The Florida legislature was dealt a slight blow today when Judge Terry P. Lewis of the Second Judicial Circuit Court of Leon County ruled that their proposed Religious Freedom Amendment was ambiguous and misleading.
Amendment 7 is an attempt to rid Florida of its Blaine Amendment which has held the state to a strict financial separation between church and state and been the thorn in the side of pro-voucher legislators for years.
Florida's Blaine Amendment is contained in Article 1, Section 3 of its Constitution which reads:
Religious freedom.—There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.
Amendment 7 is an attempt to amend this section by eliminating the last paragrah: "No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."
In addition to deleting the Blaine Amendment, lawmakers intend to add the following (after the first two sentences):
Except to the extent required by the United States Constitution, neither the government nor any agent of the government, may deny to any individual or entity the benefits of any program, funding or other support on the basis of religious identity or belief.
As it stood, the measure would have read on the ballot like this:
Religious Freedom--Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to provide, consistent with the United States Constitution, that no 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 or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.
Unfortunately, Judge Lewis found no problem with the title, "Religious Freedom," or with the fact that the wording misleads voters about the real impact of the amendment--that it would "require the state government to fund religious groups when it makes public funds available to non-religious organizations," according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Lewis' beef is the clause, "consistent with the United States Constition." Legislators only have to reword this section and submit it for approval.
"The problem here stems from the interplay between the Florida Constitution and the United States Constitution on the same subject," Lewis writes in his ruling. "Whereas before the provision was more restrictive than the First Amendment relative to spending public funds that might aid a sectarian institution, if it passes, the provision will be more restrictive as to the withholding of public funds from sectarian institutions."
In other words, the amendment will not align the Florida Constitution with the US Constitution, it will simply swing the restriction in the opposite direction. Where Florida is now forbidden to give money to religious entities, it will then be forbidden to deny them.
While Americans United and the other plaintiffs in this case claim a victory, the battle is not over. Attorney General Pam Bondi has ten days to rewrite the proposed ballot initiative so that it accurately reflects the intent of the measure.
It is likely a revised Amendment 7 will be on the ballot, still claiming to be for "religious freedom." Florida may lose its Blaine Amendment and our tax dollars will flood into religious schools and organizations.
Dianna Narciso writes commentary. Her irreverant and highly-opinionated blogs can be found through her website: Atheist View.
Comments