Since 1877, Michigan has had an election law that says, “A priest, pastor, curate, or other officer of a religious society shall not for the purpose of influencing a voter at an election, impose or threaten to impose upon the voter a penalty of excommunication, dismissal, or expulsion, or command or advise the voter, under pain of religious disapproval.” Anyone who breaks this law is guilty of a misdemeanor.
On October 22, 2012, Pastor Levon Yuille filed a lawsuit, alleging that he believes that voting for a politician who publicly supports abortion and gay marriage is a sin, and also alleging that he is afraid if he preaches that, he is subject to a criminal penalty. Yuille v Schuette, 2:12cv-14652, eastern district. The state defended the constitutionality of this law, saying,, “Religious officials have the power to wield immense, even compulsory, influence over some voters in a way that other individuals may not – especially those in their own congregation…The potential influence of a religious official over some voters – and therefore, the potential for intimidation and coercion – is far greater and even harder to detect than that caused by leafleting or other political activity.” The state also said the law is not enforced and therefore the plaintiff lacks standing. Also the state says the law only refers to activity at the polls, which seems a strained interpretation.
The U.S. District Court, and the 6th circuit, then ruled that the plaintiff lacks standing. The Michigan law is still on the books. Although there are 42 election law bills pending in the Michigan legislature, there is no bill to repeal this law.
This outcome stands in sharp contrast to a similar incident in 2012 in Montana, where a law said, “A person who is a minister, preacher, priest, or other church officer my not, other than by public speech or print, urge, persuade, or command any voter to vote or refrain from voting for or against any candidate, political party ticket, or ballot issue submitted to the people because of the person’s religious duty.”
A lawsuit, Zastrow v Bullock, cv 12-18-RFC, was filed to overturn that law. Montana admitted the law was unconstitutional and signed a consent decree not to enforce it. Then, in 2013, Montana Secretary of State Linda McCulloch put a repeal of the law in her omnibus election law bill, HB 120. That bill passed and therefore the Montana law is now repealed. The fact that two such similar cases had such different outcomes is a sad commentary on the random nature of litigation and also an interesting commentary on the difference between Montana’s Secretary of State and Attorney General (both were Democrats during 2012), compared to Michigan’s Secretary of State and Attorney General (both are Republicans). Thanks to Thomas Jones for the information about the Michigan lawsuit.
What if I’m a leader of an atheist organization and I think voting for a candidate who uses religion in his policies is morally wrong? Am I allowed to do that?
We have separation of church and state in this country. A leader of a religious institution is no more or less powerful than, say, a college professor is to his students, and yet professors can spread their political philosophy all they want, and very often do.
Not to mention, the government has no right to tell church officials what they can and can’t say. No law shall be passed that abridges on freedom of religion. If I’m a preacher, and I believe my religion teaches me that voting for a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage candidate is a sin, I have a right to preach that to my congregation, even more so than the professor does. After all, there is no “freedom of education” in the first amendment. Not that I don’t support educational freedom, but it’s not a Constitutional right.
And then we come back to the atheist question I asked up top. If I am an atheist who opposes religion and am a leader of an atheist organization, can I say to my fellow atheists that it is morally wrong to vote for a candidate who uses religion in their policies? After all, I am saying that it goes against our “religion” of atheism to vote for such a candidate. Am I subject to the misdemeanor?
One would think not, since I’m not actually a religious official. I’m an anti-religious official. On the other hand, many atheists will list their “religion” as “atheism” on forms. But at the same time, I can’t see them prosecuting the leader of an atheist group as a religious official, and if they did, I think we would see many objections both from atheists themselves and from members of other organized religions. So that covers pretty much everyone. Therefore, there is no way the DA who would prosecute such a guy would ever get elected again, without support from any religious or non-religious people (after all, who else is there?)
Therefore, I would not expect an atheist leader to be prosecuted under this law, even if it is theoretically allowed, which I don’t think it is. Therefore, this law is even more in violation of the First Amendment because it ONLY applies to leaders of organized religions, and not to leaders of anti-religious groups who are making the opposite argument.
#1, good comment. The plaintiff argued that the law violates equal protection. I think an anti-religious orator would not be covered by the law. But since the courts ruled the plaintiff lacked standing, the courts didn’t decide the equal protection argument, or the First Amendment argument either. When a court says a plaintiff doesn’t have standing, that is the end of what the court says.
I think the law pretty clearly violates the First Amendment’s speech clause. States can make “true threats” criminal, but the law’s underinclusiveness is the problem. Same thing for equal protection. The lower court and Sixth Circuit, unfortunately, concluded that because it had never been enforced the plaintiff could not establish a reasonable threat. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have been using this rationale more frequently to dismiss First Amendment suits.
1 –
I am an atheist. I think it’s woth asserting that atheism is not a religion much the same as declaring onesself as an independent voter does not make one a “party member” but that’s another discussion.
As an atheist, I believe, resolutely, that the state has no right or interest in dictating what is said by a church member or person of the cloth on any matter, moral or political. Period. End of story.u
Church officials should not be telling people who to vote for anyway. We go to City Church of New Orleans for worship, not to be given voting instructions.