What if proponents of the strict new voter ID laws sweeping across the country had simply said, “Look, states need to require some sort of easy to obtain form of voter ID”?  What if they had said, for example, “Voters need to bring in their voter registration card every time they vote”?  Would anyone have had a problem with that?

Some states have always allowed voters to just show up, sign in and vote.  But what if Republicans pushing voter ID laws had simply asked for such states to start using a voter registration card?  Would there really have been much of a complaint by us self-appointed watchdogs of constitutional rights?  There's no missing your voter registration card - it comes in the mail a couple of weeks after you register.  For those who may have lost theirs years ago, reissuing new copies would cost a fraction of the implementation of the new laws.  I don’t see why we couldn’t have gone along with that_

What if all states started asking voters to check in at the polls with one of the various forms of ID used by many states now – forms that include just about any sort of paperwork that says hey, I really am Julie Boler, and I'm fixing to vote.  Voters can use bills or medical records, a pay stub or work ID, a Medicaid card, a debit card; basically any document or ID card that shows your name. To have to start doing that now when they didn’t before, that would be part of life for most people – not even cause a ripple.Instead, the states that don’t require anything are enacting new requirements, the more flexible states are scrambling to switch up to more demanding requirements, and the already strict states are outdoing themselves in the narrow list of acceptable forms.

Why?

The strict states, which may ultimately set the tone for the rest of the country if they pass the Constitutionality tests, require the kind of ID that asks you to jump through hoops to acquire.  You'll need time off work, sometimes more than one day to get to more than one agency, and have to deal with transportation, fees, and that eternal catch-22 of needing documentation to get the documentation you need at various places.  You may have a long wait at each stop.  If you live in a rural area, are elderly or sick, care for a family member or have small children in tow, or have trouble getting access to transportation, you are going to have a tough time getting what you need before you even get to the state agency that issues photo ID’s.   And if you haven't had to gather vital records for a state-issued ID since 9/11, you may not know that they have consciously added some hoops to the process in some areas.  These steps must be taken – under these new laws, before you can exercise your constitutional right to vote.

What if proponents of the new laws had been able to offer ANY compelling evidence of a need for the new laws, perhaps at least making the hoop-jumping feel warranted.  (They have done the opposite, demanding evidence for why we shouldn’t have these laws…)

What if they hadn't tried to convince people that there is any kind of voter fraud that can be prevented with a strictly-defined, official form of state-issued photo ID, that can't also be prevented by presenting a Medicaid card or pay stub?  What if they didn’t attempt to blur the lines between different types of election fraud so that people would think that an ID card could stop a corrupt precinct captain from duplicating ballots after the polls had closed?   What if they hadn't purposely confused real threats to a secure ballot, like absentee voter fraud, and corrupt election officials, with the nonexistent risk of an election being thrown by random, isolated irregularities?

Maybe there would be more trust now.

What if these zealots had forthrightly acknowledged their responsibility under federal law not to place an obstacle in the path of any voter making their way to the polls?

What if they hadn't been so gleeful about their ability to kick start this legislation in some states so quickly that if it survives legal challenges it will just happen to be in place by the 2012 elections?  Or if they had at least justified this urgency with evidence of a problem needing to be solved?

What if they had allowed the horse to walk calmly ahead of the cart; addressing issues of access first.  What if they had studied the impact the laws would have to ensure they were in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.  What if they’d been proactive (beyond saying, “Hey, we’ll make these cards free!”) in evaluating state government systems, so that they would be in compliance BEFORE the new law.  We certainly couldn’t have wondered “why the rush” if there was no rush!

What if they hadn't sent out one red herring after another:

• Well, you need ID to buy beer or rent a car!" comparing access to consumer goods and services to access to your constitutional right to vote.
•  "Even homeless people have to carry ID to get benefits," calling forth a parallel hardship as though it is a justification for a similar hardship
• "What is the big deal about this?  Why does it matter so much?  Why are you going on about it?"  To be clear, this is a group of people moving a freight train across the country, apparently hell bent on getting new voter ID laws in place in time to effect 2012 elections, asking those on the sidelines questioning the process and hoping to slow it down, why they are making such a big deal about this.
  
• “Come on, are there really that many people this would affect?” Research from a variety of sources averages out to an estimate that over 20 million – about 11% - of voting age Americans do not possess the official state-issued photo ID required in a rapidly growing number of states.

What if Republicans had minded all these p's and q's, approached this with realism and integrity, and basically asked if voters couldn't just start using their voter registration cards consistently? 

We probably wouldn't have batted an eye.

We jaded lefties probably wouldn't have been so suspicious about motives. We might have said, "okay, fair enough, but let's just make sure everyone hears about the new change in time to vote, and that they remember to bring their card with them, and by the way, do you need a ride to the polls?”   If the voter ID supporters really felt this was an issue, they could have approached it in good faith, engendered trust, and we could all have found a way to make everyone happy.

Instead, conservative Republican office-holders, candidates, and advocacy groups have churned across the country enacting the strictest voter identification laws ever seen in this country since poll taxes and literacy tests. 

If they hadn't, we might not have felt the need to respond.  We might not have felt the need to rouse some folks, like the Justice Department, the ACLU, the National Democratic Party, the NAACP, the AARP, the League of Women Voters, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive States Network, the Fair Elections Legal Network, Project Vote, and.... 

Well it turns out there are a whole bunch of people not happy about these laws. Regardless of the outcome in the courts, I hope that those who first started pushing them meant it when they said that all they want is for as many eligible voters as possible to come out and vote, fair and square; because that's what they can expect in 2012.

Do you ever write to your Senator?  Have you ever called the White House?  How often do you sign your name to those email petitions?  Once you've elected a representative, stay in touch  with email, phone calls, or letters.  They do pay attention, and they even respond. It's easier than ever to bend the ear of elected officials.  Say you become enraged watching a story on Good Morning America.  You want to speak out, but you're unsure who your representative in Congress is or even what district you live in.  These days, you can locate that information in a few keystrokes, hit send on an impassioned plea, and be out the door in time to beat traffic.

Where does your email go from there?  Not into a black hole.  Turns out, your email will go straight into the inbox of a staffer, who will summarize your specific concern for your representative.  If it comes in on a wave of similar messages, it will still be read, and will be logged into a database used to track constituent communications.  If it is an especially powerful message, by the time you are clocking out at work, your Senator may be reading your letter.

I wondered how it really works on the receiving end.  What happens to email when it reaches the office of your elected official?  Is it easy to reach out to local officials as well?  I wondered about this process, and wanted to find out for myself.  I wondered if officials in local government were more likely than those on the national level to follow up with citizens personally.  I imagined emails being sorted by a computer keyword scanner of some kind, or sinking to the bottom of an inbox with thousands of messages.  I was certain that communications sent to the President must be screened by White House staff in so many layers that it must be almost pointless to write in.  I decided to find out how all that works, and I started right at the top. 

I’d heard that this President personally reads ten letters from constituents a day, and responds by hand to three or four. According to an ABC News online report, the White House receives over 100,00 emails and letters a week.  Staff, volunteers and interns whittle them down.  They forward specific requests for information or assistance to the appropriate department or agency, and of course they pass threats along to the Secret Service.  A New York Times article in 2009 profiled Mike Kelleher, White House Director of Correspondence.  Kelleher heads up the process of sorting and analyzing letters from which the ten letters a day are pulled to land on Obama’s desk.  After screening and sorting is done by other staff, Kelleher carefully considers roughly one hundred letters and emails per day.  He looks for those that are representative of the bulk of in-coming mail, or those that pertain to current pressing issues, or those with a powerful personal story.  Ten of those make it into the hands of the President.

But what about more ordinary but still heartfelt questions and concerns?  Not every American citizen has an earth-shattering story to tell, but we all want to have a voice.  I decided to pick up the phone and place a call to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, to find out how my call would be routed, and see I would at least be able share my opinion about an issue in a voice mail message.  I easily found a number on the White House website, and punched it in.  It was quickly answered with a recording asking me to hold for a volunteer operator.  A person?  That would be a bonus.  I noted the time, and in four minutes – four minutes! I was connected with a polite and very professional woman ready to take my question.  I told her I was writing an article about voter access to elected officials, and wanted to know how it works when someone calls or writes in to the White House.  I told her I was surprised to hear a live voice on the other end.  She gave me the verbal equivalent of a courteous smile – I imagine I wasn’t the first caller to note that surprise. 

The volunteer was very helpful.  She explained that every call is logged, every email read, all letters reviewed, even faxes are received, and all of these messages are entered into a database of opinions and concerns.  Everyone gets a response.  An email will generate a return email from The White House, touching on whatever issues were raised and describing the President’s position.  I don’t imagine most Americans know that typing whitehouse.gov in a search field will take you so quickly to contact information for the President’s staff, or that every time you share a comment or concern, someone will collect that information and log it into a database.

I charged ahead and phoned one of the in-state offices of US Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC).  A staffer there explained that the Senator receives thousands of communications a week, by email, phone, fax and mail.  They are divided into two types.  One type is labeled casework and includes personal requests for assistance navigating federal agencies like the VA, Social Security, or Immigration.  Casework requests go promptly to senior staff for initial problem solving, then on to Hagan herself.

Senator Hagan also receives communications from voters registering their views on issues and policies affecting the state.  These calls and letters are treated with great importance.  According to the staffer, each and every one is considered significant, and is carefully reviewed.  They are read by members of the communication team and logged according to topic and point of view.  The staffer indicated that Hagan looks forward to reading individual letters pulled by staff to call attention to the general course of response to issues.  He emphasized that there are never emails or letters that go unread, and everyone gets a response.

David Ward, Communications Director for Senator Richard Burr, (R-NC), reflected the same level of priority placed on constituent communication in their office.  It was interesting to find the the Director so accessible to answer my questions about voter access to Senator Burr.  I had simply placed a call to a number I found on the Senator’s website, and explained to an office assistant that I had a few questions for an article I was working on.  Within a couple of hours I received an email from Ward providing me with his name and direct line. 

According to Ward, the bulk of communication from constituents these days arrives in email form.  Those seem to be the easiest for voters to send, and are easy for his office to categorize and respond to.  Postal letters are always welcome, he said, but voters should know that they take a little longer to reach Senate offices than they used to.  Ward explained that since the anthrax crisis following 9/11, postal mail has been routed to an outside agency for screening before it arrives on Capitol Hill.  Once there though, it is treated with interest and importance, and like distinctive emails, may end up directly on Senator Burr’s desk.

“We do read every piece of mail, and listen to every call,” Ward stated.  “We have staff in North Carolina that respond to casework, and we have other staff who manage concerns about pending legislation.”  Ward acknowledged when asked that the Communications staff can tell when an advocacy group has initiated an "email blast".  Even when they are sent from individual email addresses, these come in waves and often have identical wording.  But I was interested to find that they are really tracked no differently from comments that come in a more personalized form

Like Hagan, Senator Burr places a high premium on hearing from North Carolina residents.  His team pulls out letters that are exceptional or representative of a trend in opinions, and the Senator may have them in hand before he leaves the office at the end of the day.

US Congressman Brad Miller, (D NC-13) the House Representative for my own district, recently received honors for his top-notch accessibility processes from the Congressional Management Foundation, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to evaluating and improving communication between citizens and Congress.  Miller received their 112th Congress Bronze Mouse Award, commending him for “educating citizens and achieving the highest degree of transparency and accountability in online communications.”  CMF believes that each visitor to a Member’s website is like a citizen arriving at their office door, providing an opportunity for the Member to “enlighten and serve (the) constituent.”  The Miller site (bradmiller.house.gov) is the picture of best practices, providing links to Miller’s voting records, legislation he has sponsored, and clear positions on issues.  It is also attractive, welcoming, and easy to navigate. 

Ajashu Thomas, in Miller’s Washington office, informed me that already this year they have received over 34,000 communications.  They come by fax, phone, email and post, and each one is entered into a central database.  They are each responded to individually.  Thomas explained that Congressmen Miller’s staff, like those in the office of other Members, provides direct responses only to correspondence from the people Miller serves in District 13, but as a courtesy between Members of Congress, when they receive communications from citizens outside the district, these are forwarded to the appropriate Congressional colleague.  Thomas informed me that as with Burr's office, Miller's does not separate individual emails from those that come in as group mailings.  They do try to prioritize getting a timely response to people who have not been communicated with before, versus those with whom they have corresponded multiple times.     

So far this expedition had yielded terrific results, but when I turned to the local level, I experienced a mixed bag of access and responsiveness.  While the volume of communications there may be lower, so apparently is the level of staffing and infrastructure.  Based on what I encountered, I wondered if under-staffed local government officials find that dedicating significant resources to correspondence yields diminishing returns. 

Earning the highest marks was the State Senator who represents my district, Josh Stein (D- Dist. 16).  I had written Senator Stein an email in September regarding his vote on a contentious state issue, and had received an acknowledgement within hours, so I was optimistic.  When I wrote him again for this article, his response came quickly again.  Receipt of my email was acknowledged immediately by Stein himself, and within the week I had received a thorough and helpful response. 

Senator Stein shared that his policy is to answer letters with letters, email with email, and calls with calls.  In addition, he frequently meets with constituents face-to face.  While Stein always responds personally when asked for by a caller, he employs his staff to problem-solve miscellaneous casework.  Mass emails receive a prepared response; individual communications garner a unique response.  This system of responding in like-style seems fair and realistic.  The voter gets out of it whatever is put in, and the form-letter-to-form-letter approach frees up time to engage more personally with those who do the same. 

Stein feels that these communications – in every form – are critical.  He values input on pending legislation, and says that as his charge is to represent the needs of his district, he relies on knowing clearly what they are. 

My most frustrating experience occurred when I tried to reach a staff person in the mayor’s office.  First, to the casual user the city website is fairly opaque.  There was an "about town" feature highlighting the mayor's activities - this looked like an ongoing piece, but it didn't link directly to his office.  Sidebars offered information about very specific citizen concerns, but no general “contact us” information.  With a couple more clicks I eventually found a number, but that turned out to be the easy part!  The same questions that had been enthusiastically answered by staff at the White House, the US Congress, and the NC Senate, when presented to the mayor’s office, were treated with suspicion. 

I explained that I was doing research on the processes elected officials use to keep in touch with constituents and respond to their questions and concerns.  There was a pregnant pause, and a long hold while I was switched to another staff person.  No problem, I thought, and I repeated my initial question.  I was asked what I was “getting at”; what was “behind” my questions.  I became extra-friendly, and elaborated that I was writing a non-partisan, objective piece about voter access to elected officials, and wanted to know how this mayor or his staff receives, sorts, and responds to mail, calls, and email.  I was asked to “be more specific about what kind of information” I was looking for.  I explained that it was really nothing more than what I had already said, just wanting to get an idea of how they screen and sort mail, whether they have someone assigned to that task or who it might fall to, and a question about volume.  The staffer again balked, curtly saying she would "need to know what direction (I was) going in with these questions before answering them. 

Stumped, I cut my losses by asking her if email was a good way to reach the mayor’s office, she said yes, and we ended the call.  This was probably an issue of poor job performance more than anything, but I also may have hit the spot here where preparation, training, and resources do not match reasonable expectations for citizen access. 

Seeking to go one step more local, I saved my last evaluation for the accessibility of my school board representative.  I would call this my most challenging but ultimately rewarding exchange.  As my district’s representative during a divisive two-year term, Keith Sutton had done a super job navigating through some complex situations and tough public meetings.  I wanted to help him get reelected. 

I was conscious of the fact that even before I was working on this article, I'd had a little trouble reaching Sutton.  I had sent him an email a couple of months back, with a question about an issue that was before the board.  I had never heard back, but I wrote again once the campaign season had kicked in, letting him know my previous question could wait, but hey, where could I get some yard signs?  No response, so I figured he was bogged down.  I found a campaign website and used their online form to volunteer.  I didn't get a follow-up call or email within a week, so I repeated the signup process and still got no response.  Getting curious and a little frustrated, I located Sutton's work phone number online and left a couple of voice mail messages, pointing out nicely that he should probably get back to me soon, as after all, I was trying to volunteer!

Time passed, and Sutton was reelected easily.  I had begun work on this article so my mission now developed into a quest to understand what had preventing me from reaching him as either a constituent or a supporter.  Feeling like a stalker now, which we joked about once we finally spoke, I resorted to leaving Mr. Sutton two messages on facebook.  This at last yielded an email response with an invitation to call and the best number to use. 

I won't give Mr. Sutton a complete pass for the prolonged lack of communication.  But after we spoke, I can say he did an excellent job of painting a picture of what might have gone wrong.  He was very receptive and apologetic, and voiced his intent to take a look at those processes. 

Sutton shared a little about what it takes to represent 100,00 people in a school district.  Aside from fulfilling the requirements of a sitting member of a very high profile school board and running for reelection to that position, he holds a demanding full-time job.  He confirmed what I had suspected – it is up to him alone to respond to nearly all of his correspondence.  He did have a volunteer spending a few hours a week managing his website and other campaign responsibilities, and he promised to look into the disconnect on the two efforts I made to volunteer there.  But he is usually on his own with emails and phones calls, and it can be tough to keep up with.  Sutton was very approachable on this phone call, took full responsibility for the breakdown, and had me wanting to come clean out his inbox by the end of the conversation.

At the local level, communication volume-to-staff ratio can be almost untenable.  But citizens can push representatives to do what they have to do to stay engaged and responsive.

My research into this topic was heartening.  There is no question elected officials take constituent communications seriously.  While that should go without saying, there is a public perception that letters are tossed on a pile to languish, that office-holders don’t pay attention to mass emails from advocacy groups, and that – especially at the highest level, correspondence will be intercepted by staff and the actual elected official will never see them.  While there is an element of truth to some of these assumptions, I was cheered to find out how much of that perception is not true.  In all offices but that of Raleigh's mayor, the spirit displayed is neither nonchalant or dismissive.   From the state legislature through the US Congress to the White House, it is clear that every piece of communication that comes in is read, and that the more effort the voter puts in to the communication, they more likely it is to make its way to the desk of the official.
 
Most remarkable is the ease with which voters can interact with office-holders.  Using websites like whitehouse.gov, senate.gov, and house.gov can take you from not knowing who represents you to the right name and contact information, to a user-friendly email form, to the exhilaration of being heard.  I can't imagine a more empowering feeling for a citizen in a democracy to have than to know that your stated opinions can end up on a desk on Capitol Hill, and have an impact on the law of the land.

Conservatives are clamoring for rigid voter ID laws.  State by state, they are proudly shepherding in strict procedures that require voters to prove their identity at the polls by producing specific, narrowly-defined forms of government-issued photo identification. Nothing in a democracy is more important than a secure ballot. But real election fraud involves coordinated tactics like falsifying absentee ballots, casting ballots for deceased voters, buying votes, counterfeiting registrations, and duplicating votes.  Widespread irregularities like these can only be prevented by comprehensive protections maintained with the vigilance of honest officials, technical security measures, and oversight by governing bodies, including the FBI and the Justice Department.  Conservative politicians will tell you that the laws don’t impose a hardship.  They will tell you they are needed to prevent election fraud. 

When you hear these specious claims, keep the facts in mind:

• There is no evidence of the type of fraud that would be prevented with stricter voter ID.  Election results are threatened by organized schemes to subvert them, not random cases of one voter impersonating another.
• If the goal is to protect against chance irregularities, less restrictive requirements used by some states would suffice.  These allow voters to establish identity with voter registration cards, medical cards, bank cards, recent utility bills, or pay stubs.
• Requiring strict, government-issued photo ID, presents a hardship for hundreds of thousands of voters. 
  

In order to be issued an official government photo ID, multiple documents must be obtained from a variety of agencies.  These may include original birth certificates, Social Security cards, school records, tax records, or property records.  Some combination of these must be presented in person by the voter just to secure the qualifying ID.  These documents are maintained at different agencies, most of which are only open weekdays and often require long waits.

It can take several trips to gather this documentation, making it hard for working class voters to get the time off work.  It may be hard for rural or low-income voters to arrange transportation.  Elderly, sick, and disabled voters may have difficulty.  Proponents will point out that the new laws have provisions to make these IDs easier to obtain, but this is coming from the same people who seem to have no sense of what kind of hardship these laws impose. 

It can be done.  And make no mistake, if these laws survive legal challenges, caring citizens will mobilize in response and help those who don’t have them get the forms of ID they need.  But they shouldn’t have to.  These laws affect people who in some cases have been dedicated voters for many years, and have always known that to cast their ballot they just had to get themselves to the polls on Election Day.  Some of them know their precinct workers on sight.  Some of them remember when people took their lives in their hands to try and vote, and now we are saying to them, you have to get some documentation before you come in here and try to vote.  They have been described by some as not wanting to go to the trouble to obtain the proper ID. 

Here is where things stand now:
 
20 states* and DC currently require no ID to vote.  Voters provide their name and address and are given a ballot.

16 states* allow these forms of ID: voter registration card, utility bill, student ID, work badge, Social Security card, pay stub, medical card, public assistance card, birth certificate, tribal ID, military ID, driver's license or state ID card.

(That's 36 states that require either easily accessible forms of ID, or none.  Where are the cases of elections skewed by individuals impersonating other voters?  When have impersonators used utility bills to fool poll workers, and would have been thwarted if only they’d had to present a photo ID?)

7 states * require a photo ID, but will accept the following alternatives to government issued forms:  debit or credit card with photo, retirement center photo ID, student ID, public assistance photo ID, neighborhood association ID, out-of-state driver's license, and in some states, any photo ID, such as a gym membership card, or a discount warehouse card.

(Where are the cases in which poll workers were fooled by picture IDs that weren’t state-issued?)

7 states* have laws that are in effect now or will be soon that are the most restrictive.  The only acceptable form of ID in these states are a driver’s license, state identification card, passport, or military ID, forms that can only be obtained by jumping through the hoops outlined above.

Justifying a new law is the responsibility of its proponents.  Do not let them tell you it is the responsibility of the law's opponents to prove them unnecessary and problematic. It is against federal law to impose procedures that have the result - even if not the intent - of disenfranchising numbers of voters.  Their argument for the existence of these laws must be made to the Department of Justice.  Meanwhile, don't be snowed.  Remember the facts when you hear the claims.

7 states and counting.  It’s the hottest new fad in conservative sleight of hand, coming soon to a state near you.  These politicians should run on the merits of their positions rather than making up problems that trade on fear.

*National Conference of State Legislature

Why should someone mind bringing ID with them to vote?  This is a no-brainer.  Cries of voter suppression are an over-reaction.  It can't be that hard to get an ID.  If you're motivated enough to figure out when and where to vote, can you really not find out where to go for a state-issued photo ID, and get a ride or something? 

States all over the country are enacting laws requiring citizens to have specific, qualifying forms of identification in order to exercise their right to vote.  And why not?  It's "one person, one vote" in this country.  Voter fraud is a scary prospect.  What is more important than the integrity of the ballot?  Some are whining that this practice would add barriers to the voting process. They say the laws are motivated by a desire for low turn out among those who would have difficulty acquiring a photo ID.   These complainers need to offer evidence that it would really create a hardship.  Requiring ID is the simplest way to ensure people aren't skewing election results with illegal activities.

Right?

Actually, wrong.  The onus is on those pushing for these laws to provide substantive rationale for making a change in voting procedures.  If it is worth the time to write these bills and get them passed, there must be a reason we need them.  It's important to look carefully at any practice that adds another step between the voter and the ballot.  So why now?  What's changed that makes this an important new procedure?  What is the problem exactly?

Are wide swaths of voters are impersonating other voters in an attempt to sway elections?  Are narrow swaths of voters doing this?  Are any voters doing it?  Where is the fraud this is addressing?

What processes have been used to select this as the best solution?  Are evaluation tools in place to measure the increase in ballot security that this seeks to provide?  Have citizens been given a chance for input on implementation?  Why are some states passing these laws still not requiring voters to provide identification when registering to vote?  In North Carolina, after turning in the proper paper work, newly registered voters receive a voter registration card in the mail.  Under the Voter ID law proposed here, presenting this card would not get you a ballot.  Why are these two processes treated differently?

To be fair though, it's hard to generate workable solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

This morning members of the US House of Representatives poured their coffee, sharpened their pencils, and set to work on a critical concern facing our nation: making sure everyone is clear about the fact that "In God We Trust" is our nation's motto.  

Virginia Republican Randy Forbes introduced House Resolution 13 in January, and today it made its way to the House floor.  And thank goodness.  There has never been a more important time to devote government resources to a four-word platitude.

Hopefully Representative Forbes will mobilize Congress around this resolution, which asks that this auspicious body lend its power to make the saying official, again, and spur us all to a greater level of industriousness for inscribing it on fancy plaques everywhere.

H Res. 13 reads: “Reaffirming ‘In God We Trust’ as the official motto of the United States and supporting and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.”

Forbes shouldn't have any trouble getting this passed.  It’s a model of passionate proofs and dignified decrees.  There’s the part that quotes President Ford quoting President Eisenhower saying that we wouldn't have this American government or way of life without God.  And the one that explains that the motto ought to be displayed in Congressional Chambers because it is displayed in Congressional Chambers.  And the one that points out that the motto can be found in the national anthem. 

Who knew that last one?  Well, I tracked down the complete lyrics, and there it is, in the 4th verse.  To get there you have to go past the interesting 3rd verse, sort of like how you have to wade through all the unsavory stuff in Leviticus to get to the anti-gay stuff.  Francis Scott Key was no doubt having a moment the night he wrote the Star Spangled Banner, so he can be forgiven for relishing the gory details of the fate of the British, penning, "their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution," and gloating about their terror and "the gloom of the grave" they faced.  But hey, it's poetry, written in a time of war.  I find singing the national anthem bracing and inspiring, a valuable ceremonial ritual.  But as far as digging up its forgotten verses to justify an ill-conceived resolution, Forbes should have left well enough alone.

Anyway, our folks in the House of the 112th Congress are going to get the whole motto thing squared away for us today.

Does it sound like I'm not taking this seriously?  Well, I wasn't. I wasn't thinking about it.  Were you?  One of my driving forces is raising awareness about the critical balance of religious protections embodied in the first amendment.  But unlike some of my friends on the left, I’ve not been focused on the wording of the pledge or on our currency.  My take has been like that of the Supreme Court.  When the issue came before them in 1970, they sided with those who wanted to keep "In God We Trust" as our motto, basically saying, "oh don't worry about it, it's not all that religious, it's more ceremonial and patriotic.”  

I have great respect for many devoutly religious leaders who have worked in the public sphere.  (Not usually the conservative ones, but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.)   But I also have great respect for certain notable atheists.  And I’m worried about the hostile climate for Muslim-Americans, and haven’t noticed the Jewish Anti-defamation League being ready to close up shop.

Still, parsing the official catch-phrase of the country hasn't been at the top of my list. But if Representative Forbes wants to get this party started, we can.

His website says that this double extra assurance for an already-official motto is needed because there are people trying to "reverse decades of long-standing tradition."  Decades?  That’s not tradition.  The First Amendment was ratified in 1791. References to God were woven into the fabric of public life by rewording the Pledge of Allegiance and adding wording to our paper money in the 50’s, when terror of godless Communism was rampant.  They are cultural remnants of the early years of the Cold War, certainly not inherent aspects of our democracy, which was explicitly founded on principles antithetical to such wording. Joseph McCarthy is gone.  He lost his fight.  And while the fear that he left in his wake prompted the country to write God into some ceremonial aspects of public life, the practice can’t be defended as the basis for all we hold dear.

But that’s exactly what Forbes posits in his bill.  One clause tells us that “if religion and morality are taken out of the marketplace of ideas, the very freedom on which the United States was founded cannot be secured."  Actually, no one is suggesting taking anything out of “the marketplace of ideas.”  My own philosophy is that Forbes is conflating religion and morality here.  If only religion was a predictor of morality.  I see morality as something some people base on their religion, and some people base on other guiding principles.  It’s morality that we all – regardless of belief system – would want our leaders to have.  But this theorizing - in the marketplace of ideas - is something everyone is free to do, and is not threatened by the status of a motto. 

There is nothing untoward about elected officials putting their faith on display.  The Establishment clause does not preclude that; in fact it protects it.  Religious faith is part of who many Americans are, and it’s up to their constituents to form individual opinions about how that plays out in the official’s performance. Founding Father James Madison said that religious devotion in this country was "manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state."  I myself am often stirred by images of Presidents and Senators in the past and present, at pivotal times in the life of our country, with their heads bowed or walking with their families up the steps of a church. The truly devout, whether they are followers of the Pentecostal Holiness Church or Secular Humanists, share an interest in preserving religious freedom in this country.  This is a shared concern, equally important to religious people and those who are not.  We all benefit from what was presciently set forth by the Framers of the Constitution; that we must commit to simultaneously protecting freedom of expression of religion, and freedom of imposition of it by the state.

It is incumbent on Representative Forbes to use his office to preserve separation of church and state.  He should take great comfort in the fact that with a few simple words, the Founders threaded a needle that safeguards his right to serve openly as a Christian.  To never have to live in fear of reprisal for practicing his faith while serving in Congress. Can Representative Forbes not imagine a time or circumstance in which members of a belief system other than his own might gain enough influence to encroach on his ideology?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I don’t think the motto issue is urgent.  It’s the last thing I think Congress should be spending time on right now.  But it does raise the larger issue, and if you insist, Representative Forbes, we can make sure that issue gets clarified now.  Be careful what you wish for.