Democracy, elections and voting at Democracy Chronicles
The election news site Ballot Access News had a post, Michigan Successfully Fends Off Attack on Election Law that Prohibits Church Officials from Telling Voters How to Vote, by Richard Winger about the Tax Exemption intersection with religion that is controversial at minimum and impacts a certain Michigan lawsuit.
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…
…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 That bill passed and therefore the Montana law is now repealed.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.
See the full post at Ballot Access News.
Leave a Reply