No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Legal Fantasy: Marylanders for Tolerance Now! v. Maryland State Administrative Board of Election Laws, and American Citizens for Tolerance Now! v. Federal Election Commission
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 April 2015
Extract
The following article is a creative thought-experiment. I hypothesize that a group of religious believers forms a religious political party, which I call the Christian Democratic Party. As the party begins to succeed, alarmed citizens bring suit to stop it, challenging its right to exist in our constitutional system. I imagine that the case comes to the Supreme Court, and I present the hypothetical majority and minority opinions of the Court.
Before I present the case, however, I should set the stage. According to some commentators, the United States is in the midst of a full-blown “culture war” between the forces of traditional religion and militant secularism. Contemporary American politics— matching the definition of politics as “war by other means”— would seem to confirm this analysis. Recent election studies demonstrate that the Republican and Democratic parties are becoming increasingly defined by core constituencies of religious conservatives and secularist liberals. There is a growing recognition that religious differences constitute a significant factor in the voting behavior of many Americans.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 1994
References
1. The term “culture war” was popularized by Hunter, James Davison in his Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America (Basic Books, 1991)Google Scholar. Since then, Hunter has addressed the political implications of his thesis in Before the Shooting Begins: Searching for Democracy in America's Culture War (Free Press, 1994)Google Scholar.
2. See for example, John C. Green, et al, “Murphy Brown Revisited: The Social Issues in the 1992 Election,” with Responses and Comments in Cromartie, Michael D., ed, Disciples and Democracy: Religious Conservatives and the Future of American Politics at 43–78 (Ethics and Public Policy Center and William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994)Google Scholar; Smidt, Corwin, “Evangelical Voting Patterns: 1976-1988” at 85–123Google Scholar with a Response by Guth, James in Cromartie, Michael, ed, No Longer Exiles: The Religious New Right in American Politics (Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1993)Google Scholar.
3. The literature, spurred on by Greenawalt's, KentReligious Conviction and Political Choice (Oxford U Press, 1988)Google Scholar, is fast becoming voluminous. For a sampling of the most recent debates, see the symposia in 39 DePaul L Rev (1990)Google Scholar, 4 Notre Dame J L Ethics & Pub Pol'y 385 (1990)Google Scholar, 60 Geo W L Rev (1992)Google Scholar, and 30 San Diego L Rev (1993)Google Scholar; Perry, Michael J., Love and Power: The Role of Religion and Morality in American Politics (Oxford U Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Smolin, David, Regulating Religious and Cultural Conflict in a Postmodern America: A Response to Professor Perry, 76 Iowa L Rev 1067 (1991)Google Scholar; Conkle, Daniel O., Different Religions, Different Politics: Evaluating the Role of Competing Religious Traditions in American Politics and Law, 10 J Law & Relig 1 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lugo, Luis E., ed, Religion, Public Life, and the American Polity (U of Tenn Press, 1994)Google Scholar; and Caudill, David S., Pluralism and the Quality of Religious Discourse in Law and Politics, 6 Fla J of Law & Pub Policy 135 (1994)Google Scholar.
4. Lemon v Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971). Looking at Supreme Court Establishment Clause cases from 1992 to 1994, one gets a vivid sense of the Court's ambivalence toward Lemon. In Lee v Weisman, 505 US —, 112 S Ct 2649, 120 LEd2d 467 (1992); the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy avoids using it but declines to discard it. Id at 2654. Justice Scalia, on the other hand, rejects it. Id at 2678. In Lamb's Chapel v Center Moriches Union Free School District, 506 US —, 113 S Ct 2141.124 LEd2d 352 (1993), the majority opinion by Justice White cites it, id at 2148, only to incur the wrath of Justices Kennedy and Scalia in their concurrences. Id at 2149-2150. In Zobrest v Catalina Foothills School District, 506 US —, 113 S Ct 2462, 125 LEd2d 1 (1993), the majority opinion by Justice Rehnquist entirely ignores it, and Justice Blackmun's dissent mentions it only in passing, id at 2473. In Board of Education of Kiryas Joel School Village v Grumet, 507 US —, 114 S Ct 2481, 129 LEd2d 546 (1994), the majority opinion by Justice Souter cites but ignores Lemon, id at 2488, resting its analysis on Larkin v Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 US 116 (1982). Justice Blackmun insists that Lemon is significant, id at 2494. Justices Stevens and Kennedy ignore it, id at 2495 and 2500. Justice O’Connor notes and applauds “the slide away from” it, id at 2500, and Justice Scalia's dissent ridicules it, id at 2515.
5. Carter, Stephen L., The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion (Basic Books, 1993)Google Scholar. President Clinton publicly praised the book to the White House press. For responses to Carter, see First Things 48-50, 66-68 (Dec 1993).
6. See, for example, Hertzke, Allen D., Representing God in Washington: The Role of Religious Lobbies in the American Polity (U of Tenn Press, 1988)Google Scholar, and Wuthnow, Robert, The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith Since World War II (Princeton U Press, 1988)Google Scholar. For examples from earlier periods, see Noll, Mark A., ed, Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the 1980s (Oxford U Press, 1990)Google Scholar.
7. On the similarities between Jackson and Robertson, despite their many differences, see Hertzke, Allen D., Echoes of Discontent: Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, and the Resurgence of Populism (Congressional Quartely Press, 1993)Google Scholar.
8. Md Elect Code Ann § 16-4 (1990).
9. Md Elect Code Ann § 8-5 (1990).
10. Md Elect Code Ann § 19-5 (1990).
11. Md Elec Code Ann § 1A-1(a) (1990).
12. Id.
13. Md Elec Code Ann § 1A-1(e)(1) (1990).
14. Md Elec Code Ann § 2-3(a)(16) (1990).
15. Md Elec Code Ann § 2-7(a).
16. 2 USC § 432 (1991).
17. 2 USC §§ 432, 437 (1991).
18. 26 USC § 9033(b) (1989).
19. 26 USC §§ 9033(b)(3), 9037(a) (1989).
20. 26 USC §§ 9033, 9034, 9036 (1989).
21. 26 USC § 9008(b)(2) (1989).
22. 26 USC § 9003(c) (1989).
23. 26 USC § 9004(2)(a) (1989).
24. 26 USC § 9007 (1989).
25. Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 US 296 (1940), Everson v Board of Education of The Township of Ewing, 330 US 1 (1947).
26. Flast v Cohen, 392 US 83, 102-04 (1968), Valley Forge Christian College v Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 US 464, 478-79 (1982).
27. Bowen v Kendrick, 487 US 589, 601 (1988).
28. Lemon v Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971), Lynch v Donnelly, 465 US 668, 687 (1984) (O'Connor concurring), County of Allegheny v ACLU, 492 US 573, 592 (1989).
29. County of Allegheny, 492 US at 627 (O'Connor concurring).
30. NAACP v Button, 371 US 415, 444-5 (1963).
31. dimore v City of Montgomery, 417 US 556 (1974).
32. Roberts v United States Jaycees, 468 US 609 (1984), Board of Directors of Rotary International v Rotary Club at Duarte, 481 US 537 (1987), and New York State Club Association, Inc. v City of New York, 487 US 1 (1988).
33. Runyan v McCrary, 427 US 160 (1976).
34. Democratic Party of the United States v Wisconsin ex rel. LaFollette, 450 US 107 (1981) (National Democratic Party may refuse to seat the Wisconsin delegation, because Wisconsin's mandatory open primary violated internal guidelines of the Party); Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 US 208 (1986) (Republican Party's willingness to permit independent voters to vote in Republican primaries overrides Connecticut's prohibition of open primaries); Eu v San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, 489 US 214 (1989) (Democratic Party of California has the right to choose its own leaders, and engage in pre-primary endorsements, despite state law that attempts to regulate these and other party activities).
35. 321 US 649 (1944).
36. 345 US 461 (1953).
37. Smith, 321 US at 664.
38. Id at 664-65.
39. Terry, 345 US at 469- 70.
40. 500 US 614 (1991).
41. Edmonson, 500 US at 618-19.
42. The relationship of the State of Maryland to the primary elections of its political parties appears more equivocal than that of Texas, at least as it existed at the time of Smith and Terry. On the one hand, officially-recognized political parties are forbidden to incorporate under Maryland law, and must follow certain rules in terms of elections, meetings, notice, and the like. Md Elec Code Ann §§ 4B-1, 11-3 (1990).
On the other hand, the Maryland courts have found that Article 7 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and Article I, § 1 of the Maryland Constitution do not apply to primary elections, and do not give a voter the right to participate in the primary election of a party to which he or she does not belong. Hill v Mayor and Town Council of Colmar Manor, 210 Md 46, 122 A2d 463 (1956); Hennegan v Geartner, 186 Md 551, 47 A2d 393 (1946). This extends to matters of procedure: As distinct from general elections, for example, there is no write-in privilege in primaries, and the primary is merely an officially-supervised party process. State Administration Board of Election Laws v Calvert, 272 Md 659, 327 A2d 290 (1974), cert denied, 419 US 1110 (1975). The net effect of this scheme seems to be a system which is strict about supervision but arms-length toward substance.
While the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 supersedes state law in some aspects, it does not supersede state laws which provide for, inter alia, “Manner of qualifying as a candidate or political party organization” or “Voter Registration.…” 2 USC § 453 (1985). 11 CFR § 108.7(c)(l)(3) (1992).
43. Lemon, 403 US at 616-17 (finding parochial schools an integral part of the mission of the Roman Catholic Church).
44. Bowen, 487 US at 609-11.
45. Id at 624 (Kennedy concurring).
46. Lee v Weisman, 505 US —, —, 112 S Ct 2649, 2671, 120 LEd2d 467 (1992) (Souter concurring); see also Baer, Richard A., The Supreme Court's Discriminatory Use of the Term “Sectarian:’ 6 J L & Pol 449 (Spring 1990)Google Scholar.
47. Bowen, 487 US 589 at 612.
48. Zobrest v Catalina Foothills School District, 506 US —, —, 113 S Ct 2462, 2466-67, 125 LE2d 1 (1993).
49. Bowen, 487 US at 624-25 (Kennedy concurring).
50. Bowen, 487 US at 613.
51. US Const Amends XIV, XV, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI.
52. Harper v Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 US 663 (1966); Kramer v Union Free School District #15, 395 US 621 (1969).
53. Lee, — US at —, 112 S Ct at 2661, 120 LEd2d 467 (1992).
54. Allegheny, 492 US at 631 (O'Connor concurring) (emphasis in original).
55. Lamb's Chapel v Center Moriches School District, 506 US —, 113 S Ct 2141, 124 LEd2d 352 (1993).
56. Id at 2148.
57. Witters v Washington Department of Services for the Blind, 474 US 481 (1986).
58. Id at 489.
59. Zobrest, 506 US at —, 113 S Ct at 2466, 125 LEd2d 1 (1993).
60. Board of Education of Kiryas Joel v Grumet, 507 US —, —, 114 S Ct 2481, 2492, 129, LEd2d 546 (1994) (quoting Walz v Tax Commission, 397 US 644, 673 (1970)).
61. Lee, 505 US at —, 112 S Ct at 2657, 120 LEd2d 467 (1992).
62. Lemon, 403 US at 615.
63. Md Elec Code Ann § 4B-1 (1990).
64. Md Elec Code Ann § 5-1(a) (1990).
65. Md Elec Code Ann § 24-23 (1990).
66. State Administration Board of Election Laws v Calvert, 272 Md 659, 327 A2d 290 (1974), cert denied, 419 US 1110 (1975).
67. Md Elec Code Ann § 2-1(a)(1) (1990).
68. Md Elec Code Ann § 2-7 (1990).
69. Id.
70. Md Const Art 1, § 9.
71. Md Const Art 15, § 3.
72. Elrod v Burns, 427 US 347 (1976), Branti v Finkel, 445 US 507 (1980), Rutan v Republican Party of Illinois, 497 US 62 (1990).
73. 2 USC §§ 431, 432(e), 432(h), 434 (1989); 11 CFR § 102.1, 103.2, 104.1-.3 (1992).
74. 11 CFR § 104.3(b)(3)(i)(B) (1992).
75. 11 CFR § 100.8(b)(6) (1992).
76. 11 CFR § 110.13 (1992).
77. 11 CFR § 9002.11(a)(1) (1992).
78. 11 CFR §§ 9002.11(a)(1) and (2), 9032.9(a)(2) and (3) (1992).
79. USC Const Art VI, cl 3.
80. Bradley, Gerard V., The No Religious Test Clause and the Constitution of Religious Liberty: A Machine that Has Gone of Itself, 37 Case W Res L Rev 674, 712–21 (1987)Google Scholar.
81. See Powell v McCormack, 395 US 486 (1969).
82. Monsma, Stephen V., Positive Neutrality: Letting Religious Freedom Ring at 174 (Greenwood Press, 1993)Google Scholar.
83. See Lamb's Chapel, 506 US at —, 113 S Ct at 214; see also International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v Lee, 505 US —, 112 S Ct 2701, 120 LEd 541 (1992).
84. See Md Elec Code Ann § 24 (1990).
85. Buckley v Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976).
86. Lamb's Chapel, 506 US at —, —, 113 S Ct at 2147, 124 LEd2d 352 (1993); Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v Mergens, 496 US 226 (1990) (public secondary school setting); Widmar v Vincent, 454 US 263 (1981) (public university setting).
87. Lamb's Chapel, 506 US at —, 113 S Ct at 2147, 124 LEd2d 352 (1993).
88. Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 US 503, 509 (1969).
89. Lamb's Chapel, 506 US at —, 113 S Ct at 2148, 124 LEd2d 352 (1993).
90. Lemon, 403 US at 622.
91. McDaniel v Paty, 435 US 618, 640 (1978) (Brennan concurring).
92. Id at 629 (allowing clergy to serve in public office).
93. Id at 641.
94. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, 505 US —, 112 S Ct 2791, 2884 (1992) (Scalia dissenting).
95. McDaniel, 435 US at 642 (Brennan concurring).
96. Id at 625.
97. Opinion at 120.
98. Id at 126.
99. Id at 125-26.
100. Id at 121.
101. Id. at 121, 127-28.
102. Smith, 321 US at 664, Terry, 345 US at 469-470.
103. Smith, 321 US at 665.
104. Opinion at 124.
105. Id.
106. Id at 124-25.
107. US Const Amend I.
108. Opinion at 123-24.
109. Zobrest, 506 US at —, 113 S Ct at 2472, 125 Led2d 1 (1993) n 2, 3 (Blackmun dissenting, quoting from the Agreement).
110. Id at 2472 (Blackmun dissenting).
111. Id at 2467.
112. Allegheny, 492 US at 627 (O'Connor concurring).
113. 507 US —, 114 S Ct 2473, 129 LEd2d 546 (1994).
114. Id at 2487.
115. Bowen, 487 US at 601.
116. Kiryas Joel, 507 US at —, 114 S Ct at 2489, 129 LEd2d 546 (1994).
117. 459 US 116 (1982).
118. Id at 125.
119. Id at 127 (emphasis added).
120. Opinion at 132-33.
121. Lamb's Chapel, 506 US at —, 113 S Ct at 2143-144, 124 LEd2d 352 (1993) (quoting § 414(1)(c) of the New York Education Law (McKinney 1988 and Supp 1993)).
122. Widmar, 454 US at 274.
123. Mergens, 496 US at 232.
124. Lee, 505 US at —, 112 S Ct at 2661, 120 LEd2d 467 (1992).
125. Opinion at 126.
126. Id at 132.
127. Opinion at 134 (quoting McDaniel, 435 US at 625).
128. Lemon, 403 US at 622.
129. 507 US at —, 114 S Ct at 2505, 129 LEd2d 546 (1994) (Kennedy concurring).
130. Lemon, 403 US at 625.