 |
| James Tosone |
In the United States, nearly all citizens of a certain age and residential status are eligible to run for public office; however, each state has varying ballot access regulations. The official policy of the New Jersey Secretary of State requires candidates to swear an oath known as the New Jersey Oath of Allegiance that contains the phrase “so help me God” in order to appear on the ballot. A suit filed in October 2023 asserts that James Tosone, a New Jersey resident and self-proclaimed nontheist, was denied candidacy because he refused to endorse the religious statement in the oath. Because he wanted to participate in the 2022 elections, Tosone reached out to the Division of Elections and requested that he be allowed to strike out the “so help me God '' portion of the oath. Despite meeting all the requirements to run for public office and running for office in 2017, 2018, and 2021, Tosone’s request was denied because the content of the New Jersey Oath of Allegiance is dictated by statute and no alternate version is acceptable.
Previously, Tosone signed the New Jersey Oath of Allegiance to be an eligible candidate for office, but he states that his views have changed and signing the oath now would violate his convictions; that is, he has an objection based on sincerely held beliefs to the contents of the oath. Tosone’s lawsuit alleges that forcing potential candidates to swear a religious oath and providing no secular alternative violates both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. According to the suit, refusing to accommodate non religious citizens potentially bars 24% of New Jersey residents from running for office. Additionally, the policy discriminates against certain religious sects, like the Mennonites and Quakers, that refuse to swear oaths to a deity. Endorsing the phrase “so help me God” would force these individuals to profess beliefs antithetical to their own, violating their free exercise. The suit also claims that New Jersey’s policy inherently disfavors nontheistic beliefs, which breaches the neutrality principle of the Establishment Clause. Essentially, according to Tosone, the policy coerces New Jersey citizens to express a belief in a monotheistic God, constituting an establishment of religion.
 |
| Response from the Division of Elections |
Although an arguably insignificant phrase, can New Jersey require potential candidates for public office to endorse the message “so help me God” without violating the religion clauses of the First Amendment? In my opinion, the constitutional issue lies not with the phrase itself but with the lack of accommodation. As seen in the Supreme Court case Marsh v. Chambers, nonsectarian invocations in government settings do not violate the Establishment Clause; however, the New Jersey Oath of Allegiance and the legislative prayers in Marsh differ slightly. In Marsh, no elected official had to endorse the religious content of the prayer and no punishment was enacted if an official refused to witness the prayer. This differs from the New Jersey oath which rescinds eligibility for candidacy on the basis of religious objection. The refusal to accommodate other religious and secular beliefs violates the Establishment Clause because it signals to citizens that they must profess a specific set of beliefs to participate in public affairs.
Also, I believe that the New Jersey Oath of Allegiance infringes on both free exercise and free speech rights. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, which ruled compulsory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school unconstitutional, the Court wrote, “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein”. With the New Jersey Oath of Allegiance, the Secretary of State prescribes religious sentiments that potential candidates must affirm, regardless of their own convictions. These candidates cannot freely express their beliefs without compromising their own position in the race for public office. Although the phrase “so help me God” may be nonsectarian and its presence does not constitute an establishment of religion, candidates’ religious objections to it should be respected under the First Amendment. Because no alternative version of the oath is offered and the oath potentially forces citizens to go against their own beliefs, I believe that the mandatory endorsement of the New Jersey Oath of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
Sources:
https://newjerseymonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/10-3-23-Toson-v.-Way.pdf
https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/10/03/new-jersey-shouldnt-make-political-candidates-swear-to-god-lawsuit-says/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/463/783/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/624/
9 comments:
Great post! You articulated your stance really well, and I agree with your conclusions. Even though the term referring to a "God" does not breach the Establishment Clause, it most definitely infringes on the plaintiff's Free Exercise rights. Therefore, there should be an exemption for those who do not want to participate in this section of the oath due to their personal religious beliefs. This policy is not neutral at all either, as you noted the high percentage of citizens that do not qualify to run for office just based on their religious beliefs. Overall, I agree with your opinion and believe that there should be a change to this mandatory policy as it breaches the Free Exercise Clause.
Great post! I think that this issue is tricky because the term "God" is deeply rooted in American history and is not associated with one religion. On all of our money, it says, "in God we trust" in court witnesses place their hand on a bible, and many other examples of God being used in government. I do not think that this is a violation of his free exercise because in this context he is not pledging his allegiance to one God, it is not prohibiting him from practicing another religion, or forcing him to have financial burdens. I believe that merely recognizing a part of American history is not a violation of his Free Exercise. Furthermore, every politician, before him regardless of religion had made the same oath and not raised issue with it.
Hi Claire!
This is an incredibly interesting post, and you did a wonderful job in providing an adequate and descriptive explanation as to why using the phrase “so help me God” in its given context and lack thereof accommodations can be troublesome. I agree with your holding that the inclusion of this phrase is a problem regarding the lack of accommodation. Because this oath is required in order to be eligible for candidacy in New York, the failure in providing an alternative phrase severely limits those who do not associate with a god, or hold the same religious standing that this phrase promotes. Therefore, this is a violation of the Establishment Clause, and it should be treated and handled quickly and severely, due to the threat it poses to United States citizens. Additionally, I agree with you that this is also a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Ultimately, the failure to accommodate is a grave danger in this given situation, and until this is dealt with, there remains a large inequality in New Jersey candidacy.
Hi Claire, this is a really good post as well as a very interesting case. I am a little torn on weather or not I find this to be unconstitutional. I feel that Devin raised some good points in their comment earlier which noted the historical aspects of the word "God" in American history and how it is deeply rooted in our traditions as well as even stated on the American dollar. While the inclusion of God has been a deep part of our history, such as swearing an oath on the Bible for invocations for politicians and other high ranking duties in Government, this does raise the question of why there are no other secular options for those who do not believe in or practice religion. You bring up a good point that this does not allow the 24% of New Jersey citizens to run for any government candidate positions due to this one small rule. Because this sounds like the there are no secular options or any other way to obtain the job or even be a candidate for a political position other than saying "So help me God" this certainly does not give those another option and is clearly coercive as it is forcing individuals to choose between their beliefs and obtaining the right to run for a certain position. Even though this process has been deeply rooted in our traditions does not necessarily mean that it is right by any means, and therefore I agree with your holding on this case.
Hi Claire! Great and very interesting topic for your blog post. Like my fellow classmates, I too am a little torn as to whether or not I would consider this an unconstitutional practice by the State of New Jersey. As Devin points out, the reference to God is prevalent in many aspects of both state and federal governments. There is a historical component to it in which God has been cited in official U.S. proceedings for several centuries. It would be hard to argue this reference as an establishment of the Christian religion simply because of its historic usage. However, I do see how you feel that all religious sects are not treated equally by recognition of a God. Not everyone holds similar beliefs of how their God is. In forcing the candidate to recite "in God we trust" when it goes against a fundamental and sincere belief does hold grounds for a violation of the Free Exercise rights of Tosone. And it is especially problematic that the State of New Jersey is prohibiting him from holding public office unless he recites the oath, which could introduce a level of coercion to abandon his personal beliefs. With all of this in mind I would most likely side with your conclusion even though I can understand the opposing side as well.
Nice work, Claire. This is a complicated case, particularly considering the nation's history of including God in various governmental practices. Notwithstanding, the court historically behaves in a manner which favors the majority and harms the minority. In this instance, Tosone is in the clear minority, refusing to state an oath, in which he does not endorse. I liked how you mentioned that 24% of the state's eligible populous is not able to run for this position as a result of this policy. Additionally, given the precedents which you aptly mention, I believe that the state of New Jersey is violating the First Amendment.
Claire,
You chose a great case to analyze, and with its contents, you developed a well-written argument. As foreseen in the comments before mine, this case is hard to decipher and is profoundly divided. I acknowledge Devin’s reference to the fact that “so help me God” is rooted deeply in American tradition. However, I find the free exercise rights of all citizens to trump this tradition. Forcing people to solemnly promise on the basis of God is, in my opinion, a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. If we were to abide by the argument that “so help me God” is merely tradition, then we will continuously be catering to the majority. As you stated, refusing to declare this statement potentially bars 24% of New Jersey residents from running for office. If we were to ignore this statistic, we are merely ignoring and refusing to accommodate minorities once again.
Good post. I agree with you that oath of allegiance violates the rights to free speech and free activity. Regardless of the candidates' own beliefs, the Secretary of State imposes religious feelings on them through it. I liked your point about how often in the contest for public office, many candidates are unable to openly express their opinions without jeopardizing their standing. Given that there isn't a substitute oath available and that taking it can require people to violate their personal convictions, this seems unconstitutional to me as well.
Claire,
I agree with your holding on this case because of your argument that the phrasing of the oath itself is not unconstitutional, but that the lack of exemption granted to anyone wishing to hold office without a theistic belief is. This is because precedent supports the term 'God' in long-standing documents and traditions - thus, it is almost irrelevant to bring up the issue. On the other hand, it seems your argument for a violation of the free exercise clause is thoroughly thought out. We are not only granted the ability to practice religion under this clause, but we are also granted a lack of coercion to participate in any acts of religion if an individual is unwilling. Thus, I think exemptions should be granted for having to recite at least a certain portion of the oath. Granted, our Professor made a good point that this is not a great way to win over the masses in our society! Great post and topic of discussion!
Post a Comment