Austin Removes Rainbow Crosswalks Following State and Federal Government Orders

In a move that has sparked significant local and national discussion, several rainbow-painted crosswalks in Austin, Texas, have been removed or repainted in early 2023. This action follows direct orders from both state and federal transportation authorities, who assert that the crosswalks constitute unauthorized “political ideologies” displayed on public rights-of-way. The situation highlights a growing tension between municipal desires for inclusive public art and state/federal regulations governing highway aesthetics and messaging. This article provides a comprehensive, fact-based examination of the events, the legal framework involved, and the implications for communities nationwide.

Key Points

Background: The Rise of Rainbow Crosswalks and Austin’s Installation

Rainbow-painted crosswalks, often called “Pride Crosswalks,” emerged in the early 2010s as a form of public art and a visible show of support for LGBTQ+ rights. The first was installed in Philadelphia in 2010, and the concept quickly spread to cities across the United States and globally. They are typically installed through a collaborative process involving city governments, local artists, and community organizations, often aligned with Pride Month celebrations or as part of broader public art initiatives.

Austin’s Adoption of Rainbow Crosswalks

Austin, known for its vibrant culture and progressive leanings within Texas, installed its first rainbow crosswalk in 2017 near the intersection of 4th Street and Congress Avenue in the downtown area. This was followed by additional installations in neighborhoods with significant LGBTQ+ populations, such as the East Austin and Bouldin Creek areas. These crosswalks were approved by the Austin Transportation Department as part of the city’s “Art in Public Places” program and were intended to serve as permanent, celebratory landmarks promoting diversity and safety.

The installations were generally well-received, becoming popular photo spots and tangible symbols of Austin’s self-stated identity as a welcoming city. However, their presence on streets that are part of the state highway system (like many major Austin arterials) placed them under the ultimate jurisdiction of TxDOT, a fact that would later become critically important.

Analysis: The Legal and Regulatory Framework

The removal order rests on a specific interpretation of long-standing federal and state law. Understanding this framework is key to grasping why a locally approved art project was deemed illegal by higher authorities.

The Federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965

The central federal statute is the Highway Beautification Act (HBA), enacted during the Johnson administration. Its primary goal was to control visual clutter along the nation’s interstate and primary highway systems to preserve scenic beauty. The HBA requires states to have effective programs to regulate “outdoor advertising control” and prohibits the erection of “any sign, display, or device” that does not comply with state standards for size, lighting, and spacing on these highways.

The critical legal question is whether a painted crosswalk—a modification of the pavement itself—constitutes a “sign, display, or device” under the HBA. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which administers the act, has consistently taken the position that non-standard pavement markings that convey a message (beyond standard traffic instructions) fall under this definition. In guidance issued to states, FHWA has stated that such markings can be considered “displays” if they are intended to communicate a particular viewpoint or message, especially one of a political or social nature.

Texas State Law and TxDOT’s Enforcement

Texas state law mirrors and reinforces the federal HBA. The Texas Transportation Code grants TxDOT authority to regulate “highway advertising” and “displays” on state highway rights-of-way. In recent years, TxDOT has intensified its enforcement of these provisions, issuing formal memoranda clarifying that all non-standard markings, including those on crosswalks, require state approval.

In the specific case of the Austin rainbow crosswalks, TxDOT determined that the designs were “political in nature” and had been installed without the required state permit. The agency’s stance is that the rainbow flag is a widely recognized symbol of the LGBTQ+ rights movement, and its display on a public roadway therefore constitutes advocacy for a specific socio-political cause. This interpretation aligns with a broader trend in Texas and other Republican-led states where legislation has been proposed or enacted to restrict the display of LGBTQ+ symbols or themes in government spaces, often framed as promoting “neutrality” or preventing “government endorsement” of a particular viewpoint.

The “Political Ideology” Designation and Its Consequences

The phrase “political ideologies” is central to the government’s argument. By classifying the rainbow crosswalk as a political display, authorities place it in the same regulatory category as campaign signs, ideological banners, or commercial advertisements—all of which are heavily restricted or banned on state highways. This classification is controversial. Advocates for the crosswalks argue that they are not “political” in a partisan sense but are instead affirmations of human rights, dignity, and community safety for LGBTQ+ individuals, akin to other civic symbols like “Welcome” signs or memorials.

However, in administrative law, the definition of “political” is often broad. Precedent from similar cases suggests that symbols strongly associated with a specific social movement can be deemed political by regulating bodies. The legal battle thus hinges on whether the government’s interest in maintaining “scenic beauty” and “neutrality” on highways outweighs the community’s interest in expressive conduct in a public forum.

Context: A Nationwide Pattern of Conflict

Austin’s situation is not isolated. Similar clashes have occurred in states like Idaho, Tennessee, and Florida, where state transportation departments have ordered the removal of Pride flags, Black Lives Matter murals, or other community symbols from state-owned roads or overpasses. Conversely, some cities with strong home-rule authority (like San Francisco or New York) have successfully defended similar installations by arguing they fall under local land-use powers or constitute permissible government speech.

In Texas, the dynamic is particularly pronounced due to the state’s strong preemption laws, which limit the ability of cities like Austin—which operates under a “home rule” charter—to enact ordinances that conflict with state statutes or agency rules. This legal hierarchy means that even a unanimous vote by the Austin City Council in favor of the crosswalks would not override a permit denial from TxDOT for a state highway.

Practical Advice for Residents and Advocates

For Austin residents and community organizers who support the rainbow crosswalks or similar expressive public art, the removal presents a challenge but not a complete end to advocacy. Here are actionable steps based on legal and civic strategies:

1. Understand the Jurisdictional Divide

The first step is to determine the exact ownership of the street where a crosswalk is located. If the road is maintained by the city of Austin (not a state highway like Guadalupe Street or Lamar Boulevard), the city may have more autonomy. Advocates should request clarity from the Austin Transportation Department on which crosswalks were on city-controlled streets versus state-controlled rights-of-way. Pressure can be applied to the city to protect those within its sole jurisdiction.

2. Engage in the Official Permit Process

For any future installations on state highways, the formal path is to apply for a permit from TxDOT. While the agency’s