The American Civil Liberties Union just released a report arguing that Florida legislators’ rationale for a constitutional amendment that would repeal Florida’s ban on taxpayer funds going to religious institutions is false. #
According to the ACLU of Florida, all claims of a “link between anti-Catholic bias and Florida’s 125-year-old constitutional ban on taxpayer funding of religious groups and activities” are false. The group says that this “myth” is being used “to justify repeal of Florida’s long-standing constitutional separation of church and state.” #
This year, the GOP-led Legislature placed a constitutional amendment on the 2012 ballot called the “Religious Freedom Act.” Sponsors of the amendment said the current law withholding taxpayer funds from institutions was linked to a bigoted law aimed at Catholics in the 1800s. Rep. Steve Precourt, R-Orlando, one of the bill’s sponsors, said the bill would remove such “discriminatory language”: #
“Blaine Amendments are antiquated constitutional tenants rooted in bigotry that go far beyond the separation of church and state envisioned by our founding fathers,” Precourt said. “If we don’t take action now, millions of dollars in quality state programs- from Bright Futures to voluntary pre-kindergarten – may be jeopardized.” #
Groups have already pointed out that religious groups are already receiving large amounts of taxpayer dollars — and there is no clear threat to those funds. #
However, the ACLU of Florida now points out that calling the law “bigoted” toward Catholics is also unsound. The group’s report, “Exposing the Myth of Anti-Catholic Bias: The Fabrication of History to Repeal the Florida Constitution’s No-Aid Provision” (.pdf), presents multiple documents that disprove claims that the current constitutional “provision was the product of bigotry against Catholics.” #
According to the ACLU’s report, “there is simply no evidence showing that the Florida no-aid provision was inspired by or modeled after the federal Blaine Amendment. Moreover, these claims grossly mischaracterize the alleged anti-Catholic roots of the Blaine Amendment.” #
In the group’s press release, Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida ACLU, accuses state lawmakers of “shamefully stoking fears of religious discrimination and provoking religious divisions in order to gain access to taxpayer dollars.” #
“We understand why those who support taxpayer funding of mosques, synagogues, and churches want to fabricate the story of historical bias, but it’s a deception designed only to get the government to fund religious organizations,” Simon says in the release. “The Florida legislators and others who made these claims either didn’t know the truth or ignored it.” #
The report provides the ACLU, or any other group, more evidence with which to legally challenge the ballot measure. challenge the language of the ballot measure’s summary. #
#
Currently, the ballot summary (.pdf) that citizens will see before voting for the amendment reads: “A joint resolution proposing an amendment to Section 3 of Article I of the State Constitution to eradicate remnants of anti-religious bigotry from the State Constitution and to end exclusionary funding practices that discriminate on the basis of religious belief or identity.” #
As The Florida Independent has reported, despite the new evidence of flaws in the ballot measure’s language, challenging it is significantly harder right now. #
The Florida Legislature passed an elections bill this year that rewrites the rules for groups seeking to challenge ballot language, making it significantly more difficult to do so. New rules require groups to offer a challenge within 30 days of the amendment being filed with Florida’s Department of State. If the rule is successfully challenged, “the elections bill [also] requires the attorney general to revise the title or ballot summary.” It had been the job of the Legislature to rewrite the language. #
It is unclear what happens if that language, too, would be successfully challenged. #
Religious groups leader has warned that if this amendment were to pass, “religious freedom” would not be the result. #
Rabbi Merrill Shapiro of Temple Beth Shalom in Palm Coast told the Independent that bigger problems will arise down the road when religious institutions are further entangled with the government. “It’s a thicket they can’t get out of,” Shapiro warns. “Once you take that money, the government can make stipulations.” #
Groups have less than three weeks to challenge the language of the ballot measure. #
Correction: #
In its original form, this story incorrectly quoted the “Religious Freedom” amendment’s ballot summary, which actually reads: #
[N]o individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, governmental benefits, funding, or other support, and to delete the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution. #
#
We apologize for the error. #
