BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
LOU CORREA, CHAIRMAN
Bill No: SB 443
Author: Strickland
Version: As amended March 24, 2011
Hearing Date: April 12, 2011
Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Donald E. Wilson
SUBJECT OF BILL
Orcutt Veterans Memorial
PROPOSED LAW
Authorize a veteran's memorial at the location of the
state-owned Orcutt park and ride on State Highway Route
135.
EXISTING LAW AND BACKGROUND
1. Civilizations have long constructed memorials to remind
subsequent generations of what mattered to a society's
culture.
2. According to the author's office, "The state has
authorized numerous memorials honoring fallen police
officers, firefighters, and veterans. Most of these
memorials are within the State Capitol Park; however, the
Legislature has authorized memorials at Bodega Bay and
Oakland."
3. Roadway distractions are considered a safety hazard and
have generally been discouraged.
4. In 1983 the state Department of Transportation (DOT)
prohibited individuals from displaying signs on freeway
overpasses without a permit process. The American Flag,
for obvious reasons, was not viewed as needing a permit to
be displayed.
5. Political activist sued the DOT on the basis that first
amendment rights were violated.
6. The U.S. District Court in San Jose made the incredible
decision that somehow the American Flag was a form of
political expression and, therefore, found bias in flying
the American Flag in absence of political propaganda.
Based on this premise the court decided that the DOT must
have a "content neutral" policy.
7. Post September 11, 2001, individuals began hanging
signs from freeway overpasses. In November of 2001 a
police officer removed some signs against the war on
terror, but this time failed to take down another banner.
So political activist sued not just on the political end
but once again over the fact the American Flags were flying
in of all places - the United States of America.
8. Once again the court determined that the American Flag
is not the symbol of the United States of America but in
the post 9/11 world is merely a political statement.
9. In March of 2011, Cal-Trans denied the use of state
land for a veteran's memorial in Orcutt.
COMMENT
1. Public perception is that Cal-Trans denied the veterans
memorial for fear of violating the court order against
content neutral displays.
2. Cal-Trans position is understandable since it is not a
stretch to think that the same type of activist who would
sue to stop the display of the United States flag within
the boundaries of the United States would also sue to
prevent honoring those who defended the boundaries of the
country.
3. This memorial should not fall under the original
provisions for safety of prohibiting displays on freeway
overpasses since this memorial would be in a parking area.
Page 2
SUPPORT
None received
OPPOSE
None received
Page 3