On May 1, 2020, an atheist advocacy group of four Alabamians filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division against Alabama’s Secretary of State, John Merrill, asserting that the mandatory religious oath on Alabama voter registration forms was in violation of their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Alabama is the only U.S. state that mandates that citizens seeking to register to vote must swear “so help me God”. Alabama’s Mail-In Voter Registration Form, and all other forms, contain a category titled “Voter Declaration-Read and Sign Under Penalty of Perjury” which encloses the oath stated above and concludes with a disclaimer that one can be imprisoned for up to five years as a result of his conviction for falsely signing the form. Plaintiffs, Randal Cragun et. al are all residents who meet the constitution and statutory requirements to vote in Alabama and fully intend to either seek or remain a registered voter and vote in future elections, however they have been unable to swear to this religious oath with no secular alternative. Mr. Carugan is an atheist and his individual conscience prohibits him from swearing the phrase “so help me God”. According to the claimant, from the time of November of 2019 to now, Mr. Cragun has attempted to register to vote, but has been unable to due to these policies carried out by the Secretary of State. On November 24 of 2019, Mr. Cragun contacted the State of Secretary's Office, inquiring about the an alternative process for registering to vote which omits the monotheistic language, however, Mr. Helms, Director of Elections made clear that “there is not a legal mechanism [for him] to register to vote” (6). The Secretary of State then received a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), in which they first, asserted that any form of compulsory religious oaths are a “well-settled” violation of the First Amendment and second, urged for an alternative “secular affirmation available for any state resident that does not wish to swear [the phrase]” (7). In response, the Secretary of State falsely articulated that modifications to the registration form would mandate legislative action, when, in fact, they do have the power to amend voter registration forms according to Alabama Code § 17-3-52.
The fundamental issue in Carugan v. Merrill case is whether or not Alabama’s Secretary of State’s required religious oath on voter registration forms, with no secular alternative, is in violation of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. As stated in the complaint, Alabama’s custom and practice of this mandate violates the Establishment Clause in a number of ways. The claimant asserts how the policy first places preferential treatment towards religion over nonreligion: “ it has the purpose and effect of favoring, advancing, and coercively supporting theistic beliefs and individuals, while disfavoring, disadvantaging, and discriminating against nontheistic beliefs and individuals, including the Plaintiffs” (11). The oath, referencing a God, additionally coerces one’s acceptance and belief in a monotheistic god. In terms of their second claim of relief, the complaint argues that the purpose and effect of this policy is in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Lead plaintiff Carugan argues that the act of requiring nontheists, including the Plaintiffs, to adopt or commit to religious beliefs to which they “do not subscribe” in order to participate in the electoral process is a restriction on an individual’s right to freely exercise their desired religion, or nonreligion.
I believe that Alabama’s required religious oath on voter registration forms is a violation of both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. In regards to the primary claim for relief, a violation of the Establishment clause, the complaint makes reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1943 W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette case. Here, the Supreme Court decided that “no official...can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion...or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein”. From the findings of this case alone, it is undoubted that the Alabama Secretary of State has violated the basic rights of citizens in that they are unconstitutionally demanding all who desire to register to vote to swear “so help me God”. Even more particularly relevant, in Torcaso v. Watkins, the requirement of religious oaths is directly addressed. The Supreme Court deems any mandatory religious oath as a violation of the Establishment Clause, drawing from the principal decided in Everson v. Board of Education and holding that “neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion…[nor can they] impose requirements which aid all religions as against nonbelievers” (2). The FFRF letter likewise cites the settled standard in Torcaso v. Watkins (drawn from Everson v. Board of Education) in urging the removal of the religious oath. Even the district courts of this particular state have already resolved a case involving the form’s unconstitutional required religious oath. Nicholson v. Bd of Comm’rs of Alabama State Bar Ass’n, in 1972, involved a Plaintiff’s inability to receive his license to practice law, due to his refusal to swear the religious oath required in order to enter upon the practice of law. Because this requirement has been deemed unconstitutional in the practice of law, it is unquestionable that it also applies to voter registration.
This policy clearly violates the establishment clause because, by implementing religion into voter registration, the Secretary of State essentially promotes and establishes a religion. The policy, upheld by the state of Alabama, places preferential treatment towards religion over nonreligion in that it endorses and actively advances theistic beliefs and individuals, while being hostile towards non-religion. The policy is discriminatory in that it singles out who will be eligible to vote in the electoral process. In addition, Alabama’s Secretary of State has no valid, compelling reason or interest in requiring all voters to swear a religious oath in order to vote. Its policy has an inappropriate intent in that it promotes Chirsitan Conservatives while inhibiting liberals from voting. In the long run, it would impact social issues beyond religion, such as taxes, military affairs, and foreign policy. Ultimately, religious Conservatives would determine other issues unrelated to religion, a role which politicians and governmental leaders are intended to have. This inappropriate intent is overt, because as of now, Alabama itself “routinely allows attorneys, jurors, witnesses, and many others...to make a secular affirmation instead when they are unable to swear “so help me God” (2). There exists no excuse to prevent an extension of this exception to aspiring voters.
It is also clear that, in ordering the swearing of “so help me God” in order to register to vote, the Secretary of State of Alabama is coercing a statement of belief in a monotheistic deity onto nontheists. As mentioned in the complaint, the Secretary of State has made no attempt, and even refused, to establish a substitute voter registration form with the omission of religious language for use. They have failed to act upon the many concerns raised regarding the required oath, and present “any guidance to county registrars informing them of how [atheists] may register to vote” and therefore, this act of excluding nontheist citizens from voting is deliberate and coercive in nature.
This obvious favoring of religion, through requiring nontheists to adopt religious beliefs to which they do not subscribe in order to participate in the electoral process, concurrently violates the free exercise clause. It creates a substantial burden for aspiring voters who aren’t of a certain religion and makes them face a tough dilemma. It obliges citizens who do not aspire to a higher God, or are atheists, to either unwillingly congregate with a religious belief or abandon their ability to vote in elections and actively partake in their country’s political future. This hostility and preferential treatment towards one group with no valid or compelling interest in mind, and consequent violation of the First Amendment emerges in the 1986 Goldman v. Weinberger case, involving an Orthodox Jew and commissioned officer in the United States Air Force, who challenged, under the First Amendment, an Air Force regulation prohibiting the wearing of a yarmulke, inside, while on duty. There lies much similarity between the two, and I think that this issue must reach the same conclusion as Congress' overturning of this case by legislation in 1987. In Carugan v. Merrill, Alabama exhibits no valid reason or interest in requiring all voters to swear a religious oath in order to vote, and likewise, in the Court’s overturning of the Goldman v. Weinberger decision, the Court argued that the military’s commitment to infusing manners of discipline and unity into its members through this regulation was too loose and indirect of a justification, failing to specifically address any particular military concern at stake. On behalf of these illegitimate excuses, Goldman is being asked to violate his faith, and Carugan, among the other plaintiffs, are being asked to adopt a religion, both burdens which are larger than most. It is imperative to consider the long term implications of these illogical state positions. In both cases, the plaintiffs are faced with a draconian choice, abandon their religious beliefs to conform or have their rights taken away. If allowed to stand a state could control religious behavior under the guise of their misinformed reasoning. This would allow the state to control behavior and social issues by illegally establishing religion. Ultimately, the establishment clause of the constitution is a check against this sort of inappropriate control of the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment