By Richard R. Hammar, J.D., LL.M., CPA
© Copyright 1993, 1998 by Church Law & Tax Report. All rights reserved. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Church Law & Tax Report, PO Box 1098, Matthews, NC 28106. Reference Code: m47 c0493
Key point: The use of churches
as polling places in local elections does not violate the
constitutional prohibition of the establishment of a religion.
A federal appeals court rejected an
atheist's contention that the use of churches as polling places
violated the first amendment. The court observed that "we find
frivolous plaintiff's argument that his atheistic beliefs do not
permit him to enter a church and that, therefore, he is denied his
right to vote when his precinct polling place is an Episcopal
church." A state election board defended the practice of using
churches as polling places as follows: "Church buildings are
located throughout a city, including in the residential areas of
which many precincts consist; they have parking lots; and they
typically have a commons areal, parish hall, foyer, nursery or some
other such nonconsecrated portion of the church building which can
be used as a polling place." The election board pointed out that
churches representing several denominations were used, and that
none was favored. The court concluded: "[W]e conclude that by
voting in a church building plaintiff is not required to attest to
the nature of his religious beliefs, and that the burden of free
exercise of religious beliefs is so slight that it does not begin
to outweigh the interest of the state in having available to it the
additional polling places which the use of the churches affords."
Otero v. State Election Board of Oklahoma, 975 F.2d 738 (10th
Cir. 1992).