Campaign Calls: Exercise or Nuisance?

May 18, 2012 

In this newer age of "robo calling" and social media, the weekend before a significant election has become a lot more intense and interesting than in the days of old, before these sophisticated means of delivering down-to-the-wire messages existed. Some might offer that these means are more irritating than helpful or effective.

A friend called Sunday evening to either gripe or gloat—it wasn’t particularly clear which was more important to him—about his weekend experiences. He seemed almost gleeful about the upbeat call he claimed he received from one Sarah Palin, although he admitted she did all the talking. He mentioned that on Mothers’ Day he received a call from the Attorney General’s mother. And on Saturday, just when he was tuned in to the Husker baseball game, a doctor from Valentine called to influence his vote, even though he didn’t know her and has never visited that community. He also had to get off the couch a few times to answer calls that polled his party affiliation and voting expectations (and pushed a bit). And then there were times that when he answered there was silence. Apparently, the tape didn’t start. That was also a nuisance.

While on the topic of upcoming elections, we’ll be watching with considerable interest what happens June 12 in North Dakota on a ballot initiative. Measure 3 would amend Article I of the North Dakota Constitution by adding this provision:

"Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act based upon a religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as exclusion from programs or access to facilities."

This proposed, state constitutional amendment addresses an increasingly worrisome deficiency regarding legal protection for the Free Exercise of Religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Historically, the Constitution protected religious belief and conduct unless they were outweighed by some compelling government interest. In 1990, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith that the First Amendment only protects religious exercise from laws or regulations that target religion. Laws and regulations that control conduct that can have either a religious or non-religious motive need only have a rational basis, a much lower standard.

Subsequently in response, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which restores the compelling-interest standard as a protection for religious freedom. But RFRA does not apply to state laws and regulations.

Given the jurisprudence, an effort is being made in North Dakota, by the more secure means of a constitutional amendment, to join 27 other states—not including Nebraska—that have legislatively restored the compelling-interest standard for judicial review of state and local laws and regulations that burden religious exercise.

Also from the religious-liberty front: Information about the Fortnight for Freedom being developed and promoted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will soon be available on the Nebraska Catholic Conference’s website: www.nebcathcon.org. The fortnight leading up to Independence Day is being molded as an opportunity for the Church and the believing faithful to express their belief in religious freedom, to pray, including a special novena, and to learn. Watch for this.

Something left over from the Unicameral session that ended in mid-April:

Enacted over a Governor’s veto, LB 599 restores access to prenatal care for the unborn children of impoverished pregnant women regardless of their immigration status. Probably the most unusual happening on this bill was when, late in the evening of the second-round vote, Senator Rich Pahls announced that he would donate a month of his legislative take-home pay, about $800, to help pay for prenatal care. And, he challenged his legislator colleagues to do the same, in lieu of passing the legislation. What’s more, if all other 48 would do so, he was willing to give up his entire year’s salary for the cause.

By all appearances, this was sincerity and not showmanship or gamesmanship. It was Senator Pahls’ way of expressing his concern. He abstained from voting on the motions to pass the bill and to override the veto. He voted to pass LB 599A, the appropriations measure that accompanied the policy decision, but then voted against overriding the veto on that bill.

As for the money? As far as we know the outcome has not been reported. Even full participation by all 49 legislators most likely would have been short of the need. Moreover, would they have sustained their financial commitment for ensuing years?

We agree wholeheartedly with the many who have pointed out that what renowned columnist George Will wrote about the 40^th birthday of his son, Jonathan Frederick, who has Down syndrome, is must reading. Access it: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jon-will-40-years-and-going-with-down-syndrome/2012/05/02.html.