North Dakota voters overwhelmingly rejected an amendment to their constitution that would have established the standards of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in that state, as many other states have done. The margin was almost 2-1 against it, which I find surprising. Here’s what the amendment said:
Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.
This is pretty much identical to the RFRA, which applies only at the federal level, and to similar laws in 27 other states. And the language is straight out of the Supreme Court’s strict scrutiny standard. I’m really quite surprised it was rejected, especially by such a wide margin. The problem I have with it is that it singles out religious beliefs. I think all laws should be subject to strict scrutiny by the courts. Every individual should be free to do what they want unless the government can show a compelling state interest in stopping them from doing so. That’s how you make the 9th Amendment mean something.
23 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Phillip IV
June 15, 2012 at 2:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If you took it seriously, that passage would make the amendment pretty much irrelevant, anyway. Unfortunately I’m pretty sure that no actually proof of sincerity would be required to file a claim under it. (“As proof that my client is serious about his religious beliefs, my client has removed his right leg, which is entered into evidence as exhibit ‘A’…”)
Erista (aka Eris)
June 15, 2012 at 2:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I live in North Dakota, and one person that I talked to voted no because she couldn’t figure out what the measure was supposed to do that wasn’t already being done, and she was worried about people using it as a way to get away with behavior that would otherwise be illegal.
There are more reasons here:
http://ndagainst3.com/why-i-am-voting-no/
Reginald Selkirk
June 15, 2012 at 2:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hmmm, supposing you could prove that a Catholic pharmacist who refused to sell contraceptives was was not “sincere” in his Catholicism because he did not believe in transubstantiation – I don’t suppose that would affect the sincerity of their belief that contraception was against their cafeteria religion. Does the government really want to be in the business of judging which religious beliefs are sincere?
Spanish Inquisitor
June 15, 2012 at 3:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As a lawyer, I see it as a boon for lawyers. The litigation/time expended to prove or disprove something as subjective as sincerity would create a lawsuit every time the provision is invoked.
Of course, I wouldn’t get any of the business, because I’m in PA.
tomh
June 15, 2012 at 3:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ #3
Does the government really want to be in the business of judging which religious beliefs are sincere?
The government has been knee deep in that one for years. Just about every religious exemption, for instance the religious exemption from school-required vaccinations that 48 states have, require a “sincerely held” religious belief. The only time I’ve seen it challenged is when the sincerely held belief involves using illegal drugs.
harold
June 15, 2012 at 3:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It does seem that things like peyote would more or less instantly become legal.
As it happens, I’m strongly in favor of legalizing peyote (for full disclosure I have never used the stuff, I just don’t think people should be legally punished for doing so).
However, I don’t see any need to tie legalization to religious ceremonies. The idea that it’s legal to use peyote for a religious ceremony, but not legal to use it unless you set up a religious ceremony, is silly. Better than pointless total prohibition, but silly.
eric
June 15, 2012 at 4:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Erista – I think your friend nailed it in one.
frog
June 15, 2012 at 5:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person, with a good education and upper-middle-class upbringing. And I still had to read that twice to understand what direction it was slanting against.
It’s not badly written, but it’s the sort of topic where you go in knowing it has a bias of some sort, and you (well, I) spend more time looking for the keywords (or dogwhistles) than reading it. I wonder how many teabaggers in ND just saw “Not” and “religion” and couldn’t parse the string of what looks like a double-negative but isn’t. (Specifically, the second sentence in the excerpt.)
I can imagine the less educated crowd getting lost in the clauses and just voting *against* because that’s always safer than voting *for* if you suspect hornswogglery.
Kamaka
June 15, 2012 at 6:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Another North Dakotan here. *Waves at Erista*
This measure was being touted as a “vote for religious freedom”. I went and voted against it, but with little hope it would be voted down. Color me surprised!
My concern (after the legalization of LGBT discrimination) with this constitutional amendment (yikes!) is that it would encourage the religious bullies to infiltrate certain occupations like pharmacy so as to impose their religious rules on others.
I had a big smile Wednesday when I heard the measure got spanked.
raven
June 15, 2012 at 7:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sometimes these hallucinogenic drug using churches have been ruled legal.
There are a lot of them that use drugs like peyote, psylocybin, cannabis, and ayahuasca (rainforest drug DMT + MOA-I).
This law might well have made these churches legal. Just think, North Dakota would become the next Haight-Ashbury!!!
I’m sure they would be thrilled when long haired drug using religionists move there en masse.
It would also legalize polygamy and the FLDS, which already have compounds in South Dakota. I’m sure they would love to find a place that wants them. And of course any and all sorts of Moslem practices as well.
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
Kamaka
June 15, 2012 at 7:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raven @ 10
Hmmm, there’s a whole lot of Somali and Kenyan immigrants moving to Grand Forks these days, and they are Black and they are Muslim!
The Islam factor never really crossed my mind with this measure…I wonder how many of the against voters thought of this.
vmanis1
June 15, 2012 at 8:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Since it didn’t define `religion’, I figured the measure could have had all sorts of curious consequences had it passed.
1. The Jedi religion. There are actually a lot of people in the UK who put down `Jedi’ on government forms that ask for religion. A practitioner of Jedi can, for example, routinely blast bad guys into smithereens, even without provocation. This is way beyond `Stand Your Ground’! (Let’s not get into the whole `Han Solo shot first’ thing, though. Han wasn’t a Jedi.) The Jedi Mind Trick (`Obama has presided over the biggest deficit since Bill Clinton’, while making strange passes with your hands and observing that the trees are exactly the right height) is another perk of the religion.
2. Absenteeism. A particularly ecumenical employee might feel the need to observe all Jewish, Christian, and Muslim holy days (and the Christian ones on both the Gregorian and Julian calendars), as well as Festivus (just in case). This leaves just a few days of actual work per year (for example, one must observe the feast day of St Dodo on October 1), at full salary. Docking salary for `absenteeism’ would be religious discrimination.
3. Infant sacrifice to Moloch. Say no more!
Apart from the confusing language, some voters (even conservative ones) may have objected to the absolutist language. We may actually be observing a pushback from wingnuttery on the part of ordinary citizens. I sure hope so.
BCPA_Lady (now appearing in MN!)
June 15, 2012 at 10:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Not a North Dakotan but on the border in Moorhead, MN and made calls for Planned Parenthood against Measure 3. *waves to Erista & Kamaka*
Most people I talked to understood already, or got it fairly quickly, that this could be used by anyone of any faith to discriminate against members of different faiths or even against members of a different denomination within their faith. Dicrimination against LGBT persons or denying birth control to women is one thing; Christians being possible targets was a whole other.
To be honest, I was more surprised that Measure 4 (to let the Fighting Sioux name disappear into history) was approved.
Randomfactor
June 16, 2012 at 12:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Government may not burden (North Dakota proposal.)
Government shall not substantially burden (RFRA).
THAT is why it was so dangerous. I’m flabbergasted that it was voted down.
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
June 16, 2012 at 2:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This should be so basic that it’s not even praiseworthy, but relative to the general population, your friend deserves a medal.
docatheist
June 16, 2012 at 6:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m a former NoDak, missing the place and hoping to return, someday. Meanwhile, waves at other NoDaks, here, and a thought: This amendment-attempt didn’t put itself on the ballot. Is there any move to replace the politicians responsible?
justawriter
June 16, 2012 at 11:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@docatheist It was an initiated measure so it was petitions circulated among the general public that put the measure on the ballot. Actually, the repub leadership was smart enough to not publicly support the measure very much. The main pro-measure leadership came from the catholic bishops and their minions (pro-measure “prayer cards” were distributed at mass). Sadly, North Dakota’s recall provisions do not include church leaders.
Chris from Europe
June 16, 2012 at 11:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@BCPA_Lady
What would the consequences have been for the team? Would the leagues continue to allow them to play with the old name?
matty1
June 16, 2012 at 4:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I actually like this proposal but I’d make a few changes to ensure equality under the law.
Now we can can have a discussion about what is a compelling government interest and what are the least restrictive means to achieve those interests. At the very least it would be saner than a lot of political discussions.
democommie
June 17, 2012 at 8:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
My dad was from S.Dak, which also has more than its share of whackaloon fundiefuckheadz. Is it because the winters are so long and the practice of sacrificing virgins (or harlots, ymmv in this regard) to the GOD of springtime is no longer socially acceptable/legal that they are so fucking loony?
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe
June 17, 2012 at 11:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ditto.
since I don’t get to vote here, I’ve just been badgering the boyfriend with how important those two measures were, because I thought it would be close.
yep. this would have been literally a “get out of jail free” card. I was primarily worried about the effect of that on the volunteers (and patients) of the women’s health clinic here (only place to get an abortion in all of ND), since we’re already regularly harassed by the super-conservative Catholics. if this had passed, who knows if they’d still follow the law that forbids them from blocking the entrance, for example.
Jadehawk, chef d’orchestre féministe
June 17, 2012 at 11:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
there were sanctions against the team from the NCAA, but they’d still be allowed to play the regular season games. from wikipedia:
democommie
June 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“if this had passed, who knows if they’d still follow the law that forbids them from blocking the entrance, for example.”
I think that the homobootedjackthugs of the atheofascist federal gummint would stop them, at least for the moment.