The state of Alabama’s voter registration requires citizens to swear an oath on the voter declaration that begins with “I solemnly swear or affirm”, and ends with “so help me God”. Failure to sign this statement on the form results in being ineligible to vote. There is neither a secular alternative to acknowledging this statement, nor an option for people practicing polytheistic religions. Alabama is the only state in the US that requires citizens to make this claim in their voter registration application; “in all other states, voters are provided a completely secular registration form or are not required to submit an oath or affirmation at all”. Four Albamians are suing John Merrill, the Secretary of State in Alabama, on the premise that mandating citizens to swear “so help me God” violates the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is also filing suit against Merrill. The voter declaration can be altered by the Secretary of State at any point in time. In the state of Alabama, registration forms were last edited in 2019.
The lead plaintiff is Randal Cragun who has tried to register to vote since November of 2019. He brought to the light the statement under the oath that says: “If you falsely sign this statement, you can be convicted and imprisoned for up to five years”. Cragun, who identifies as an atheist, would be falsely signing the statement by accepting the “so help me God” phrase. Therefore, he could be subject to the consequences of falsely signing the statement. Furthermore, Cragun inquired about not acknowledging this portion of the voter declaration. The director of elections responded to him and announced “there is no legal mechanism to register to vote in AL without signing the oath as it is stated... If you cross out a portion, the board of registrars in your county will reject the application and ask you to resubmit”.
The main constitutional questions this case raises are whether or not mandatory acknowledgement of the statement “so help me God” violates the Establishment Clause and Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment? Like any constitutional question, the answer is debatable. One Supreme Court case drawn upon in the suit filed was West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. This case set the precedent that the government cannot “force an American citizen publicly to profess any statement of belief”. The state of Alabama is forcing citizens to do exactly this: profess a statement of belief. By this standard, the “so help me God” phrase does violate the First Amendment. Furthermore, this case is extremely similar to Torcaso v. Watkins. In Torcaso v. Watkins, Maryland denied Torcaso of serving a government job he was appointed because he could not declare his belief in God. The court ruled unanimously in Torcaso’s favor proclaiming that “neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to ‘profess a belief or disbelief in any religion’”. By this ruling, the “so help me God” phrase would be deemed unconstitutional under the Establish Clause of the First Amendment.
On the contrary, “so help me God” is comparable to the phrase “In God We Trust”. In a previous post on this blog about Butler v. Smith County, it states that “In God We Trust” and “under God” do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Therefore this begs the question: would “so help me God” be considered constitutional as well? I believe it should not be. “Under God” and “In God We Trust” are ingrained in American society, and are merely tolerated today. Many Americans believe they are unconstitutional, but they are deemed acceptable by the Supreme Court as the mottos of our nation. However, there is no historical value in incorporating a religious phrase into the state of Alabama’s voter registration form. Failure to answer truthfully on the form can result in jail, but failure to submit the form acknowledging the phrase “so help me God” prohibits citizens from exercising their right to vote. There is no way to vote without believing in God, which is extremely unconstitutional in my opinion. It is not illegal to denounce the motto of our nation, but it would be illegal to sign the form and identify as atheist or practice a polytheistic religion. The Secretary of State is more than capable of rewording the voter declaration to exclude the religious component and allow all citizens to register to vote freely without this caveat. Alabama is the only state that forces citizens to make a religious claim, so the phrase “so help me God” is unnecessary and should be removed from the forms.
I think in this case that the state has not provided a reasonable justification for requiring all voters to declare an oath to God and essentially falsely declare a religious belief. While it makes sense that Alabama would be interested in voters swearing an oath that the information on their registration is truthful and correct, this goal can absolutely be achieved without utilizing the religiously derived, "so help me God." The fact that no other states require such a religiously derived declaration of truth suggests that it is, in fact, not required to maintain righteous voting practices. Furthermore, while I know that it is not the direct issue in this situation, I think that the acceptance of phrases like "so help me God," "in God we trust," and "one nation, under God," in our legal system, government, and national motto are inappropriate given the establishment clause. I am not familiar with the origins of all of these phrases, but I do know that the reference to God made in the pledge of allegiance was added during the Cold War to distinguish America from the 'godless Soviets.' Thus, the inclusion of God cannot be upheld for the sake of tradition as it serves little historical purpose, and reflects an establishment of religion as it was included with a religiously motivation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the stance you take on this case in that the requirement of taking an oath with the phrase, "so help me God" is unconstitutional. This phrase in Alabama violates both the establishment and free exercise clause of the First Amendment because on one hand, Alabama is forcing the belief in God on any person who wishes to register to vote, meaning that such people also do not have the opportunity to exercise their own religious beliefs while voting. This Alabama requirement is also clearly not a neutral law, for it only accommodates people who believe in God to be able to vote. Making it a crime to lie under this oath, as well as not giving any more secular alternative demonstrates the establishment of one religion, and the infringement on free exercise. Alabama being the only state to force such a phrase and an oath for people to be able to vote shows that such an inclusion in the voting process is not necessary for voting purposes in a state. As for the phrases "Under God" and "In God We Trust" I think there is not as compelling of an argument to disband these phrases as there is to get rid of "So hope me God" which is the only option to participate in a civic duty. As for the phrases this country's currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance, they do not in my opinion create such a burden on an individual like the Alabama voting oath does.
ReplyDeleteIt is odd that Alabama is the only state that requires an agreement to the statement "so help me god" and that if you falsely sign this statement you could be imprisoned. I think they could have left out that part out, but I do not think it is necessary for them to do so. The main reason is I think that is because it is not asking whether you believe in God for you to vote it is asking for the following: if you are a U.S. citizen, live in the state of Alabama, are of legal voting age (18), are not barred from voting for reasons such as a felony, and have not been judged "mentally incompetent". The "so help me God" part seems like it is merely semantics. I also do not think the idea of "God" is tied to any particular religion. The only religion it would in fact favor is agnosticism which is the simple belief that God exists without going into any specifics. If they wanted to favor a particular religion they could have done so. The only issue is then of favoring religion over non-religion; which I said earlier it could have been left out. Furthermore, simply saying "so help me God" does not mean one actually believes in God. In order for a court to prove that someone falsely signed the document i.e. an atheist, they would need to prove that this individual does not believe in God; which in the case United States v. Seegar is unconstitutional to do so.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ryan that this oath is not necessarily a profession of belief in a supreme deity, and that it would be hard to prove you had lied if the issue were examined through that lens. There are a few claims the author made however, that I would contend are unsupported. In the middle of the last paragraph the author says phrases such as "In God we Trust" are "merely tolerated today" in America. I would argue that you would actually find broad support for this motto, and that at the very least a source could be cited to support this claim. I would raise similar issue with the two following sentences, I contend most Americans do no think them unconstitutional, and would question the authors position to judge "historical value" of this phrasing for the people of Alabama.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely that there is clear unconstitutionality of this statement on the voter registration form. There is no justification that the statement acknowledging God should be on the ballot. It is unnecessary and acts as a way for the state of Alabama to push a religious agenda upon its constituents. I think one of the critical issues that people tend to gloss over in questions of religious freedom is the difference between preventing individuals from participating in their religious beliefs and of forcing an individual to declare a religious belief. What the Alabama voting requirement does is the latter. Individuals who want to vote may need to improperly declare a religion or go against their own faith to do so. I also challenge the idea that "God" is not tied to a particular religion or is an umbrella term. Though not nearly as prevalent as religions like Christianity or Islam, many individuals in the United States may identify as other kinds of polytheistic religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism or others. Calling upon one singular God may directly go against their own religion. If the Establishment Clause is to protect "minority religions" as it claims to be, it should protect ALL minority religions. For individuals who do not believe in a god and identify as atheists, this directly hurts them as well and makes them claim to acknowledge a god they do not believe in just so they can take part in electing the government. This involves an overstep of religion into government.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author of the blog. The examples you raised of references and oaths to God that exist in public life and in our legal system, listed by in the first comment, are often used as justification for further interactions between religion and the state. These phrases contextualize our national relationship with religion and set a precedent of interconnection. Whatever the functions of those mottos and statements, the inclusion of "so help me God" on a voter registration form places nonreligious individuals in a double bind: lie on your application or do not register to vote. When the only way to proceed is through the affirmation of an overtly religious phrase, the state is respecting the establishment of religion.
ReplyDeleteI believe the court will rule similarly to Torasco, which established that it was a breach of the First Amendment for the government to force an individual to profess a belief in God. The right to vote is fundamental to all eligible Americans, and that right should not be stripped because the constituent does not affirm a belief in God. I definitely think the Court will also consider Butler, as you mentioned, however; I think the Court will declare the signing unconstitutional because it legally binds one to profess a belief.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your article, I do believe that Alabama requiring all voters to swear an oath on the voter declaration that ends with the phrase “so help me God,” does in fact violate the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and the Establishment Clause. I do not see a historical value that would allow for the phrase “so help me God” to be a practical addition to the oath. I agree with your point regarding the choice that is being placed onto voters who do not believe in God or if they believe in a different type of religion. They are forced to either chose between voting or practicing their religious beliefs. I personally think that this choice best demonstrates how Alabama’s voter oath does in fact violate the Constitution. I think it is also important to note that there is not another state in the United States that requires an oath to be declared when registering to vote.
ReplyDelete