Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personalized License Plates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Michigan Department of State seeks to codify personalized license-plate review process
Summary
The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules heard Department of State testimony to adopt rules that formalize the agency's existing review process for personalized license-plate requests, including an appeal mechanism and ongoing review for changing language.
The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules heard testimony on a proposed rule set (25-57) from the Michigan Department of State that would codify the agency’s current process for reviewing personalized license plate applications, staff said at the committee’s meeting.
The rule package would place in administrative rules the Department of State’s review process — developed with the ACLU after litigation in the mid-2010s — for deciding whether proposed personalized plate messages are acceptable. Department lawyers said the rule mirrors the existing policy and contains no substantive changes.
Erin Shore, presenting for the department, described a multi-person review committee that assesses each application and the plate type. “Each review is done on a very individualized, nuanced process,” Erin Lilly of the department’s legal team added, noting that some wording may be acceptable on certain specialty plates and not on others and that the agency reviews changes in slang or usage over time.
The presenters said the rule includes an appeal process for residents who believe an issued plate later acquires a negative connotation and that the department has posted the procedure on its website. Lilly told the committee the rule originated after a prior statute was struck down by the courts for vagueness and that the department’s current practice has existed since about 2014 or 2015. “This is the exact same policy. There were no changes,” Lilly said.
Representative Brenda Carter asked how the rule aligns with the Michigan Vehicle Code; the department replied that the previously struck statute remains on the books but is not being enforced in the same way and that the rule is intended to reflect current administrative practice. Senator Stephanie Bueno asked whether similar matters are being litigated at the federal level; the department said the prior Michigan litigation was adjudicated in federal court under First Amendment claims but declined to characterize ongoing federal litigation.
Department witnesses said the proposed rules underwent the standard rulemaking process, that they received no public comments and that no one attended the public hearing. The department also distributed examples of plate text that are not issued; presenters said the full list exceeds 600 pages and provided a shorter handout.
No formal committee vote on the rule set was recorded during the meeting; committee members moved on to other items on the agenda after questions and discussion.
