with the State, and the legislature determined that the plate will bear the message “Choose Life.” The State thus exercises complete editorial control over the content of the speech on the Choose Life plate. As a result, the second factor also weighs in favor of finding government speech. Finally, I consider the third and fourth factors of the SCV test: the “identity of the literal speaker” and “whether the gov- eminent or the private entity bears the ultimate responsibility” for the speech. SCV, 288 F.3d at 621. As to the third factor, I note, as our court did in SCV, that the Supreme Court has held that even messages on standard license plates are associated at least partly with the vehicle owners. Id. at 621; Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 717, 97 S.Ct. 1428, 51 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977) (<HOLDING>). This association is much stronger when the
holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge floridas choose life license plate under either the establishment clause or the free speech clause of the first amendment holding that a new hampshire statute requiring vehicles to bear license plates with the state motto live free or die not obscured could not be constitutionally enforced because it violated the defendants first amendment right to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster in the way new hampshire commands an idea they find morally objectionable recognizing first amendment retaliation right holding that vehicle owner had first amendment right to cover the live free or die motto on new hampshire plate holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment