ACLJ Vindicates Free Speech Rights of NC Board of Elections Official To Display “We Vote Pro-Life” Bumper Sticker on Her Personal Car | American Center for Law and Justice
  Search  |  Login  |  Register

ACLJ Profile Completion


Pro-Life NC Election Official's Free Speech Rights Vindicated

By Francis J. Manion1601491736749

It’s hard to imagine a less offensive bumper sticker than the generic “We Vote Pro-Life” sticker we’ve all seen while sitting in traffic or maybe walking through our church’s parking lot. Nothing edgy, no graphic pictures, nothing in your face. Just four words, usually superimposed on an American flag-type background.  It’s not imperative. Unlike many bumper stickers, it doesn’t tell the readers what they should do. It just says what “we” – presumably the car’s owner and family – do.

And because the sentiment it expresses is so generic that it applies to all elections across the years, often enough the “We Vote Pro-Life” sticker is worn and faded with maybe an edge or two peeling off. Nothing you’d necessarily expect even the most ardent abortion zealot to get too excited about, right?

Well, maybe wrong. Consider what happened recently to Lorraine LeGates, an election official in North Carolina whose not-so-new minivan has sported a not-so-new “We Vote Pro-Life” bumper sticker for years. Lorraine was called on the carpet by her boss in the county Board of Elections office. She was directed to remove the bumper sticker from her car forthwith. The sticker, she was told, was inappropriate for someone working in the elections office and, moreover, was a violation of North Carolina law.

Lorraine was skeptical but, understandably, concerned about her position. So she contacted us here at the ACLJ. We quickly established some facts. Lorraine’s car was her family’s car, not owned by the county, with nothing on the car to identify it as belonging to anybody connected with the Board of Elections. The car was never parked in a county parking lot; rather, like other county employees, Lorraine parked in whatever parking spaces happened to be available along the public street where the building housing the Board of Elections and other tenants was located.

At Lorraine’s request, we prepared a letter explaining that public employees have First Amendment free speech rights too. As the Supreme Court said in the case of Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 154 (1983), “Our responsibility is to ensure that citizens are not deprived of fundamental rights by virtue of working for the government . . . .”  As the Court later put it, “So long as employees are speaking as citizens about matters of public concern, they must face only those speech restrictions that are necessary for their employers to operate efficiently and effectively.” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 419 (2006). We pointed out that whatever arguably valid concerns might hypothetically be raised about a public employee’s private expression of her views being misconstrued as the official position of her government employer, those concerns weren’t present under Lorraine’s circumstances. No reasonable person would be likely to recognize that, in this situation, “We Vote Pro-Life” was even being said by a public employee.

We then showed that the concern about North Carolina law was also unfounded. That law prohibits county election officials and employees from making or disseminating statements supporting or opposing “clearly identified candidates for public office.” So, unless there happened to be somebody running for office with the unlikely surname of “Pro-Life,” it would be hard to imagine how anybody could misinterpret the faded bumper sticker on the minivan parked ten cars up the street from a county Board of Elections office as running afoul of the North Carolina law.

Lorraine presented our letter to her boss who passed it along to the County Attorney. We’re happy to report that the County Attorney agreed with our interpretation. Lorraine and her family are keeping “We Vote Pro-Life” on their van – although they have replaced the worn-out sticker with a fresh one!

We at the ACLJ were pleased and honored to go to bat for Lorraine LeGates as we have been honored to represent pro-life citizens for decades across the country and around the world. Sometimes we have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to vindicate our pro-life clients’ rights. Sometimes, as here, it only takes a fairly simple letter and some common sense. But whatever it takes – and especially now in the thick of election season where issues of life are increasingly at the forefront – we stand ready to advance the cause of freedom of speech for those, like Lorraine LeGates, who speak for the voiceless.

Stop the Abortion Distortion from Silencing Life

Pro Life  Signatures


Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.

Make this a monthly tax-deductible gift.

As we take on the abortion industry at the Supreme Court and fight to save babies, have your gift DOUBLED today to defend life. Have your gift doubled through our Matching Challenge.

Email Address is required.
First Name is required.
Last Name is required.
Credit Card Number is required.
Verification Code is required.
Expiration Month is required.
Expiration Year is required.
Receive the latest news, updates, and contribution opportunities from ACLJ.
Encourage your friends to sign and donate by sharing this petition.
Latest in
Free Speech

CNN Calls to Eliminate Conservative News (Sekulow Recap)

By Jordan Sekulow1611008358465

CNN wants the elimination of conservative news. Today on Sekulow , we discussed CNN’s call to eliminate conservative news. There were horrifying comments in support of censoring conservatives being made and accepted over the weekend on Brian Stelter’s show on CNN. Here’s what former Facebook...

read more

BREAKING: Senate Judiciary to Subpoena Twitter CEO Over Censorship

By Jordan Sekulow1602798084449

The Senate Judiciary Committee is going to subpoena Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey over censorship. On today’s Jay Sekulow Live , we discussed the Senate Judiciary Committee announcing its intentions to subpoena the Twitter CEO over censorship of conservatives and even the press and to hold a hearing next...

read more

The Johnson Amendment’s Continued Impediment to the Church

By Mark Goldfeder1600960199483

The Johnson Amendment is the controversial provision in the U.S. tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from participating or intervening in “any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” As it relates to churches and other...

read more

Big Tech Censorship and Bias – What Do We Do About It?

By Craig Parshall1591794000000

On May 28th, 2020 President Donald Trump released his Executive Order (“EO”) titled, “Preventing Online Censorship.” In releasing the full text of the EO, mainstream media outlets like NBC news were quick to criticize the Presidential order, characterizing it as just a “response to Twitter,” which...

read more