A Colorado state appeals court has unanimously ruled that an official declaration of a day of prayer issued by Gov. Bill Ritter is unconstitutional. The case was based on the “preference clause” of the Colorado Constitution rather than the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, though it did draw on federal precedent in some of its reasoning. You can read the full ruling here.
As a result, we conclude, for the reasons that we explain in detail below, that the six Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations at issue here are governmental conduct that violates the Preference Clause. We reach that conclusion because the purpose of these particular proclamations is to express the Governor’s support for their content; their content is predominantly religious; they lack a secular context; and their effect is government endorsement of
religion as preferred over nonreligion.
The key to the case is how a reasonable observer would view such a declaration:
Looking through the eyes of a reasonable observer, we conclude that the Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations at issue here have the primary or principal effect of endorsing religious beliefs because they “convey[] or attempt[] to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.” We reach this conclusion because:
• The proclamations convey a predominantly religious message, which was supported from 2004 to 2008 by the inclusion of biblical verses and religious themes.
• They have little secular content.
• They state that individuals will “unite in prayer.”
• They bear the Governor’s imprimatur, in the form of his signature and seal.
• Unlike the crèche in the Christmas display found to pass constitutional muster in Lynch, or the monument displaying
the Ten Commandments similarly approved in Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., there is no doubt here that the
religious message is attributed to the Governor.
• Governor Ritter appeared and spoke at the private celebration of the Colorado Day of Prayer that was held on the steps of the Capitol in 2007.
• A reasonable observer would think that the proclamations were issued with the Governor’s support and approval.
• They are not issued in a manner that places them in a context with other proclamations that convey a secular message.
I’m sure the decision will be appealed, but so far it’s a major victory.
8 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Chiroptera
May 11, 2012 at 2:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I wonder if the conservative movement will suddenly realize the weakness of “leaving it to the states” and want the Federal Government to step in and guarantee the “rights” of the Christian majority to have their elected officials declare a Day of Prayer?
d cwilson
May 11, 2012 at 3:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Chiroptera:
They already do see the weakness of the “Leave it to the states” argument. That’s why they’re also pushing for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage every where.
In their world, states only have the right to make decisions they approve of.
Modusoperandi
May 11, 2012 at 3:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
d cwilson “In their world, states only have the right to make decisions they approve of.”
Paging Mister Davis! Call at the white courtesy phone for Jefferson Davis!
Gregory in Seattle
May 11, 2012 at 5:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
One state down, 49 to go.
Crudely Wrott
May 11, 2012 at 5:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
To those other 49 states is offered the reasoning of this decision. Not that reason will sway them but that the evidence is plain to see and plainly in violation of the doctrine of freedom which underlies not only the US Constitution but (it is rumored) the constitutions of the several states.
It’s not hard kiddies. It is honest and fair. True Christians get to keep their right to be enlightened by superstition and everyone else gets to keep their right to point and laugh.
What could be more fair?
At the mention of the word “fair” baby jebus weeps.
[Too bad, kid.]
sundoga
May 11, 2012 at 10:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
d cwilson, with all due respect, and noting that I am in total agreement with the court on this one, I think your statement could be expanded to every political body in the US post 1850 or so. The right-wing has no monopoly on asshats regarding state’s rights issues.
Rip Steakface
May 12, 2012 at 1:06 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Here’s to hoping that the second most secular state, Washington, will have a court case in the future go similarly.
No, I’m totally not biased despite being born in and living in Washington.
lancifer
May 13, 2012 at 11:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yeah!
But did anyone one in Colorado, or any where else notice or care?
The declaration was made and it was ceremonial.
Is the court going to force the Governor to make a public retraction, or declare that he was wrong to make such a religious declaration at all?
I doubt it.
Still it is a moral victory at least.