Opinion ID: 2341262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Secular Voting Requirements

Text: Appellants first contend that, by creating a master list of eligible voters, the circuit court impermissibly imposed a secular definition of temple membership. The 1989 bylaws, they note, read that the bylaws were created for all worshipped [sic] individuals who come to Wat Buddhasamakitham. Moreover, the articles of incorporation for the temple state that [e]ach person of this Church in good and regular standing according to the By-Laws is to be an active member of this Corporation and ... entitled to one vote in all meetings of the Church. Because of this, the appellants argue that worship at the temple, not appearance on a mailing list or any other list, is the main qualification for membership at the temple and eligibility to vote for the board. By limiting voting to members of the households of people appearing on certain mailing lists, the appellants continue, the circuit court disenfranchised over four hundred members of the temple. By doing so, they urge, the circuit court not only violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Arkansas Constitution, but also denied those members of the temple who did not appear in the voter list their right to the free exercise of religion under the same constitutional provisions. The appellants admit that these four hundred people were allowed to cast provisional ballots, but they argue that a provisional ballot was not the equivalent of a regular ballot and that the circuit court's secular definition based on lists may have suppressed voter turnout, because those who were not on the approved-voter list could not be sure that their votes would be counted. Appellees respond that no one who met the appellants' religious definition of a member of the temple as found in the 1989 bylaws was, in fact, prevented from voting. Rather, people falling into this category were allowed to cast a provisional ballot. Even if these provisional ballots are included in the election results, they observe, the appellees' slate of candidates received the majority of votes. They contend, therefore, that any error in the circuit court's definition of a person eligible to vote was harmless. The appellees add that it was not error for the circuit court, in the absence of a temple membership list, to compile a list of members who worshiped at the temple and who had historically been considered members of the temple. In doing so, it is argued, the court was interpreting an ambiguous phrase in the 1989 bylaws concerning membership and attempting to alleviate concerns about voter fraud.