The American Humanist Legal Center has a new court case that’s definitely worth watching.
“An Illinois member [of the American Humanist Association] voted in a church that displayed a four-foot wooden crucifix right above the election judges. Another member in California was confronted by a large marble plaque dedicated to the ‘unborn children’ who are ‘killed’ by abortion, and containing a quote from the Bible justifying the notion that the soul is alive in the womb. And a New York member voted in a room featuring large religious slogans on the wall behind the voting machines.”
Simply using church space for balloting is one thing. Frequently, it’s about logistical convenience — in many parts of the country, a local church is the only public facility big enough to accommodate the community’s voters. But when voters are confronted, while voting, with politically-charged messages, we’re confronted with a far bigger problem. As Zachary Roth put it, “[I]f you’re going to ban signs from candidates in and around polling places, it’s hard to see the logic for allowing religious statements or images with obviously political implications.”
Indeed, it is. In fact, a lawsuit like this one seemed inevitable.
As we’ve talked about before, a study from Stanford’s business school was published in July that suggested where you vote has an influence on how you vote.
It’s hard to imagine that something as innocuous as polling location (e.g., school, church, or fire station) might actually influence voting behavior, but the Stanford researchers have discovered just that. In fact, Wheeler says “the influence of polling location on voting found in our research would be more than enough to change the outcome of a close election.” And, as seen in the neck-to-neck 2000 presidential election where Al Gore ultimately lost to George W. Bush after months of vote counting in Florida, election biases such as polling location could play a significant role in the 2008 presidential election. Even at the proposition level, “Voting at a school could increase support for school spending or voting at a church could decrease support for stem cell initiatives,” says [S. Christian Wheeler, associate professor of marketing].
Why might something like polling location influence voting behavior? “Environmental cues, such as objects or places, can activate related constructs within individuals and influence the way they behave,” says Berger. “Voting in a school, for example, could activate the part of a person’s identity that cares about kids, or norms about taking care of the community. Similarly, voting in a church could activate norms of following church doctrine. Such effects may even occur outside an individual’s awareness.”
And that’s just dealing with voting in churches in general, and doesn’t address church-based communications such as those alleged in the American Humanist Legal Center lawsuit.
I can’t imagine policy makers ever having the courage to try and “correct” this problem, but that’s exactly why the court case should be interesting. Stay tuned.