organizational plates and people pick them out of a catalogue, out of a web site, and pick the one they want to pick, and then they put it on their license plate. the communication of the information on the license plates actually is controlled entirely by the people who pick the plate. >> but what aboutity alito's hype the -- hypothetical. suppose the state by itself has ten messages 20, messages 200 messages, 2,000 messages and you can choose but the state makes up all the messages and gives you all the choices. result -- what result? >> the result is if the state has all the messages and picks all the messages and then the people who it sell thursday plates to -- >> i know that's the result of the hypothetical. i want to know the legal result the first amendment answer. >> well, the state can design all kinds of license plates that it wants to choose -- >> dot that mean as i proposed and justice alito's question consistent with the first amendment or not? >> it is not first -- the individual submits -- when other people submit the design -- >> that's not the hypothetical. the hypothetical is the state has 5,000 and makes them up and you can choose. is there a first amendment violation. >> i don't believe if the state does everything, then it's the creator of the message, and the speaker is the driver. >> what happens if private people could submit messages but they all had to go through the legislature. >> my view is it is much more difficult case for us i the legislature passes a statute because that is a legislative act and a clear act of the -- >> what's the difference then? if you think that would be all right, texas has said the dmv does it, not the legislature different branch of government but it's government just the same. >> i understand that. the issue is whether or not the -- in the cases we have court of appeals cases that don't distinguish between legislative action and nonlegislative actions and those that do. it is my judgment that the state has a greater claim making its speech when the legislature and passes the bill and the governor signs it. then the statute is clearly an explain make -- expression of the state. >> when anybody buys a license plate -- >> going back to that for a second. i take it that if i object to the message on the new hampshire plate, live free or die have a right be to disassociated with that. >> yes. >> well, if the state, which represents many people in texas, doesn't want to be associated with a particular message, why doesn't it have the right to say, we don't want that on that? we don't want that association? >> because -- >> the state represents x million people. they don't want to be associated with this message. >> i understand -- >> what's the difference? >> the difference is they invite people to make their -- they charge people and have them pay for the manufacture of the license plates by giving them the chance to design a message. that's what they do. they -- the people who come up with these things they pay the front of-end costs, put up $8,000 collateral and it is a money-making scheme they use. the fact that they choose to apparently twice in history, -- there may be more but we can't document anymore -- ever turned anybody down, this is not a forum which people actually -- they make any decision besides an economic decision factual matter, that's what happens. >> counsel, can i ask you a somewhat technical question. do you have an objection to the materials that your friend has cited from outside the record? >> to the extent he has cited issues relating to the other design, i do not have an objection to that because i think it's -- >> it's the extra record materials are accurate. >> i think almost certainly accurate. since we filed our brief and i -- the fact we have gone from 350 to 480 organizational designs since the case was tried, was not in the record either but i don't doubt that he -- he sells a lot more organizational plates since then and they keep a better tally than we do. >> what is your -- the choice that texas has -- am i right -- is nat your view if they are going to have these vanity plates have to be open to everybody, or they can set the program down and nobody gets vanity plates but maybe if the legislature passes a law or laws saying this plate is okay that might be okay. so what -- if it is the choice between everything or nothing with the exception of what the legislature does is okay? >> i believe that the best analysis is the legislature or the motor vehicle commission discriminates against people's speech on the basis of the content of the speech that is subject to serious first amendment concerns and is probably illegal although there may be some exceptions to that. that's what i think the better rule is. but we have conflicts in circuits about that, and we have not -- this court has not addressed -- that is not this case but i believe it is an issue -- >> mr. george, could i just take you back to the chief justice's question for a moment and just make sure i understand it. mr. keller has indicated that there are a number of other occasion's in which the tate has disapproved plates on the ground offense. do you have any objections to those representations? >> to the extent that it were done on the grounds of offense, i do, because he has one that i can -- that we have verified and that one is that there was a concern about danger on the drivers thinking that somebody's state trooper plate made them a state trooper. >> what if the argument were not simply offensive but higher degree that incitement or likely to give rise -- i think someone driving in texas with a swastika is likely to be treated by public violencisms the level of the state interest at all pertinent no your position? >> well, this court's law on incitement going back to brannen berg viewers ohio and the klu klux klan rally this court decided was not incitement is pretty thin at this point in our history because i don't know what the rule of incitement would be today. >> mr. george, just the worst of the worst, whether it's the swastika or the most offensive rate epithet and if that were on a license plate where it is provoking violence, somebody is going to ram into that car. >> i don't think people -- the government can discriminate on content. they can put on the license plates the disagree with. this is not the state speech. and big orange letters. and this claim that speech. perfectly legitimate legitimate. >> where is that going fit on the license plate? >> but that's -- you can put -- we have texasation routh reputation on the district of columbia's license plate and that's a political message. they can put -- >> your police is if you prevail the license plate can have a racial slur. that's your position. >> yes. >> i don't think there's any consistent position otherwise, although the state can disclaim it undowddedly on the same license plate. >> do you have to put the texasation without representation on your d.c. plate? or can you ask for a clean plate? >> i haven't -- well, i'm -- i don't live here but i believe it's required. >> if somebody objects i guess it's like live free or die, right? >> they can put it on -- tape it over. but you can put -- i'll just leave the disclaimer idea -- justice o'connor came up with that in her concurrence in the columbus ohio, klu klux klan cross on the hill case and i thought that was a pretty good idea. that we have disclaimer when you don't like the speech. and you don't believe it's appropriate. the state can do that. and i think that's largely part of the answers. this is not -- certainly not purely governmental speech because the action of the state is only approval. as to the pleasant grove city of utah case, monuments are in fact unique circumstances. this court had decided perry versus -- norton versus perry years ago involving -- justice breyer put a map of the state capitol grounds with all the monuments in it. those monuments -- when that case was decided been there over 100 years and the monument in question has been there 45 years. mon. s are different than any kind of speech in the bark because of the nature of the creation. you couldn't -- you would have monuments every seven feet, which you can't do that. and that case turns on those facts, and i believe it is absolutely correctly decided. i'm also convinced that the jonas vs. marking board was correctly decided because it started with a statute passed by congress telling the department of agriculture to do something, marketing material, have it submitted back to the secretary of agriculture, let him approve it and then go market it and level a tax on imported beef to support it. that's all government speech. >> do you know how much money texas makes from this? >> i don't have that -- it's not a line item in the budget but lots. >> that's really all this is about, isn't it? >> yes. [laughter] >> that's why texas is in the business, and so people get to -- they like what they're saying a and they don't get to do business with them when they dope like what they said. >> thank you counsel. mr. keller, you have three minutes remaining. >> you have limited rebuttal time. die have one question. you were asked the question about the republican and the democrat distinction you. said there might be -- there is a first amendment standard you can use? to deny that plate?... safety to celebrate the diverse interests that the state has. justice sotomayer. you are right. if it takes 2 to tango in this situation will you need both the state prop gating the message that is still government speech and all of this case on government space speeches have been posture. from one matter all of our sites and our apply brief and opening brief to the title 43 texas administrative code have been renumbered since the filing of our reply brief but the substance is all the same. this is not just about texas making money. though texas does make money. this is all about the state of texas not wanting to place the stamp of approval on certain messages. and a speaker is not entitled to the state of texas on whatever message that it will wish to put on the license plate. thank you mr. chief justice thank you council. the case is submitted. the supreme court heard the oral argument this week in another case. one on the epa regulations and whether the agency should have considered compliance costs before issuing powerplant emissions in 20116789 from washington journal that is a half hour. now joining us is jeremy jacobs a legal report we are the group. green wire. first of all mr. jacobs what is green wire. green wire is part of publishing and is a nonpartisan subscription based news service and the readers are a federal age see. and everyone from the sierra club to exxonmobile. and they pay to subscribe to what we write. what is it that differentiates you from some of the other publications? we are highly specialized and we cover everything that has to do with the environment. energy. the courts which is what i cover and on capitol hill or epa and the relevant agencies like the department of interior and department of energy. and we are hyper focused on those things >> this week there was a supreme court hearing. michigan verses epa. what is that case or cases? >> so this is a consolidation of three cases. one being brought by michigan and 20 other states and it is challenging a 2011 rule that epa finalized in 2011-2012. the heart of the air program to regulate emissions of toxic pollute ants like mercury, cadmium, lead coal from powerplants. to make that rule the epa who would have to determine it was appropriate and necessary to go ahead based on what epa said health risks. the states. and utility groups and associations challenged that saying that epa and the initial determination before setting a standard would consider the costs and they are expensive rules because the technology is to implement them costs a lot of the 9.6 billion dollars is what the epa said that it would cost. and so the challengers would contend that the appropriate netz words are straight out of the clean air act would include costs and not just health effects the epa rules. were they based on the congressional passed law? that's right they came out of the clean air act. and when the clean air act was amended 1990. in order to get at the pollutants that so fares have been regulated, the congress directed epa to do a utility stud sxeechlt looking at the health effects from the emission that's come out of the powerplants, specifically coal firepower plants and determined if those pollute ants were still on the rise and they still posed a health risk. they should go ahead and issue standards for them that is what the epa did shortly in the obama administration. and the obama administration. appropriate and necessary. are those words in the law? they are. who interpret receipts the appropriateness and necessary? that is the crux of the issue. right? appropriate and necessary is a vague term. the law does not say just consider health effects and it does not say just consider the health effects and costs. it is silent on that. so this got to -- the case hinged on whether epa per misissuely interpreted the appropriate and necessary to just focus on health effects. whereas the challengers say costs should have been apart of that. jeremy jacobs who will calculate the costs or benefits of the law? >> epa when it does did cost analysis and cost 9.6 billion and suggested that the benefits of the rule would be between $37 billion and $90 bill beyond. so on that scale benefits outweigh the costs. the challengers say that if the epa got to that by counting the so-called co-benefits and reductions of other things that are not mercury, and not other pollute ants to get to that. and only counting those that they would be 4 to 6 of billion dollars so you have 4 to 6 bill to 9 billion that excuse the cost analysis a little bit and if you want to talk about this particular case or the obama administration's environmental policies. 740-8,000 for democrats. 7482000. and go ahead. and dial. we will begin to take those calls right away. is this case about president obama's environmental policies? >> in a lot of ways it is. this is the third time in a year that the supreme court has reviewed a major clean air act regulation that the obama administration has issued. and the obama epa has done very well. the past two it won a case on the air pollution program for pollution that crosses the state lines and the last year 6-2 and largely prevail on the challenge of the initial greenhouse gas regulations. the program call the mercury and the air toxic standards pollution control standards that are installed because of it help the obama epa in a lot of other ways too. a lot of the other programs that it wants to implement will benefit from the mercury controls that will need to be installed should this regulation be upheld. mr. jacobs what was the reaction from the justices. had a to say it. is fairly split. you have to four conservative justices and scalia. and am samuel lido and john roberts had large misgivings whether epa would have considered costs. scalia at one point called it an outrageously expensive law and the chief justice several times said that there was reflags and asked if the epa had unusually tied its hands by not considering costs and the liberal justices elena kagan left the epa defense and said that when the law is silent on what would you consider in the appropriate and necessary determination, the deference will go to the epa interpretation. all right this. is from bob barnes piece in the "washington post" on this case. the supreme court appears to be split on the epa toxic emissions plans. the headline. and just want to get your take on the short paragraph. the states and the industries and regulations say that the annual costs of compliance under the rule will be 9.6 billion and the benefits of reduced emissions of hazardous air pollutants are only 4 to 6 billion. the epa and the environmental groups estimate the savings to be much more. from $37 billion up. how are those being calculated? >> it is 4 to 6 million they say. not billion. so >> it says billion here. i apologize. >> dramatically less. so the difference. and this is complicated. the difference is that when the epa does a cost benefit analysis. they were including the co-benefits of the reducing other pollutants like soot small particles. those are not an issue. not the namesake pollutants of the rule. whereas the namesake pollutants arsenic, america reeshgs cadmium lead that is where the industry comes with the $4 to 6 million number. dramatically less and the epa will counter reducing mercury emissions, which are as we know neurotoxics to developing fetuses, pregnant women. this is hard to quantify the health benefits of that other than to just say that things are better with continue being in the air. it is hard to quantify exactly how much benefit that there is. is this all about coal? this case is all about coal. they are coal firepower plants. initial restingly, the implication force this case are somewhat diminished because a lot of the coal industry, coal-power industry is complying with this regulation. it is due to come into effect next month when it will compliance will begin. and almost 2/3 of the coal industry is complying with standards and it is just about 20% which is yet to make up its mind on how to comply or if they are retired the old coal-firepower plants. a legal reporter. green wire. cleveland ohio. and independent line. jay you are on the air. hi good morning. listen. you know. i am very pro environment. at the same time we have to realize that just by us breathing we change our environment. so this rush to shut down and bankrupt coal in many cases leaves my head shaking. here in northeastern ohio we are in a process or have already shut down a number of coal fire plants. and i look at the scenario. we also have two old-style nuclear power plants that at some point in the near future, they will be shut down because of their age. so i am curious. where do we go with this. at some point, something will turn on an air conditioner and we will have a great lakes blackout all over again. so any ideas where we are going? obviously the renewable energy is not going to service us any time soon in this country. so do you have any comments or? thank you very much. jeremy jacobs? reporter: i think that the concerns are real. and i this i that the epa would say that there is no real risk of a blackout happening because of this mercury rule in the near future and the fact that the 2/3 of the country. including ohio is complying and blackouts have not occurred yet would indicate that they would have a devastating effect. however i would say that one way that this is addressed is the natural gas generation. natural gas plants or switching coal plants to burning natural gas. a cleaner emitting fuel. it is accomplishing a lot of what the epa is seeking to accomplish. kayla, brooklyn new york. good morning kayla. >> good morning. actually. my comment is not specifically on -- >> turn down the tv go ahead. we are listening. >> is this okay >> please go ahead. >> um the rules on coal but more on the rules of the epa should be allowed to promulgate on global warming concerning co 2 emissions. i am scared to death of it. if you follow the science, it is really frightening. death of the ocean and all sorts of stuff like that that literally, i get so scared i can't look at the reports because they are just frightening. unless we take control of these emissions, i feel we are in big trouble. >> well there are many people that share your concern about climate change. the obama administration has proposed for the first tiemme carbon monoxide and groon house gas emission left side propose last summer. there are supposed to be finalized this year. and cut groon house gas notably those have been challenged in federal court. they will be argued next month. it is unusual for a rule to be challenged before finalized but it will be interesting to see how that plays out. calling in from north conway new hampshire. republican line. tony. we are talking about the environment. the obama administration and a couple supreme court cases. hey yeah. i was going to say that if they are really concern about the carbon emissions, what they should focus on is developing nations like china and india they are putting out mass amounts of pollution based off of old antequated technologies and factories and everything like that, that we can really update by putting on trysts for their pollution and opening up patents to them so that they can have greener technologies and that stuff that we can do today that is technology that we can vastly improve today. china puts out roughly 25% of the world's carbon emissions. that is something that we can immediately lower with the technology that's we have. >> that is a good point. after the midterm elections you did see the white house and the president making some international deals or agreements to address climate change. fundamentally, the rules that i just mentioned, the ones that are proposed to deal with the greenhouse gases from the power plants they are sort of the linchpin to the negotiations because they show that the united states is taking this seriously and the united states is doing something. you know. that is a big part of the negotiations with countries like india and like china. and in order to try to force them to do more. jeremy is this a republican verses democrat issue? you know. on the hill it sort of is. especially when coming out of the economic downturn. this 9.of billion number as the cost of the merckry rules that upsets fiscal sensitive lawmakers so criticized harshly on capitol hill. jieshg has the supreme court confront at similar case whether it comes to weighing the costs and the cart costs something that the supreme court should be looking at? >> the epa has fared very well in fact the liberal justices during the argument noted. i this i that ruth bader ginsburg said something can you think of a single case that we have held that were of the law did not instruct the epa to consider the costs. and we then say that it has to. and then kagan followed up saying to go from silence in the law to making a requirement, but for the requirement it seems like a very big jump. and there is a case. another clean air case around 2001 i believe that had to deal with ozone standards where the court deferred and would consider costs. and then there is was a clean water case where the court deferred to epa's decision to do a cost benefit analysis and a case brought by environmentalists. the next call for jeremy jacobs comes from jim in ithica new york. you are on the washington journal. hello. thank you mr. jacobs. thank you for answering my question. i hear a lot in the into media about air pollution. and the power plants. the association of the environment. and maintained for the past couple of years. and with the automobile. that was one of the worst that you can do for the environment. and you know. we never hear anything about that in the media. and as a dedicated pedestrian would i say that this seems like the air is heavily polluted so just from automobiles so could you address that please. i will take your answer off of the phone >> would i consider myself a dedicated pedestrian as well. bicyclist. but you are right. a large reason that you do not hear very much about car emissions is that we have done a lot as far as cleaning up cars and car emissions. there has been several tailpipe standards and acceleration of them during the obama administration that was promulgated in the first term with the epa and the department of transportation. so they have already taken the steps to curtailing the auto emissions and playing out over 20 to 30 years. one reason is to see a lot of progress in the area. . >> is there law that's say appropriate and necessary thus being a little bit vague? it came up in an argument. appropriate necessary and necessary and proper which is in the constitution. how often those come up and how vague that they can be. and again it did come out in the argument. how commonly the words are used and i don't know how it will come down because of that. is this an unfuned mandate? i don't believe so well i guess it sort of is. and all of the costs are sheperded by the industry. making the technology improvements. but you don't hear the phrase with it too often. mike. from pennsylvania. independent. hi mike. i don't know if your guests could explain to the american people that the reason that there is an epa and the first place is that corporate america is really bad behavior. and there is a gigantic uproar in the country to do things like the canal that upset people. and corporate america to have behavior better in the first place. and maybe the epa would not be so significant. thank you. i will listen on the tv >> very good point. the major environmental statutes that we have. clean air act. and epa was establish and pass with the overwhelming bipartisan support. and richard nixon established the epa. there has been quite the change as far as the polarizing nature of these regulations and laws. so they rivers are not on fire anymore. as it happened in ohio. you can't see the pollution as much as could you before the clean air act was passed. you are right. thienz issue tifz were passed due to really terrible environmental disasters. a few minutes left with our guests. jeremy jacobs. republican line. good morning. into yes. good morning. with facilities in the 20 -- 12 countries in 12 states. one is a course. and the other is on a congressional responsibility. if you pull up the history channel too, they are running a series on showing that the earth's temperature has gone up and down. for hundreds and thousands of years. this is really silly looking at carbon emissions. i do believe that we should be looking at pollute ants and their effect on health. but here is the major, major point and the constitution says that congress is suppose to right the laws. i would propose and the mark of article 5 initiative constitutional amendment system that we will force all of your bureaucrats and executive branch that are writing laws to be transferred to congress and to be paid by congress. supervised by congress to work out these deals. we should not write such vague laws. well you hit on something some that gives it the heart of the supreme court case. and that is what to do when the agencies interpret unclear or ambiguous laws and is a concern with the supreme court about i this i that shares your concern about too much regulatory power. and regulatory ability to craft what someone would say is law. you know. to counter that argument is congress has not been particularly active in a lot of areas that are pass laws to update the law that's will need to be updated and new laws are giving the agencies more guidance. so that leads to newer problems for the agencies to deal with. jeremy jacobs does the obama administration -- how focused are they on an environmental legacy? >> i think focused. i think that the president came into office saying that he would tackle the climate change issue. he issued an immediate first round relations to include tailpipe standards and proceeded in the next 3 to 4 years to then roll out another set of rules that have been in the process of being finalized. so he has moved aggressively. and the large part that have is the international talks. and there is a recognition that the biggest pollute ors are china and india, and other countries that will need to do more. mary jane in deersville ohio. republican. yes, hello. that was just mentioned when i was going to bring up there was a caller from earlier that said you know. china has some out voted factories and things and if we would put our resources into helping them. that would be better put. our president made an agreement with chinese to cut things now even more than we have already done. and china can wait for another 30 years until they have started to implement anything. it seems to me that 30 years is too long in this day and age. we could be cutting their emissions you know. and making a true difference to our world. that is all that i have to say. it seems like we should do that. the diplomatic relations with china are similar and complicated. there has been a recognition in the administration that you're right. china will need to be addressed. but there is only so much that you can do. there is if you followed this closely there was recently a film that was released in china but journalist who is pregnant and has been adversely affected by the pollution levels there that film received a ton of of attention. in the country and whether or not that will spur any sorts of changes remains to be seen. but the china is the pollution progress nose sister significant. green wire jerry meal. you know what? two words. jeremy. thank you. for having me on the show. the next washington journal melanie campbell president and ceo of the national coalition of black civic precipitation has black women in the u.s. and michael ruben of the american enterprise institute has the latest on current conflicts in the middle east and institute of economic policies talks about their report on the fairness and the states of local tax systems in each of 50 states and always take our calls and join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is live every day 7:00 am eastern and on c span. senator harry reid announced he would be in his fifth term and he has been a democratic leader for the senate since 2007. these bruise that's have i on my face and on my eye. are an inconvenience. but trust me they are nothing compared to the bruise that's i got when i was fighting in the ring. when i was a boy, i dreamed of being an athlete. i listen today the games and i envisioned me as a man and out in the center field and yankees stadium. fenway park in above the only. but the joy that i have gotten with the work that i have done for the people of the state of nevada has been just as fulfilling as if i would have played center field at yankees stadium. the job of minority leader in the united states senate is just as important as majority leader and gefz you an opportunity for the country. that is what i am focused on. this accident has caused us for the first time to have a downtime and i have had time to ponder and to think that we have to be concerned about the country. the senate. state of nevada and us. as a result of that i am not going to run for election don't be too elated. i will be here 22 months. i will be doing the same thing when i first came to the senate. we have to make sure that the democrats will take control of the senate again. i feel that it is inappropriate for me to soak up the resources to the caucus. that is what i will intend to do. the decision that's have i made have absolutely nothing to do with my injury. has nothing to do with my being a minority leader and has nothing to do with my ability to be reelected. the path is much easier than it has been in any time that i have been for a reelection. i get a little bit upset sometimes when i hear politicians say that they will go and spend time with their families after they have decide that had they are not going to be in politics anymore. is he a wonderful husband and wonderful father. so that is more important than the other things that he has been with his life. someone with my up bringing and background to have the friends that have i had is really a miracle. and i want people to know in the state of nevada oyama grateful. i have done my bet. have i not been perfect but i have really tried my hardest to represent the people of the state of nevada. lots of reaction to senator reid's announcement including this from majority leader mitch mcconnell -- here are the featured programs for the weekend on the c-span network. saturday 10:00 p.m. peter wall is only says that the government housing policies caused the 2008 financial crisis that could happen again. and on sunday afternoon at 5:00 the director of colombia university on the development plan to counter global issues like poverty, political corruption. and environmental decay. this is a discussion on the last major speeches on abraham lincoln. and sun afternoon 4:00. real america and the 1965 meet the press interview with martin luther king jr. for the complete television schedule go to c-span.org. and call us 2 02 send us the tweet at c-span comment. join the conversation. and like us on facebook. fouls on twitter. coming up. how the experience for voters can be improved and issues surrounding the u.k.'s upcoming again election in may. and later on. the supreme court oral axe argument. we want to welcome that you a little bit over a year ago and issued recommendations and here today we will talk about progress that has been made, and where to go from here. my role is simple to introduce the commissioners and turning it over for an discussion about the commission and then throughout the day we will have other panels talking about various panels made by the commission. i will start with long bios and the commissioners and turn it over to them. i have ruth bader ginsburg. former general council to mitt romney. and bob bower. former general council to president obama and the election efforts as well white house council. michelle maes coming up from the business world and the new york public library. and tammy patrick. maricopa county. arizona. commissioners ann mcgene of the elections in texas and chris thomas. a current state director of elections and michigan. and in the middle. a research director law director and research direct ofrt commission. looking for the initial remarks and the commission's one-year anniversary. thank you so much for being here delightful for senior research directors and as you know, the goal of the commission from the very beginning was to gather together, views from across the country. election administrations and experts. voters. voting rights communities and across the board. on a fully bipartisan basis. to determine what could be done to make a voting process more functional for voters. obviously the origin rests behind the commission was in the reduction of the long lines that became an issue that was much discussed in the political process in the course of the election. but it was widely understood that there was a whole series of other questions. questions that fit into the issue of lines but other questions that bordered on the american voting experience. that is the title of the report. inquiry into the american voting experience. and how to significantly improve it. i was delighted to serve with ben ginsburg. they worked extraordinary well together and a collaborative effort across entire united states with the democrats. republicans and independents participating in the conversation about the importance of voting rights and the particular administration of the second to ever the public administration as a means of making elections work. and steering clear of the other controversies. controversies that we will have in the process and zeroing in on the questions of how to improve the very basic experience that eligible voters have in registering and going to the polls and voting and having significant confidence that votes will be successfully and accurately counted. so we were very grateful for that experience. and very grateful that the outcome was well received as it was. and we are into the implementation phase and i want to thank john and the bipartisan policy center and the various organization that's have supported the implementation efforts that the bipartisan policies. excellent decision in bringing on board. steering on the former efforts and commissioner tammy patrick here maricopa county. arizona. dontong palmer of formally secretary of state. the state of virginia and expert in the process and also i want to recognize the ongoing contributions personally of the law school that has been made. our view is that there is a conversation taking place. and we would feed into. working on the report writing into the report. we are in an implementation phase and continuing to develop to produce a meanling full results for the voters across the country. so i am delight today be here. and i am delighted for the opportunity. i will turn it over to co-chair ben ginsburg. thank you bob. this past year is this year and an of half has really been an honor, privilege and a pleasure to work with bob. nate and the commissioneres to come up with the series of the recommendations and best practices. the truth of course is that bob and i have battled over many partisan battles over more years than bob cares to admit. and it really was a tremendous opportunity for us to be able to come together over these issues. republicans and democrats agree that the ability of qualified voters to cast their votes fairly. and without barriers is a fundamental part of the system and will need to be encouraged everywhere. one of the things that have you taught suspect that we have an interesting system with jurisdiction that's have a response a little bit for putting on elections. the uniformity is challenging and it is one of the things that the commission saw. but for the few numbers of jurisdictions where there are problems there. are jurisdiction that's do the individual parts of voting whether it is lines or registration or proper polling places. very very well. so the great opportunity that we had and the great educational experience that i think bob and i are able to share was to talk to so many election officials around the country to see the great skills and dedication that they have to the problem. so i hope that our report is attest amount to being able to find solutions to problems and then having them implemented in those jurisdictions and among 8,000 that do have problems in one of these areas. it is certainly worth noting what a great process that it was to work with my fellow commissioners and with nate and with all of the folks that came in and talked to us at the hearings that we had around the country. so i hope that this report is the start of something that will now be implemented thanks to john fortier and the bipartisan policy. and tammy and dontong palmer as we will go forward. it is certainly true that it is a difficult process to get all of the elements of this report implemented. that really is a state by state operation and that is the vote where the successes and challenges of the project will lay. so with that let me again thank john for what is going on. and bob for the terrific year. and for nate for making us all smart. and all of the commissioners for your wisdom and your insights on how to solve these problems. during the day. we are going to delve more deeply into the four issues which the commission made major recommendations on. the commission i have not counted literal ration that's there are. especially because there are self definitely specific realm rations and the four areas that we will talk about today are improving the polling place response experience. and replacing the polling place lines and the voting technology issues. associated with the new generation of the voting machines and how we will certify and test them. and the possibility of the earlier voting and how the states are moving to that. and may move to that more effectively. and a number of the issues that are related to voter registration. online registration and data sharing. working with the dmvs. so we do have a little bit of time and this initial panel that will touch things off to say something about the issues and maybe i can ask the commissioneres to say something about that. maybe the voting technology issue is one that i know our esteemed co-chairs probably did not think would come into the commission to say that this is the thing where we are going to make major recommendations about but do you want to say something about that issue? or a couple of others that maybe you would jump into broad things about the others? sure. john is right. the technology and the problems with our existing machines was not something that we anticipated talking about at the beginning of the process. in our various meeths and hearings in the country. it was clear that every election official faces the problem of the machines bought in the earlier 2000s right now. kind of running out of juice. and there was an additional problem in that the technology standards that would have to be pass today bring new equipment to market had not been updated since 2007 which is before the ipad was invented and by the way. ought to be able to cast a ballot on an ipad these days. that is a fundamental problem that we saw that we got a tremendous amount of help to come up with rm ages. matt master son. christie campbell and the folks with tom hicks in the eac have really got a lot of the lion's share of getting this put into place. so it will be a solution to it. and i think that it is one of the things that came out of the commission was hopefully by being able to put focus on it. and chris thomas who is one of our commissioners has spent a tremendous amount of time in his role in michigan and in dealing with the issue. i will task you with saying something about the administration. as well. i know that you care deeply about aspects of the administration. and in particular. the debt. the motor vehicles and michigan is really a model for working with the election office. and sharing lists do not want to say something about that, as a key recommendation? it is key. as my co-chair indicated, there is a lot on the table. voting systems are one of them that we see approaching. but an ongoing one has been the full implementation of the national voter registration act that really has not yet occurred. this report helped to highlight that. and every person who is eligible ought to be a registered voter and have that opportunity doing business with the department of motor vehicles. and what data shows, this is not the case. so we have highlighted that here as a way of really across the board to get a higher registration rate to make it more convenient for voters. what this vote is all about. is the voter. not political parties or officials but the voters making an experience a better experience on election day. the worst thing is not knowing if your name is on the book. but your drivers license will have a proper address on the. when the dmv steps up to fully implement the we will get a lion's share of the provisional ballots that also would cause lines on election day. would the commissioners like to say something about the polling place lines? that was maybe the initial comments that spurred this creation of the one of of the areas. we will have a panel later. one of the areas that we would work after the commission with the specific counties on issues is. would you say something about your findings online? sure i will. good morning everyone. great to see everybody again. and to get the band back together. here. the top of the table. it is correct lines spurred the commissions genesis. what we saw in the executive order is that it laid out ten discreet areaes to look at. and one of those tied directly into resource allocation and what causes lines whether it is the inaccuracy of the voter roles or malfunction voting equipment. and what we found is that we went around the country is that lines occur for various reasons at various points in time. during an election day. the same polling place. so this is a tough nut to crack. in deciding what would cause the lines but what we are finding. what we saw in the hearings and local elections are here today, and that election officials are looking for the data to try to discern why the lines are occurring. and looking to the facts to mitigate that from occurring in the future. with it is one thing to cut through the den of the problems with a particular polling place because of the machines that have broken down. then you find out that it had nothing to do with the machines breaking down but in fact it was a problem with poll workers liking and being kind to each other. and listening to what they are suppose to do. there is a wide reason that lines occurring. so had a we did was it was an at thats to be say. how with can we provide the tools to local officials to decide on lines and how to address them whether they occur. we did make a recommendation in the report that the voters should not have to wait longer than 30 minutes in order to get to appoint where they are talking to an election official and get their ballot. that sort of thing. so that was really for the means of when you are doing the resource allocations of the poll workers to hire. the pieces of equipment to have and ballots issue order to try to think about it in terms of processing these people within 30 minutes. so we provided tools. they are out on the support the voter. www support the voter.gov. there are tools here to allow election officials here to go in. and everyone is publicly available to put in the expect turnout and the registered voters however you will want to cut that up. and how many things that you would be allocating. so what we found from the election officials is that there are challenges with the resources and in some case this is is a lack of resources. some case this is is a quality of the resources that they have. and in other case this is is the point of allocation of the resources. so putting what you have in the right places to best service your public. we are hopeful that the tools that we have provided will help to the local administrator in doing that. and i this that i is apart for me. the commission and report. we will really thought of as having separate audience there's. and an audience there. to require the state legislation to not enact. like online voter registration. and then there is also things that state election administrators will do. rules and things that local administrators will do just by maybe adjusting some of the processes. in that, that is where we will want to make sure that there was tools provided to everyone engaged to make sure that the voters are well served. i would like to return to nate and the commission. tammy rightly mentioned date a and the data drif end. one person which made the call more than anybody else. and it was nate personally. calling for more and better date a and out into the field. and engaging political scholars and stuff like data and can you say a little bit about your efforts to really make this commission data driven. thank you again. we will talk a little bit about that. i am wist full. and bringing the band back together. will overcome me. [laughter] and i will say the research effort. appointed research director was the product of the work of political scientists being among them as other occasions. there will be valuable as charles stuart is. and the field of election that we do not know what to do without him. and darren shaw. and the team of researchers. and featured this month in the law journal. and the efforts included. a survey. an actual survey the election officials and also included the series of the research papers and all of the topics in the executive order. we had a dozen or between one or two dozen political scientists and working with the commission to provide them the best data. notably in the report towards the end, there is a plea for more and better data from the jurisdictions and to try to sort of replicate what we were doing in the commission and in away over time to bring the information sort of to make it. a more professional data driven exercise. and there is as charles stuart is saying this. is not an area where we do not have that much data. there is a lot out there. and there is not easily accessible to a lot of the professional that's would like to use it to improve elections. let me say one final thing this picks up. and what bob and ben had said about the success of the commission. there is a sense of which the process it seems like it would be inevitable that the commission will come together. unanimously. in the recommendations so it really is attest amount to their efforts and the design of the commission that we. the commission is able to do whatever it did. and it is sort of unique. i think in the era of the polarization to have two people like bob and ben who are trusted by the parties and will lead the effort like this with the professionals that are on the commission to come together really to sort of deal with the problem that's are widely known in election administrations and to deal with them in a nonpartisan way. and the spirit that you see in the report is one that we will recommend and hope will continue after the reports release and recommendations as bob said was to begin to think of election administrations as a problem solving profession along the lines that i was saying. we have a little bit of more time. if we can take that. one obvious point is that the commission itself is having boundaries and limitation that's would not take on every issue with the administration. and there is a lot that the parties could find common ground on. pryly. the report will look to the state and local changes in law. and rules. activities. and not really so much looking at the federal role. but there is a couple of other areas that maybe we will briefly touch on, we will touch on that later on in the day. earlier voting. and i guess one other aspect of the voter registration. as talked about the dmv aspect and the koimgs recommended online voter registration as well as a number of the ways of which states will share data across those of accurate sees of the lists. and bob would you like to say something about one of the areas and they could jump in as well. one in particular that i think is worth mentioning is that role of the voter choice. voter preference. one of the clear-cut signals that we got from the election administrators and we certainly picked it up in the hearings is that voters have a certain set of expect takes of how they will be treated in the voting process. they would like that to operate the way that they do in their lives. they have sort of a desire in their lives for a certain degree of flexibility. and they would certainly like to be treated by the electrical process if you will. the customers. and given the same sort of consideration that the best businesses will give the people that they treat as customers. so, to the significant amount, this is a significant degree in the course of the conversation it was very clear that the voice that was heard loudest in the room was the voice of the voters and this is a question of multiple opportunities to vote that is one of the recommendations. earlier voting if you will as one way to describe it. but there is a whole host of the other ways that voters will have an opportunity to cast their ballots in advance of the election day. and as an alternative to try to schedule the voting moment during the one on tuesday. and particularly for example in the presidential election year that would be voting at the same time. we just found that the time and again. the question that we were could not front with is what are we doing to improve the voting experience and are we listening to what voters are telling us and they found that the administrators are on a bipartisan basis. to voters and blue and red states are in between. what they were saying about what they would need and the multiple opportunities to vote is a good example of that. however it is structured. those are choice that's the voters are asking for. that was along with making sure that the decisions were data driven. we would not have to worry about that. driven to be data driven and charles. we are listening to the voter. do you want to jump in on one of the topics? shufrment i will jump in to say an up could of comments about the earlier voting. which bob, plained. what was interesting was that no matter where we went. we have the uniformed concensus. you know. that it would be good to alleviate congestion on will bes day. it is a choke hold to force all voteres to vote within the 12-hour period in a single day. that is an invitation of problemses and will contribute to the long lines. what we saw was not one-size-fits-all. and some of the states have expanded and created the earlier voting in person. that will gift voters multiple opportunities and chances not multiple times to vote. they will have the multiple tune to its take advantage of the earlier voting when it is convenient for the schedule. also we heard from northwestern states and colorado that have had huge success with the voting by mail. and so recommendations from the commission was not just saying it will have to be earlier voting by the personal appearance but works for jurisdiction and limitations within the jurisdiction. what we also heard was that in addition to alleviating the pressure points on election day voters will love the opportunity as bob was saying. they will appreciate the choice and in texas we have been doing the earlier voting since 1987 and we could never do away with it because the voters will demand it. so we will talk about that later on today that was a highlight. having a lot of of different ways inform do it. it gets confusing. we did find interestingly, that the different locations and jurisdictions have different preferences of what that means so what one jurisdiction will mean with the multiple opportunities to cast one ballot in one part of the country is quite different in another, and that emphasizes the local nature that we have of elections generally and that solutions or fixes to the problems we are articulating will come state by state and jurisdiction by jurisdiction. there are two programs out there that help the states in their roles so when voters go in the ballot box and cast their vote there is not confusion over whether they should be there or not. those are important bipartisan improvements that can be made. >> working a shift to a second part, were not going to have a break but were in a shift to a second part of this session. we have neil eggleston who will be with

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Nevada , Maricopa County , Arizona , New Hampshire , Texas , China , Illinois , Columbus , Ohio , Colombia , Virginia , Oregon , Michigan , Washington , District Of Columbia , Oklahoma , India , Palmer As , Valle Del Cauca , Center Field , Colorado , Pleasant Grove , Utah , Pennsylvania , Texas Well , Capitol Hill , Jersey , Chicago , Texans , America , Chinese , American , Tom Hicks , Brannen Berg , Charles Stuart , Mary Jane , John Roberts , Chris Thomas , John Walker , Jeremy Jacobs , Martin Luther King Jr , Abraham Lincoln , Darren Shaw , Harry Reid , Klux Klan , Bob Bower , Tammy Patrick , Michelle Maes , Al Qaeda , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Melanie Campbell , Mitch Mcconnell , Bob Barnes , Neil Eggleston , Richard Nixon , John Fortier , Klux Klan Cross , Ben Ginsburg , Christie Campbell , Elena Kagan , Michael Ruben ,