Summers v. Adams (669 F. Supp. 2d 637, 2009)

OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE, District Judge.

This case presents a textbook example of the need for and continued vitality of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly warned that “government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization.” See, e.g., County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 590, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989) (emphasis added). This limitation on government action is based on the clear understanding of our founders that “a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion.” Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962).

Despite such clearly established law, this state’s limited resources have been used to promote, pass, and defend a state law, the “I Believe” Act, which authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles (“the DMV”) to issue a license plate which must contain “the words T Believe’ and a cross superimposed on a stained glass window.” S.C.Code Ann. § 56-3-10510. Such a law amounts to state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular. As Justice Blackmun, speaking for the majority, explained in Allegheny:

Whatever else the Establishment Clause may mean (and we have held it to mean no official preference even for religion over nonreligion), ... it certainly means at the very least that government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other religions). The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.

492 U.S. at 605, 109 S.Ct. 3086 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Contrary to the arguments of Defendant Marcia S. Adams (“Adams”) and Attorney General Henry McMaster (“Attorney Gen. McMaster”), who appears as amicus curiae, the “I Believe” Act cannot be seen by any reasonable observer either as facilitating expression of a broad diversity of viewpoints (Adams’ argument), or as a permissible accommodation to Christians (Attorney Gen. McMaster’s argument). Both positions are belied by the facts that the “I Believe” Act (1) authorizes a single plate with a uniquely Christian message, (2) was sponsored and approved solely as the result of governmental action, and (3) presents its message in a manner that is not available except through the legislative approval process (necessary to allow the inclusion of both motto and symbol). The first of these facts precludes a finding of any “context” which would save it from unconstitutionality. See Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 613-21, 109 S.Ct. 3086 (Blackmun, J.); 632-37, 109 S.Ct. 3086 (O’Connor, J.); see also id. at 651, 109 S.Ct. 3086 (“[Displays of this kind inevitably have a greater tendency to emphasize sincere and deeply felt differences among individuals than to achieve an ecumenical goal. The Establishment Clause does not allow public bodies to foment such disagreement.”) (Stevens, J., dissenting in part) (emphasis added). The latter two facts preclude a finding that the plate is a mere accommodation because they distinguish the “I Believe” plate from any plate approved or available to private organizations through the non-legislative process.

The “I Believe” Act had its genesis in Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer’s desire to do here what had been unsuccessful in the state of Florida — to gain legislative approval of a specialty plate promoting the majority religion: Christianity. Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same. The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation.

For the reasons summarized above and addressed in more detail below, the court: (1) grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief asserted against Defendants Adams and Ozmint in their official capacities; but (2) finds that qualified immunity bars the claim for damages asserted against Adams in her individual capacity.

Procedural Background

Plaintiffs include four religious leaders and two non-profit religious-cultural organizations (collectively “Plaintiffs”). In their initial and first amended complaints, Plaintiffs challenged the “I Believe” Act on two grounds. First, they argued that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment) because it constitutes government action that advances, endorses, or promotes religion. Second, they argued that it violates the Free Speech Clause by providing a forum to Christians to which other religions are not given equal access. See Dkt. No. 1 (Complaint); Dkt. No. 9 (First Amended Complaint).

On November 12, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to stop Defendants from offering, manufacturing, or distributing the plates authorized by the “I Believe” Act. Dkt. No. 34 (motion). The court immediately scheduled a hearing on the motion for December 11, 2008, allowing enough time for complete briefing under the court’s normal briefing schedule. See Dkt. No. 36, 40 (notices of hearing); Local Civil Rule 7.06, D.S.C. The hearing was held as scheduled following full briefing on the motion. See Dkt. Nos. 39 (response filed jointly by both Defendants), 45 (reply), 54 (minute entry for hearing).

At the conclusion of the December 11, 2008 hearing, the court ruled orally, granting Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. Nos. 54 (minute entry). A written order was issued later that day setting forth the ruling and indicating that a full opinion would follow. Dkt. No. 52. On December 15, 2008, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order (“Opinion”). Dkt. No. 56. The Opinion was amended on December 23, 2008 to correct several points which the parties drew to the court’s attention. Dkt. No. 59, 2008 WL 5401537 (“Amended Opinion”). The Amended Opinion, therefore, stands as this court’s final opinion and order addressing the basis for entry of the preliminary injunction.

In the Amended Opinion, the court found that Plaintiffs had satisfied the standing requirements for preliminary injunctive relief as to their Establishment Clause claim. As to the merits of that claim, the court found that Plaintiffs had “made a strong showing that the T Believe’ Act fails to satisfy any one of the three prongs of the Lemon [v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971) ] test” and, therefore, have “necessarily, made a particularly strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits as to [their Establishment Clause] claim.” See also Dkt. No. 59 at 22 (noting Plaintiffs had established a “strong likelihood of success on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim.”).

In contrast, the court expressed doubt that Plaintiffs had standing to assert a claim for violation of the Free Speech Clause given that they did not seek to express their religious (or secular) opinions through the same forum (state-issued plates). Dkt. No. 59 at 14-16. Plaintiffs subsequently stipulated to dismissal of their Free Speech Clause claim and, thereafter, filed a Second Amended Complaint which challenges the “I Believe” Act solely under the Establishment Clause. Dkt. Nos. 64 (stipulation), 74 (Second Amended Complaint).

No appeal was taken from the order granting injunctive relief or the related Amended Opinion. Instead, the matter proceeded through discovery with injunctive relief remaining in effect throughout the pendency of the action. Dkt. No 20.

Summary Judgment Motions

On August 7, 2009, Plaintiffs, Defendant Adams and Defendant Jon Ozmint (“Oz-mint”) filed cross motions for summary judgment. See Dkt. Nos. 117 (Adams’ Motion), 119 (Plaintiffs’ Motion), 121 (Oz-mint’s Motion). On the same date, Attorney Gen. McMaster filed an amicus curiae brief (“amicus brief’) in support of the Act. Dkt. No. 118. The cross motions are now fully briefed and ripe for resolution.

Through their summary judgment motion, Plaintiffs seek the following relief: (1) a declaratory judgment that the “I Believe” Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (2) a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing the “I Believe” Act; (3) nominal damages of $1 against Adams in her individual capacity for violating Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; (4) the costs of this action, including attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (5) any other relief that the court deems just and proper. Dkt. No. 119 at 2.

Through her motion, Adams seeks summary judgment both in her official and individual capacities. In her official capacity, Adams seeks a ruling that the “I Believe” Act does not violate the Establishment Clause. Attorney Gen. McMaster joins in supporting this argument through his amicus brief. In her individual capacity, Adams seeks rulings that (1) she did not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by posting information about the “I Believe” plate on the DMV’s website; and (2) even if the posting violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, she is entitled to qualified immunity because the underlying rights were not clearly established at the time of the posting. Dkt. No. 117.

Finally, Ozmint, who is now sued solely in his official capacity, seeks summary judgment on the limited ground that he is not a necessary party. Ozmint argues that the exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity recognized in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), does not apply to him because (1) his role is limited to the ministerial function of producing plates and (2) an injunction against Adams in her official capacity is sufficient to secure the complete relief sought by Plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 121-1 at 4. Consistent with this argument, Ozmint takes no position as to the constitutionality of the statute in his present memoranda. He did, however, take such a position in his earlier memorandum in opposition to issuance of the preliminary injunction.

After carefully reviewing all submissions for and against summary judgment, the court finds that S.C.Code Ann. § 56-3-10510, the “I Believe” Act, violates the Establishment Clause of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by advancing, endorsing, and promoting religion. The court further finds that all forms of relief sought by Plaintiffs, other than damages, are appropriate.

The reasons for these rulings are set forth herein and in the Amended Opinion granting Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The Amended Opinion is incorporated into this order to the extent it sets forth the factual background (as amended by this order), Dkt. No. 59 at 1-9, and addresses standing for and the merits of Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim, Dkt. No. 59 at 9-17, 22-28. This order primarily addresses new information and arguments presented in the motions for summary judgment and supporting memoranda.

STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). It is well established that summary judgment should be granted “only when it is clear that there is no dispute concerning either the facts of the controversy or the inferences to be drawn from those facts.” Pulliam Inv. Co. v. Cameo Properties, 810 F.2d 1282, 1286 (4th Cir.1987).

FACTS

Although somewhat expanded, the proffered evidence presented for and against summary judgment is, in most respects, the same as offered in support of or in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Compare Dkt. No. 59 at 1-9 (Amended Opinion) with Dkt. Nos. 117-1 at 2-4 (Adams’ statement of additional facts), 119-1 (Plaintiffs’ statement of undisputed material facts). The parties have, however, presented some additional evidence which will be considered here. See Dkt. Nos. 117-1 at 2-4, 119-1. The court, therefore, includes a summary of the facts below which focuses on the newly presented evidence. While additional evidence has been presented which was not previously considered, that evidence does not modify the court’s analysis as presented in the Amended Opinion except as expressly noted below.

Genesis of the “I Believe” Act. Prior to the General Assembly’s enactment of S.C.Code Ann. § 56-3-10510, no organization had ever applied to the DMV for creation or production of a license plate with the words “I” and “Believe,” the image of a cross, or the image of a stained-glass window. Instead, the impetus for the “I Believe” plate originated in the office of Andre Bauer, Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina (“Lt. Gov. Bauer”). See Dkt. No. 119-33 at 18-19. In his deposition, Lt. Gov. Bauer testified that he and his chief-of-staff, Jim Miles (“Miles”), decided to pursue a law creating an “I Believe” plate for South Carolina motorists after Miles presented Lt. Gov. Bauer with a newspaper article addressing an unsuccessful attempt to create an “I Believe” plate in Florida. Id. After discussing the idea with Miles, Lt. Gov. Bauer approached Senator Yancey McGill about sponsoring such legislation. Id. at 19. Lt. Gov. Bauer recalls that he may have participated in drafting the bill, although he was uncertain on this point in his deposition. Id. In explaining why he promoted the bill, Lt. Gov. Bauer stated that there were then

over a hundred different license plates in South Carolina [which] allow[ed car owners] freedom of expression from a multitude of different activities — to clubs to groups to colleges. And I thought that if everyone else is allowed that opportunity, why shouldn’t believers in the Christian faith be able to express themselves — as so many other people have been able to.

Id. at 10:21-11:6 (emphasis added).

Passage of the “I Believe” Act. On April 24, 2008, Senators McGill and Larry Grooms introduced the “I Believe” Act in the Senate. 2008 J. of the Senate, 117th Gen. Assem., 2d Sess., (Apr. 24, 2008). Senator Kevin Bryant was added as a sponsor on April 30, 2008. 2008 J. of the Senate, 117th Gen. Assem., 2d Sess., (Apr. 30, 2008). The Act provided for a special license plate with the phrase “I Believe” and the image of a cross superimposed on a stained glass window. The Act passed both the Senate and the House unanimously. 2008 J. of the Senate, 117th Gen. Assem., 2d Sess., (Apr. 30, 2008); 2008 J. of the H.R., 117th Gen. Assem., 2d Sess. (May 21, 2008).

Text of the “I Believe” Act and Related Legislation. The “I Believe” license plate statute (the “ T Believe’ Act”) reads as follows:

The Department of Motor Vehicles may issue “I Believe” special motor vehicle license plates to owners of private motor vehicles registered in their names. The plate must contain the words “I Believe” and a cross superimposed on a stained glass window. The biennial fee for this special license plate is the same as the fee provided in Article 5, Chapter 3 of this title. The guidelines for the production of this special license plate must meet the requirements contained in Section 56-3-8100.

Act No. 253 (codified at S.C.Code Ann. § 56-3-10510).

Section 56-3-8100 provides requirements for the DMV to follow after the General Assembly creates a special plate. In part, Section 56-3-8100 provides that:

(A) Before the Department of Motor Vehicles produces and distributes a special license plate created by the General Assembly after January 1, 2006, it must receive:

(1) four hundred prepaid applications for the special license plate or four thousand dollars from the individual or organization seeking issuance of the license plate;

(2) a plan to market the sale of the special license plate which must be approved by the department; and

(3) the emblem, a seal, or other symbol to be used for the plate and, if necessary, written authorization for the department to use a logo, trademark, or design that is copyrighted or registered. If the individual or organization seeking issuance of the plate submits four thousand dollars, the Comptroller General shall place that money into a restricted account to be used by the department to defray the initial cost of producing the special license plate.

S.C.Code Ann. § 56-3-8100 (emphasis added).

Section 56-3-8100 also provides that “[t]he fee for all special license plates created by the General Assembly after January 1, 2006, is the regular biennial registration fee set forth in Article 5, Chapter 3 of this title plus an additional fee to be requested by the individual or organization seeking issuance of the plate.” Id. (emphasis added). The “I Believe” Act was not, however, the result of any individual or organizational request and, therefore, did not include an additional fee. Instead, the statute set the fee for this special plate at the $24 basic fee for state-required plates.

Governor’s Non-Signing Statement. The “I Believe” Act became law on June 5, 2008, without the Governor’s signature. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford did, however, issue a non-signing statement criticizing the legislature for (1) again “enter[ing] into the license plate creation business” and (2) “failing] to designate an organization to be the recipient of any additional fees to be collected” for this plate. Dkt. No. 34-6 at 1. The Governor also directed the DMV to set the “I Believe” plate price at an “amount that will cover the entire cost of producing and administering the new plates.” Id. at 3.

DMV’s Implementation of “I Believe” Act. Because the “I Believe” plate was created by legislation without a sponsoring organization, the DMV assumed responsibility for the plate design and marketing. See Dkt. No. 119-21 at ¶ 3.b. Initially, the DMV asked license plate vendor 3M to develop designs consistent with the requirements of the “I Believe” Act. Dkt. No. 119-22 at ¶ 1. 3M considered a sample license plate from Florida but chose not to use the design based on copyright concerns. Id.

After 3M declined the task, Lotte Devlin (“Devlin”), the DMV’s Deputy Director of Vehicle Services, created the design. Id.; Dkt. No. 119-31. To avoid any copyright violation, Devlin searched for and found a non-copyrighted image of a stained-glass window on the Internet. She then altered the image, in part, by superimposing a cross on the image of the stained-glass window. Dkt. No. 119-22 at ¶ 1. 3M created sample plate designs based on Devlin’s design. Id. The DMV’s executive staff, including Adams, approved the final design. Id. at ¶ 2. In compliance with the Governor’s directive, the DMV set a premium of $5 above the standard fee to defray the plate’s production costs. Dkt. No. 119-23 at 8 (request no. 38).

Posting of Image on Website. Prior to October 30, 2008, Adams sought legal advice from the DMV’s General Counsel regarding whether there were any legal impediments to posting information about the “I Believe” plate on the DMV’s website and seeking applications for that plate. Dkt. No. 117-5 ¶ 4 (Affidavit of Frank. L. Valenta, Jr., Esquire (“Valenta Aff.”)). General Counsel advised Adams that, in the absence of an injunction, he did not see any reason not to publish the image of the plate on the website. He also advised Adams that the DMV “had no discretion to delay the publication of the image or otherwise halt [its] normal business processes with respect to [the] T Believe’ license plate.” Id. ¶ 6.

On October 30, 2008, the DMV posted an image of the design for the “I Believe” plate on its website and began taking orders from the public. Three days later, the DMV announced that it had received the necessary 400 prepaid applications to allow production of the “I Believe” plate. See Dkt. No. 119-23 at 9 (request no. 41), 10 (request nos. 44, 45); Dkt. No. 119-9 at 1 (website announcement that “SCDMV has received the required number of preapplications to manufacture the I Believe license plate.”).

Preliminary Injunction. As discussed in more detail above, Plaintiffs filed their motion for a preliminary injunction on November 12, 2008. After full briefing, the court heard oral argument and granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on December 11, 2008. The reasons for the court’s rulings are reflected in the Amended Opinion entered December 23, 2008, which slightly modified an earlier Opinion and Order which, in turn, expanded on the reasons given at the conclusion of the hearing. While there were three separate representations of the court’s ruling, all were consistent in concluding that Plaintiffs had established both standing and a strong likelihood of success on the merits as to their Establishment Clause claim.

Subsequent Actions by the DMV and Adams. Neither Adams nor the DMV have taken any further actions to implement the “I Believe” Act since entry of the injunction. See Dkt. No. 117-5 at ¶ 7 (Valenta affidavit stating that he advised Adams to “suspend ... efforts to produce and issue” the plate when the motion was filed). Consequently, no plates have been ordered from or manufactured by the Department of Corrections over which Oz-mint has responsibility.

“In Reason We Trust” Special Plate. The only other relevant post-injunction action of the DMV is its publication of the change in availability of the “In Reason We Trust” plate. As the court noted in the Amended Opinion, “[a]s of the date of this order [December 23, 2008], there is one other special plate available that can be construed as tied to a specific “religion” — the Secular Humanists of the Low Country plate which displays an American Flag and the motto ‘In Reason We Trust.’ ” Dkt. No. 59 at 25 n. 25. The court further noted that “[t]he connection to the Secular Humanists is not, however, readily apparent on the face of the plate” but only revealed through research on the DMV’s website. Id. Finally, the court noted that “this special license plate is available only to members of the Secular Humanists of the Low Country.” Id.

In her memorandum in support of summary judgment, Adams directs the court to a recent change in the availability of the “In Reason We Trust” plate. Dkt. No. 117-1 at 4. As Adams explains, this plate was made available to all South Carolina residents at some point in January 2009— that is, after entry of the Amended Opinion. Thus, this represents a change in the factual circumstances from those present at the time the earlier order was entered. Dkt. No. 117-6 at 2.

What has not changed, however, is that the “In Reason We Trust” plate was authorized through the DMV approval process, based on a private application by a private organization, and costs an additional $30, at least part of which goes to the sponsoring organization. It was not legislatively-created based on a request from a government official as was the “I Believe” plate, which would be available for an additional five dollar charge, or the more comparable “In God We Trust” plate, which is available at no extra charge. See S.C.Code Ann. § 56-3-9200.

POST-INJUNCTION ACTIONS

Post-Injunction Appeals to the Public. After the injunction was issued, two state officials with a connection to this action (Lt. Gov. Bauer and Attorney Gen. McMaster) and an attorney who was then an attorney of record in this action (Kevin Hall, an attorney with NMRS), began making appeals to the public to support the “I Believe” Act and plate. These appeals included speaking in support of the Act at two church-based rallies. In addition, Lt. Gov. Bauer sponsored an on-line petition in support of the Act and sent an e-mail encouraging individuals to sign the petition. The e-mail string, petition, and transcripts of the rallies have been filed in support of Plaintiffs’ motion. Dkt. Nos. 119-39,119-40,119-42,119-43.

Plaintiffs assert that the court should consider this evidence, most particularly the statements of Lt.. Gov. Bauer and Attorney Gen. McMaster, as evidence of the state’s motivation and how a reasonable observer would view the Act and resulting plates. Dkt. No. 121 at 8-9. Adams agrees that the court should consider Lt. Gov. Bauer’s deposition testimony as to his purpose in seeking passage of the “I Believe” Act but argues the court should disregard all other evidence of motivation (including media reports of legislators). Dkt. No. 117-2 at 14 (discussed infra n. 40).

Greer Rally (January 6, 2009). Lt. Gov. Bauer, Attorney Gen. McMaster, and Attorney Kevin Hall (“Hall”) attended and spoke at a rally held at a church in Greer, South Carolina on January 6, 2009 (“Greer Rally”). Dkt. Nos. 119-42 (transcript of Greer Rally); 119-33 at 112-13 (Lt. Gov. Bauer conceding accuracy of transcript). The introductory speaker, Pastor Hiett (spelled Hyatt in the transcript) characterized the Greer Rally as “a kick-off rally for ... support of this license plate, T Believe.’ ” Dkt. No. 119-42 at 4. Pastor Hiett introduced Attorney Gen. McMaster who explained to the audience that “[j]ust about everything like this gets challenged in the Court. And I’m afraid I got to tell you usually we lose in the courts, but ... there will be a day in South Carolina when the words, “I Believe[,]” and the cross will be on a license plate in South Carolina.” Id. at 14 (emphasis added).

As an example of similar litigation, the Attorney General referred the audience to a recent lawsuit filed by a “Wicean priestess” who challenged inclusion of the words “in Jesus name” in the prayers offered at the commencement of meetings of the Great Falls Town Council. After expressing surprise that the legal challenge was successful, Attorney Gen. McMaster explained the advice he now gives to other municipalities as follows:

But we told them, we told every town in South Carolina you go ahead and pray the way you want to, this injunction has been issued against this town on this particular pray[er], but there ha[s] been no ruling on your pray[er]. If you want to ... pray the way you have been praying, you go right ahead because we believe the First Amendment gives you that right.

Id. at 17-18.

Turning to the Establishment Clause, Attorney Gen. McMaster advised the participants that all that is prohibited by this clause are laws that citizens “ha[ve] to be of a certain religion” and the use of “tax money taken up by the government” to support such mandated religions. Dkt. No. 119-42 at 18 (also stating “[T]he state cannot tell you this is the only religion you can have and we are going to support those kinds of houses of worship with your tax money. That is the establishment of religion.”). He then explained that “the courts get [this intent] wrong every time .... [T]he courts ignore this [intent].” Id. (emphasis added). The Attorney General then returned to his discussion of Town of Great Falls (discussed supra n. 19), suggesting that the courts were violating the Free Exercise Clause by limiting the content of prayers offered by a county council, that is, by requiring that if a prayer is given it be ecumenical, not invoking the name of Jesus. Id. at 19.

The Attorney General introduced Lt. Gov. Bauer who explained how Miles had suggested the idea of the “I Believe” plate, to which the Lieutenant Governor reported he responded: “That’s a great idea. [W]hy don’t you get Joe Mack on the phone ... and see if he can’t help us.” Id. at 25 (referring to a representative for the Office of Public Policy of the South Carolina Baptist Convention (id. at 5)); see also infra n. 24 (quoting Joe Mack’s comments at the Simpsonville Rally). He further explained that he then “went over to the Legislative Counsel and they drafted legislation and lo and behold the Senate did their duty, got it out of the Senate and then it went over to the House.” Id. at 25.

Lt. Gov. Bauer then referred the audience to the existence of a “secular tag,” though he did not specifically identify it, and stated “if you’re atheists, if you’re a non-believer, you can purchase a license plate.” Id. at 25-26. He stated that he had gone to the DMV to pick one up “to show it on the TV.” Id. at 26. He then stated “Never seen one on a car, I’d hate to be in that car.” Id.

Lt. Gov. Bauer next referred to the diversity of plates available (“104 now”) and suggested that “total freedom of speech” was available through this venue to “everybody[ ] but Christians.” Id. He then stated: “So we have become a silent majority quite frankly, folks. When a secular group can get a license plate and nobody challenges it, but Christians can’t, there’s a problem in the system.” Id.; see also id. at 27 (“[I]t is just disheartening to me to hear people [who] want to discourage Christians to be able to speak up, but then they want their freedom of speech.”).

Ultimately, he encouraged the participants to let their representatives know their views “[t]hat this issue here means something to you.” Id. at 28-29. After assuring the audience that he and the Attorney General were “unified on this” and were “not going to give up,” he asked the participants to urge others to talk to their “House and Senate members and thank them for this particular piece of legislation.” Id. at 29.

Attorney Hall spoke next. He explained that there was another, non-legislative route through which a similar plate might be obtained: “[I]f we don’t prevail purely through the court system, we will take an existing 501C3 corporation, we will change its name to I Believe, will apply for a license plate at the DMV and we will dare them to say no[.]” Id. at 37. Hall closed by exhorting the audience to “[s]upport the ... Christian leaders in this room and make your voice heard, please, please, please, make your voice heard.” Id. at 38-39.

E-mail Petition (January 12, 2009). On January 12, 2009, roughly a week after the Greer Rally, Lt. Gov. Bauer sent an email asking recipients to sign an electronic petition entitled, “I Believe tag in South Carolina.” Dkt. Nos. 119-39 (petition), 119-40 (e-mail chain). Although sent from a personal e-mail account, the petition lists “South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer” as the petition’s sponsor. Dkt. No. 119-39. The e-mail forwarding the petition includes the following comments regarding the purpose of the petition:

As you probably know by now, I am a strong advocate for the “I Believe” license plate, and presented the idea to the Legislature after seeing a similar fight in Florida fail.... Most recently, the tags were put on hold by a Federal judge, and will most likely be appealed and continue through the court system. I can tell you that this process will not take place in “just days[.]” ... It is time that we as Christians let society knoiv that we are tired of backing doim in fear of ridicule for exercising our beliefs simply because others say that they are offended Just because I hold public office, I do not stop being a Christian. I will not force my beliefs on any South Carolina citizen but neither will I hide them. If ... you agree ... that all South Carolina citizens should have the “choice” to display a license plate on their vehicle that reflects their beliefs at their own cost, then I urge you to join me by signing this online petition.... Furthermore, if you could help by forwarding this link to everyone possible, and helping to make your friends and family aware of it, it will enable us to get thousands of signatures and show the world that ive Christians do in fact still have a powerful voice.

Dkt. No. 119-40 (emphasis added).

The attached petition makes no reference to Christianity and, instead, asks whether the signatories “agree that all South Carolina citizens should have the choice to display a license plate on their vehicle that reflects their religious beliefs at their own cost, so long as they meet the minimal requirements set forth by the DMV.” Dkt. No. 119-39. There is no indication of the purpose for which the petition will be used (e.g., presentation to the legislature, the governor, or some other purpose).

Simpsonville Rally (March 17, 2009). Over two months after the Greer Rally, on March 17, 2009, Attorney Gen. McMaster, Lt. Gov. Bauer, and Attorney Hall attended a second “I Believe” rally at a church in Simpsonville, South Carolina (“Simpson-ville Rally”). Dkt. No. 119-43 at 3-4. Pastor Hiett again gave initial comments and introduced the various speakers.

After relaying the story of Town of Great Falls, the Attorney General stated his belief that the Supreme Court would, ultimately, construe the First Amendment differently, finding that such restrictions on prayer by public bodies, in fact, “prohibited] the free exercise of religion.” Turning to this litigation, he stated as follows:

I believe by taking the position that we are taking ... we’re not imposing on anyone else’s rights to have the free choice to select a license plate that says, I Believe. That does not keep someone else from having one that says, I don’t believe[.] [I]t doesn’t keep anyone from asking for a different license plate, and, in fact, we have so many.... We are going to [have one that says “I Believe.”] I’ll say to you there will come a day that we will have such a license plate in South Carolina. It infringes on no one’s rights.

Id. at 15-16.

Lt. Gov. Bauer spoke next, complimenting the size of the crowd which, he stated, “really speaks volumes about this community and what kind of state we have.” He continued: “I think it speaks volumes about our legislature that are willing to stand up for what they believe in.... Keep in mind this legislation passed ... unanimously in both houses.” Id. at 18.

Suggesting, incorrectly, that Plaintiffs were the proponents of the “In Reason We Trust” license plates, Bauer asserted that the country offered religious freedom “for everyone but Christians. So it’s freedom of speech for everybody but believers.” Id. at 20 (emphasis added). Bauer encouraged the audience as follows:

[P]lease speak to the members of the legislature and General McMaster and thank them. They’re fighting a real worthy battle. And the legislature, we may have to go back and ask for their help again if we have to attack this from another angle. We want them to feel secure and that there are people just like you, lots and lots of them that feel the same way that all of you do, and so they need that reassurance. So when you see your house and senate members, thank them for doing this so that when the other side tries to convince them they shouldn’t do anything else from a legislative matter, that no, you believe in this and this is what our country was founded on and it’s time that people of faith don’t back down anymore.

Id. at 22 (emphasis added). After sharing a personal experience, Bauer continued:

I think God is once again challenging us as individual people and as a country to stand up for the greater country in the world and say, Judeo Christian individuals started this country, it’s what’s made this country what every other country wants to be like and why people still want to come here for the land of hopes and dreams and promises. And so, this is our chance to really show the public that Christians are still here to be accounted for. You know, when they poll anytime in the country it’s ... 80 something percent of the United States citizens consider themselves Christians. Then why is it so often that we see everybody take a back seat when it comes to Christian issues.... We got to stand up. We’ve got to make sure not only do we fight this battle, but that we put Christians ... in every office. People are going to stand up for faith and not hide behind it.

Id. at 23-24 (emphasis added).

DISCUSSION

I. Standing

The evidence and argument now presented as to Plaintiffs’ standing to assert an Establishment Clause claim are essentially the same as presented in connection with the motion for a preliminary injunction. For the reasons the court earlier predicted Plaintiffs could establish standing, the court now finds that both the individual and organizational Plaintiffs have standing to pursue their Establishment Clause claim. See Amended Opinion pp. 9-14, 17. As noted above, this is the only legal theory now pursued, Plaintiffs having abandoned their Free Speech claim after the court expressed doubt as to their standing to assert such a claim.

II. Merits

A. Claim for Injunctive Relief Pursued Against Defendants in Their Official Capacities.

To the extent relevant to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim for permanent injunctive relief, the parties’ legal arguments are largely the same as presented to the court in support of and in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The factual foundation is, however, supplemented as noted above, including by providing evidence relating to: (1) Lt. Gov. Bauer’s involvement in introduction of the “I Believe” Act; (2) the DMV actions in designing and posting the “I Believe” plate on its website; (3) the January 2009 change in availability of the “In Reason We Trust” plate; and (4) Lt. Gov. Bauer, Attorney Gen. McMaster, and Attorney Hall’s public appeals in support of the “I Believe” plates after the preliminary injunction was entered.

The most significant differences in the parties’ legal arguments relate to (1) Oz-mint’s argument that he should be dismissed as an “unnecessary” party and (2) Adams’ argument that she is entitled to qualified immunity as to the claim for damages asserted against her in her individual capacity. Of these new arguments, only Ozmint’s is relevant to Plaintiffs’ pursuit of injunctive relief. The court will, therefore, address that argument before turning to the merits of the claim for permanent injunctive relief.

Ozmint as a Proper Party. Oz-mint asserts that he should be dismissed from this action because complete injunctive relief is available without enjoining him from production of the “I Believe” plates. His argument rests on the dual premises that (1) his role is limited to the “ministerial” duty of producing plates ordered by the DMV which, he maintains, is not a sufficient basis on which to apply Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), and (2) an injunction against Adams in her official capacity will afford complete relief. As to the second premise, Ozmint relies on the factual premise that without an order to fill he would have no reason to produce the plates and on the legal argument that an injunction against Adams in her official capacity is an injunction against the state, equally binding on all state officials. Ozmint also suggests, incorrectly, that he has not previously argued that the “I Believe” Act is constitutional. These arguments are addressed, in turn, below.

Adequacy of Connection to Enforcement. Ozmint asserts that his duties are insufficient for application of the Ex parte Young doctrine which requires that he “must have some connection with the enforcement of the [challenged] act” to be subject to injunctive relief. Id., 209 U.S. at 157, 28 S.Ct. 441 (emphasis added). In the context of the “I Believe” Act, “connection with ... enforcement” is better read as connection with implementation. See S.C. Wildlife Fed. v. Limehouse, 549 F.3d 324, 333 (4th Cir.2008) (holding that the required “ ‘special relation’ under Ex parte Young has served as a measure of proximity to and responsibility for the challenged state action.”) (emphasis in original); Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 331 (4th Cir.2001) (noting that “Ex parte Young requires a ‘special relation’ between the state officer sued and the challenged statute to avoid the Eleventh Amendment’s bar.”).

As Ozmint notes, neither the “I Believe” Act nor incorporated provisions of S.C.Code § 56-3-8100 impose any obligation on the Department of Corrections over which Ozmint has responsibility. Oz-mint’s responsibility for production of the plates is, instead, authorized by a separate statute, S.C.Code Ann. § 24-3-110, and is dependent on receipt of an order from the DMV.

Ozmint is correct that an adequate “connection” or “special relation” to the challenged statute does not arise merely because the named official has a general statutory duty to execute the laws of the state. See, e.g., 1st Westco Corp. v. School Dist. 6 F.3d 108, 113 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that a state attorney general was an improper party because “[g]eneral authority to enforce the laws of the state is not sufficient to make government officials the proper parties to litigation challenging the law.”); Long v. Van de Kamp, 961 F.2d 151, 152 (9th Cir.1992) (“We doubt that the general supervisory powers of the California Attorney General are sufficient to establish the connection with enforcement required by Ex parte Young.”)] Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1208 (3d Cir.1988) (holding that, to establish a sufficient connection between the governor and the challenged action, plaintiff must show that there was “a real, not ephemeral, likelihood or realistic potential that the connection [would] be employed against the plaintiffs interests.”) (internal quotations omitted). Indeed, Ex parte Young explicitly denounces such an approach, warning that, absent the “special relation” requirement,

the constitutionality of every act passed by the legislature could be tested by a suit against the governor and the attorney general, based upon the theory that the former, as the executive of the State, was, in a general sense, charged with the execution of all its laws, and the latter, as attorney general, might represent the State in litigation involving the enforcement of its statutes.

209 U.S. at 157, 28 S.Ct. 441.

Actual mention in the challenged statute of the agency over which the named defendant has responsibility is not, however, the only way in which the requisite “special relation” may be established. Instead, that relationship may be created by other statutes which authorize the defendant’s “deep[] involve[ment]” in executing the challenged law. Limehouse, 549 F.3d at 333; see also Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Wagnon, 476 F.3d 818, 828 (10th Cir.2007) (holding that defendant officials were properly named when, “although not specifically empowered to ensure compliance with the statute at issue, clearly have assisted or currently assist in giving effect to the [challenged] law”). As explained in Ex parte Young, “The fact that the state officer by virtue of his office has some connection with the enforcement of the act is the important and material fact, and whether it arises out of the general law, or is specially created by the act itself, is not material so long as it exists.” 209 U.S. at 157, 28 S.Ct. 441.

Ozmint’s relationship with the “I Believe” Act arises from his department’s statutory right to manufacture license plates for the DMV, and DMV’s corresponding obligation to purchase license plates through Ozmint’s department (presuming it purchases the equipment to perform this task which it clearly has done). Ozmint’s duties relative to implementation of the “I Believe” Act are, therefore, greater and more specific than the generalized duty of state officials such as governors or attorneys general to enforce state law, which the cases referenced above have found inadequate. Even assuming Oz-mint’s duties with respect to the “I Believe” Act are less significant than the duties described in those cases which have found the connection adequate, they remain critical to implementation of the “I Believe” Act given that Ozmint is the director of the only agency which may actually manufacture the challenged plates. On balance, the court finds that the duty of manufacture imposed by S.C.Code Ann. § 24-3-110 creates a sufficient relationship with the “I Believe” Act to support naming Ozmint as a Defendant in this action.

Necessity for Final Relief. The court, therefore, turns to whether it is, nonetheless, appropriate to dismiss Ozmint from this action at this point in the proceeding. As to this question, the court considers first that Ozmint has, contrary to his present argument, taken a position that the “I Believe” Act is constitutional. That position was presented through his opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction which he filed jointly with Adams. See supra n. 6. Thus, Ozmint has advanced the position that the statute is constitutional and has done so in the forum where it matters most: in court.

At no point prior to his motion for summary judgment did Ozmint make more than a passing reference to what is now his sole argument: that he is not a proper (or at least not a necessary) defendant because his duties are merely ministerial and dependent on an order from Adams. That passing reference was included in his memorandum in opposition to injunctive relief. He did not at that time or at any point prior to moving for summary judgment offer his present assurances that he would consider any injunction issued against Adams (presumably including a prohibition against ordering any “I Believe” plates) sufficient to preclude him from manufacturing the plates. See supra n. 29. Neither did he appeal his inclusion in the preliminary injunction order or take action to gain dismissal from this action at any point prior to the deadline for filing dispositive motions.

In other words, Ozmint has been a party to this action since June 19, 2008, has joined in arguing that the “I Believe” Act is constitutional, has been enjoined from production of the “I Believe” plates since December 11, 2008, and has participated in all pretrial proceedings throughout the pendency of this matter. Despite these facts, and the existence of ease law suggesting he is a proper party (supra n. 32 addressing Rose), Ozmint failed to make more than a peripheral mention of his present position that he is not properly named or at least an unnecessary party until he filed his motion for summary judgment after the conclusion of discovery. Likewise, he failed to offer his present concession (that he would view an injunction against Adams as binding on him despite differences in their statutory duties relative to the Act) until the summary judgment stage. Under these circumstances, the court finds that Ozmint remains a proper Defendant.

Establishment Clause. Except as modified or supplemented below, the court incorporates and reaffirms its earlier discussion of the merits of Plaintiffs’ Establishment Clause claim as set forth in the Amended Opinion at 22-28. In doing so, the court converts its earlier prediction that Plaintiffs would succeed on the merits of this claim into a finding that Plaintiffs have, as a matter of law, established that the “I Believe” Act violates the Establishment Clause and that they are entitled to a permanent injunction against implementation of the Act.

The court writes further here primarily to address additional evidence presented in support of or opposition to summary judgment which was not considered in the Amended Opinion. That evidence does not, however, modify the analysis as previously presented or suggest any error in the prediction that Plaintiffs would succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause Claim. As discussed below, however, the new evidence provides additional support for the same conclusion previously reached.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment provides that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” U.S. Const, amend. I. This prohibition is extended to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15, 67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947); see also Brown v. Gilmore, 258 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir.2001).

The Establishment Clause, thus, prohibits both the federal and state governments from establishing a religion in the sense of “sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.” Walz v. Tax Comm’n of N.Y., 397 U.S. 664, 668, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970). As more recently explained by the Supreme Court, “government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization.” County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 590, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989) (emphasis added). The Establishment Clause is not, as some might suggest, an anti-religion provision, but rests on the understanding that “a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion.” En-gel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962).

Courts apply the three-part test set out in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971) to determine whether a challenged state action is constitutional. See, e.g., Lambeth v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 407 F.3d 266, 268 (4th Cir.2005); Koenick v. Felton, 190 F.3d 259, 264-65 (4th Cir.1999). To pass the Lemon test, the challenged governmental action must (1) have a secular purpose, (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355, 372 (4th Cir.2003). All three prongs of the test must be met for the challenged action to be constitutional. Koenick, 190 F.3d at 265 (“If a state action violates even one of these three prongs, that state action is unconstitutional.”). As summarized below and set forth in more detail in the Amended Opinion, the “I Believe” Act fails every prong of this test as a matter of law.

Purpose. To ascertain whether a statute has a secular purpose, courts applying the Lemon test look to “the traditional external signs that show up in the text, legislative history, and implementation of the statute, or comparable official act.” McCreary Cty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 862, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005) (internal quotations omitted). The court looks first to the text of the legislation to determine its purpose.

That text authorizes the DMV to produce only one specific license plate, and requires that the authorized plate contain uniquely Christian imagery (a cross superimposed on a stained glass window) under the motto “I Believe.” Thus, the Act demonstrates an obvious and singular purpose of legislative endorsement and promotion not only of religion in general, but of Christianity in particular. This intended purpose is so clear that the court would find it controlling even if there were evidence of some other stated legislative purpose. See Mellen, 327 F.3d at 373 (“When a state-sponsored activity has an overtly religious character, courts have consistently rejected efforts to assert a secular purpose for that activity.”); N.C. Civil Liberties Union Legal Found, v. Constangy, 947 F.2d 1145, 1149-50 (4th Cir.1991) (finding purpose of prayer at opening of judicial proceedings was inherently religious despite judge’s assertion that the purpose was to solemnity and dignify the proceedings); Hall v. Bradshaw, 630 F.2d 1018, 1020-21 (4th Cir.1980) (finding purpose of inclusion of prayer on state-issued road maps was inherently religious despite state’s claim that the purpose was to advance the safety of motorists).

Here, however, there is no evidence of any other purpose. Instead, as discussed below, the limited extrinsic evidence of legislative purpose suggests either a desire to promote Christianity or, at the least, to acknowledge and honor Christianity as the “majority” religion. The second purpose is just as improper as the first. See Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 593, 109 S.Ct. 3086 (noting that the Establishment Clause “precluded] government from conveying or attempting to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.”) (quoting Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 70, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment)) (emphasis in original).

Secular Purpose Advanced by Adams. In her memorandum in support of summary judgment, Adams asserts that the “I Believe” Act serves the secular purpose of “providing] South Carolina motorists with another message that they can elect to convey when selecting from over one hundred available special license plates.” Dkt. No. 117-1 at 14 (quoting Amended Opinion’s statement of Defendant’s position). She notes, in particular, that the “I Believe” plate “offers ... an alternative to the ‘In Reason We Trust’ plate, which to date is arguably the only other plate tied to a specific religion.” Id.

In her memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, Adams takes this claimed purpose a step further, describing it as a “stated purpose.” Dkt. No. 130 at 4. As noted above, however, the legislature has offered no “stated purpose” for the Act. The only “stated purposes” are the post-hoc justifications offered during the pendency of this litigation, including those formally offered to the court and those expressed publicly by the Lieutenant Governor and the Attorney General.

Attorney General’s Statement of Purpose. Attorney Gen. McMaster takes a different tack in his amicus brief, stating that “[rjather than being motivated by a secular purpose, the [T Believe’ Act] is instead an accommodation to Christians, just as the other plates are accommodations to Parrot Heads and fraternity and sorority members.” Dkt. No. 118 at 8 (emphasis added). This argument ignores the facts that (1) the Act was not the result of any application or request from a Christian organization but was, instead, the result of de facto sponsorship by the Lieutenant Governor and official sponsorship by three legislators; and (2) the “I Believe” plate was approved through the legislative process, not through the DMV approval process which is now (and was at the relevant time) the generally available route for organizations seeking special plates.

Though stated differently, the arguments of both Adams and the Attorney General stand, essentially, for the same proposition: that the purpose behind the Act is not endorsement of religion because it merely affords Christians an opportunity to display their faith on a license plate. This claimed purpose is, however, belied by the overtly and singularly religious nature of the legislatively-selected message and imagery. It is also contradicted by the plain text of the “I Believe” Act which says nothing of making a choice available to all religious groups but, instead, authorizes production of a single plate which “must” contain a specified pro-Christian message. It is also belied by the absence of any other license plate, legislatively-approved or otherwise, which is so clearly connected to a specific religion. See supra at 647-48 (discussing the “In Reason We Trust” plate).

Any religious message approved through South Carolina’s legislative process (such as was used to create the “I Believe” plate) would likely violate the Establishment Clause because the speech involved is predominantly government speech and the legislative approval of it evidences approval of the referenced religion. The Legislature’s decision to select a single (majority) religion for such treatment exacerbates the constitutional concerns because it gives the impression that Christianity, as the majority religion, is also the preferred religion and its adherents favored citizens. See Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 602, 109 S.Ct. 3086 (quoted supra at 639-40). Thus, even without considering any other evidence, the court would find the “I Believe” Act violative of the first prong of the Lemon test based on the “overtly religious character” of the license plate it authorizes. See Mellen, 327 F.3d at 373; see generally Hall, 630 F.2d at 1020-21 (noting that if state could satisfy the purpose inquiry by choosing “a clearly religious means to promote [a] secular end,” then “any religious activity of whatever nature could be justified by public officials on the basis that it has beneficial secular purposes.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Extrinsic Evidence of Purpose. For reasons addressed above, it is not necessary to consider extrinsic evidence in determining legislative purpose. Nonetheless, because both sides urge consideration of at least some extrinsic evidence, the court reviews that evidence here.

Lt. Gov. Bauer’s deposition testimony regarding the genesis of the Act demonstrates that his intent as de facto sponsor was specifically to gain approval of a Christian-themed plate. He may have considered the diversity of plates in existence in deciding that it was appropriate to seek such a plate. See Dkt. No. 119-33 (Bauer Dep. at 10:19-11:6) (noting he sponsored the bill in light of the diversity of other plates available and stating “I thought that if everyone else is allowed that opportunity, why shouldn’t believers in the Christian faith be able to express themselves — as so many other people have been able to.”). He did not, however, suggest that he proposed legislation to make it easier for all groups to get a plate proclaiming their beliefs (for example, an “I Believe” plate with a blank for the vehicle owner’s symbol of choice). Instead, the legislation he sought was the legislation he received: legislation authorizing a single plate containing uniquely Christian imagery selected by the Legislature. His concession that he decided to seek an “I Believe” plate for South Carolina after learning of a failed attempt to obtain a similar plate in Florida also suggests a singular purpose: obtaining a Christian-themed plate, not opening the door for all groups to have similar plates. Thus, considering only the extrinsic evidence Adams asks the court to consider, the court would reach the same conclusion as set forth above: the “I Believe” Act impermissibly endorses and promotes Christianity.

Consideration of any of the other available extrinsic evidence leads to the same result. For example, comments by sponsoring and other legislators as reported in the media suggest that these legislators were motivated by a desire to support one specific religion, Christianity. To the extent these legislators indicated any willingness to consider plates for other religions, they noted that they would make value judgments as to which religions were worthy of a plate and would certainly not approve plates for all “religions.” Lt. Gov. Bauer and Attorney Gen. McMaster’s comments at the Greer and Simpsonville rallies, likewise, suggest that a desire to promote (or at least appeal to the members of) the majority religion motivated Lt. Gov. Bauer to seek passage and both individuals to continue support of the Act.

The following comments made by Lt. Gov. Bauer at the Greer rally are particularly indicative of this intent:

So we have become a silent majority quite frankly, folks. When a secular group can get a license plate and nobody challenges it, but Christians can’t, there’s a problem in the system.... And that’s why we’re all here tonight unified. Quite frankly, we’re under attack and we’ve got to continue to fight this battle.

Dkt. No. 119-42 at 25:16-21. As with a number of the comments at the two rallies, this comment incorrectly suggests that the “I Believe” plate was obtained by a process similar to that used to obtain the “In Reason We Trust” plate. To the contrary, the “I Believe” plate was obtained through specific legislation, had no sponsoring organization, and, to the extent it was sponsored by a non-legislator, had a governmental sponsor: the Lieutenant Governor. In contrast, the “In Reason We Trust” plate was obtained through the DMV process and was sponsor