Court Opinion

ID: 9809708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:22:20.5879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:39.511401
License: Public Domain

TAYLOR, J.,
with whom GURICH, J. joins, concurring in the demal of the pet1t1on for rehearing:
1 I concur in the Cdurt’s order denying rehearing. I write separately to address issues raised in the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission's petition for rehearing, filed by the Oklahoma Attorney General, and issues which were not directly confronted in this Court's opinion. The Commission urges that (1) this Court's jurisprudence permits items which benefit a system of religion to be placed on state property, (2) an analysis of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause is relevant here and should be considered in this case, and (8) the Ten Commandments have historical, legal, and secular significance which override any religions benefit, Finally, the Commission has concern about the effect of this Court's decision on artworks housed in the State Capitol and on its grounds.. I find nothing in the Commission's petition that convinces me that this Court should grant rehearing.
I.. Oklahoma's Jurisprudence
12 As to the first of the Commission's arguments, this Court's jurisprudence is based first and foremost on the United States and Oklahoma constitutions. Okla. Const. art. I, § 1. The objective of construing the Oklahoma Constitution is to give effect to the framers' intent, as well as the people adopting it. Shaw v. Grumbine, 1929 OK 116, ¶ 30, 137 Okla. 95, 278 P. 311, 315 (quoting Lake Cnty. v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662, 9
*1037S.Ct. 651, 32 L.Ed., 1060 (1889)). When a challenge is limited to the Oklahoma Constitution, we look first to its language, which if unambiguous, binds this Court; and we "are not at liberty to search for its meaning beyond the instrument." Id. ¶ 0, 278 P. at 311 (Syllabus by the Court No. 5); Gurney v. Ferguson, 1941 OK 397, ¶ 12, 190 Okla. 254, 122 P.2d 1002, 1004 (quoting Judd v. Bd. of Educ., 278 N.Y. 200, 15 N.E.2d 576, 584 (N.Y.1938) (We cannot "'cireumvent [the constitution] because of private notions of justice or because of personal inclinations. ")).1
13 Article II, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution, titled "Public money or property-Use for sectarian purposes," states:
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.
Because Article II, Section 5 is unambiguous as discussed in this Court's opinion, it was not error for this Court to rely solely on the Oklahoma Constitution as the basis for its decision. This provision unequivocally bars the state from allowing its property to be used for a religious benefit, Okla. Const. art. II, § 5, Article II, Section 5 is a clear limitation on state government spending and use of public property. It is a limitation on the state's reach into its citizens' private lives.
14 Although we need not search for extraneous support for our construction of Article II, Section 5's meaning, it is reassuring that this Court's construction is consistent with the framers intent. Albert H. Ellis, the Second Vice President of the Constitutional Convention, explained that Article II, Section 5 was intended to be "one of the safest of our safeguards." Albert H. Ellis, A History of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Oklahoma 134 (1928) Mr. Ellis clarified that the Convention wrote Article II, Section 5 "knowing the history of the union of Church and State in Europe and in New England in Colonial days," and utilized the lessons learned in those situations. Id.
15 Mr. Ellis further explained that Article I1, Section 5
not only guards the citizens right to be free from taxation for the support of the church, but protects the rights of all denominations, however few the number of their respective adherents, by with-holding any incentive that might prompt any ecclesiastical body to participate in political struggles and by reason of their numbers exert an undue influence and become beneficiaries at the expense of the public and a menace to weaker denominations and ultimately destructive of liberty.
Id. It is also important to note that in his very complete discussion of Article II, Seetion 5, Mr. Ellis never mentions the Blaine Amendment.
T6 The Oklahoma Constitutional Convention members started their proceedings with a prayer and the invocation of God's guidance and prefaced the Oklahoma Constitution by invoking God's guidance, all this showing that they were religious men who believed in God, Okla. Const. pmbl. However, they were also men who advocated for the toleration of all religious beliefs and complete separation of church and state by going further than the federal constitution. Closely following the preamble is Article I, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution, which is entitled "Religious liberty-Polygamous or plural marriages." Section 2 secures "[pler-fect toleration of religions sentiment" and provides "no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship. . .." Okla, Const. Art. I, § 2, Then only three sections later, the Constitutional Convention provided for public schools "free from sectarian control." Okla. Const. art. I, § 5. Seven sections later, they prohibited the use of state property, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of religious *1038group. Okla. Const. art. II, § 5, While the constitutional framers may have been men of faith, they recognized the necessity of a complete separation of church and state and sought to prevent the ills that would befall a state if they failed to provide for this complete separation in the Oklahoma Constitution.2
17 Applying Article II, Section 5, there is no question that the monument is on state property. The Appellee set it on the plaza directly north of the Oklahoma Capitol, which is part of the state capitol complex. The monument proclaims: "I AM the LORD thy God, Thou shalt have no other gods before me." See Appendix. The first part of the Ten Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers: "worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding graven images, not using the Lord's name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day." Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 41, 101 S.Ct. 192, 66 L.Ed.2d 199 (1980). Many Christians and Jews believe these to be the direct words of God. ACLU of Ky. v. McCreary Cnty, 96 F.Supp.2d 679, 686 (E.D.Ky.2000). The Ten Commandments are inseparable from religion, which has always been their primary purpose. The placement of the Ten Commandments monument on state property benefits the Judeo-Christian system of religion. The monument's placement on state property, proclaiming bedrock principles of the Judeo-Christian religious system, supports and benefits a system of religion in violation of Article I1, Section 5; it must be removed.
18 The Commission's petition for rehearing, filed on behalf of the defendant, argues that this Court ignored the teachings of Meyer v. Oklahoma City, 1972 OK 45, 496 P.2d 789; Town of Pryor v. Williamson, 1959 OK 207, 347 P.2d 204; Murrow Indian Orphans Home v. Childers, 1946 OK 187, 197 Okla. 249, 171 P.2d 600; and Connell v. Gray, 1912 OK 607, 33 Okla. 591, 127 P. 417. However, none of these cases change Article II, Section 5's plain language or our construction of it.
19 This Court first addressed Section 5 in Connell v. Gray, 1912 OK 607, 33 Okla. 591, 127 P. 417. A college student was denied admission into a public university because she refused to pay a five-dollar term fee, half of which was put in trust to cover broken equipment and the other half going to, among other things, support of student-see-tarian organizations like the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) and the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA). Id. ¶ 1, 127 P. at 417. The Court held that it is impermissible for the legislature or a state-run organization to fund or require payment for the YMCA and the YWCA because they promulgate sectarian principles. Id, Just as Article II, Section 5 bans the state from forcing its citizens to fund a religious organization, it bars the state from subjecting its citizens to an assault of religion in which they do not adhere.
' 10 Although the Commission ignores this Court's decision in Gurney v. Ferguson, 1941 OK 397, 190 Okla. 254, 122 P.2d 1002, the next in this line of cases, any survey of our jurisprudence on the issue before us requires its consideration. The Court ruled legislation unconstitutional which compelled school district officials to use public school buses to pick up and transport students who attended private or parochial schools, Id. ¶ 16, 122 P.2d at 1005. The Court concluded that the legislation authorized the use of public school funds to support sectarian schools,. Id. ¶ 9, 122 P.2d at 1004, The Court ruled that any "legislative enactment which has the effect of authorizing or requiring the use of public property or the expenditure of public school funds in transporting pupils of a sectarian school to and from such school is violative of section 5, article 2 of the Constitution of *1039Oklahoma." Id. ¶ 0, 122 P.2d at 1002 (Syllabus by the Court No. 3).
{ 11 In Murrow Indian Orphans Home v. Childers, 1946 OK 187, 197 Okla. 249, 171 P.2d 600, this Court again analyzed Article II, Section 5. A Baptist-affiliated home for Native American orphans contracted with the state to provide care to children in exchange for payment. Id. ¶ 2, 171 P.2d at 601. The Court analyzed this issue by contrasting the public money paid to the organization affiliated with a sectarian institution against the consideration the state received by the organization housing Native American orphans. Id. ¶ 5, 171 P.2d at 603. The Court ruled that the state received sufficient consideration in exchange for the public money given to the organization and that the state was not using public money "for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion." Id. ¶ 0, 171 P.2d at 603.
{12 Childers has no application here. First, it is in a line of cases dealing with the expenditure of money to a sectarian organization. Second, there is not even a hint in this case that Oklahoma received any benefit for allowing the use of state property for this monument. f
¶ 13 The Commission's reliance on State ex rel. Town of Pryor v. Williamson, 1959 OK 207, 347 P.2d 204, is misplaced. This Court was confronted with the issue of whether Article IL, Section 5 barred the use of public funds for the construction of a non-sectarian, non-denominational chapel built at a state-owned orphans home. As the plaintiffs point out in their response to the petition to rehearing, Pryor is distinguishable because the chapel was eliminating a barrier to the exercise of religion.
4 14 In Meyer v. Oklahoma City, 1972 OK 45, 496 P.2d 789, a taxpayer challenged a fifty-foot high Latin cross, which had been erected at the state fairgrounds on public property but paid for with private money. The City of Oklahoma City paid to landscape the property and for lighting the cross. Id. ¶ 1, 496 P.2d at 790. The Court noted that Article II, Section 5 was "designed to prevent sectarian bodies from making raids upon the public treasury or from subjecting public property to unauthorized sectarian uses." Id. ¶ 16, 496 P.2d at 791. Central to the Court's analysis was the location of the eross, public property in a commercial setting-a "distinctly secular environment in the midst of persons in pursuit of distinctly seeu-lar entertainment." Id. ¶ 11, 496 P.2d at 792. Improperly applying the federal Establish ment Clause's analysis to Article II, Section 5, and presuming the cross to be secular, the Court examined the cross in light of the location, ruling that it "cannot be said to display, articulate or portray, except in a most evanescent form, any ideas that are alleged to pertain. to any of the sectarian institutions or systems named in Art. 2, § 5." Id.
4 15 I find the Meyer opinion to be lacking in value. First, it relied in part on son, 1959 OK 207, 347 P.2d 204, which is discredited. Second, it is absent of analysis on and misstates the actual nature of the cross itself, Id. Third, by improperly applying the federal analysis to the Oklahoma Constitution, it created an unprecedented distinction in Article II, Section 5 by examining the nature of the public property (commercial, residential, or governmental). This distinction is nonexistent in and repugnant to the plain language of the constitutional provision. See id, Meyer is an anomaly in our jurisprudence, and no other case adopts the distinction of the property's nature. This Court should place no weight on its holding or analysis, and I would explicitly overrule it.3
[ 16 None of the cases cited by the Commission or other cases where this Court has undertaken an analysis under Article II, See*1040tion 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution changes this Court's construction of the provision or holding that the Ten Commandments Monument on the state capitol complex violates Article II, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution,
Blaine Amendments
117 Any reliance on Article II, Section 5 as a Blaine Amendment is misplaced. It is apparent from a comparison of the Oklahoma Constitution and the Blaine Amendment that Article II, Section 5 is not taken from the Blaine Amendment, The Blaine Amendment was proposed by Congressman James Blaine as an amendment to the federal constitution in the late 1870's in an attempt to boost his bid for the presidency. Steven K. Green, The Blaine Amendment Reconsidered, 36 Am. J, Legal Hist, 88, 38 (1992) [hereinafter The Blaine Amendment]. At the time the Catholics wanted funding for their schools and, when denied, sought to ban the practice of daily readings of the protestant King James Version of the Bible in schools, Id. at 41, 44.
1 18 The Blaine Amendment provides:
1. No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or probib-iting the free exercise thereof; and no religious test shall ever be required as qualification to any office or public trust under any State. No public property and no public revenue of, nor any loan of credit by or under the authority of, the United States, or any State, Territory, District, or municipal corporation, shall be appropriated to or made or used for the support of any school, educational or other institution under the control of any religious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomination, or wherein the particular ereed or tenets of any religious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomination, shall be taught. And no such particular creed or tenets shall be read or taught in any school or institution supported in whole or in part by such revenue or loan of credit; and no such appropriation or loan of eredit shall be made to any religious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomination, or to promote its interests or tenets. This article shall not be construed to prohibit the reading of the Bible in any school or institution; and it shall not have the effect to impair rights of property already vested.
Bee. 2, Congress shall have power, by appropriate legislation, to provide for the prevention and punishment of violations of this article,
4 Cong. Ree. 5453 (1876).
119 The first sentence of the Blaine Amendment imposed the Establishment Clause's restrictions on states, as it was believed to only apply to the federal government at the time, The Blaine Amendment, at 50-51. Oklahoma's establishment clause restriction is found at Article I, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; and no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights....
Okla, Const. art, I, § 2.4 Aside from imposing the federal Establishment Clause's restriction on states, the Blaine Amendment deals only with appropriations to benefit sectarian educational institutions,. - Oklahoma's provision dealing with appropriations for the benefit of sectarian schools is found at Article 1, Section 5, which provides:
Provisions shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control, ...
Unlike Article II, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution, the Blaine Amendment does not, except for educational institutions, ad- . dress the use of state property for the direct or indirect benefit of a religion or system of religion. Because the Blaine Amendment does not contain a general prohibition on the use of state property to benefit religion, Article II, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution cannot be seen as a Blaine Amendment.
*1041¶ 20 Article II, Section 5 makes no mention of schools, the Catholie Church, or the Blaine Amendment. Article II, Section 5 is a very simple, straight-forward statement of our founders that no public money or public property shall be used to support religious activity. Article II, Section 5's simple, very clear statement applies to everyone's religion equally. Our founders considered it good public policy.
II. Federal Establishment Clause
1 21 Although the issues are limited to the Oklahoma Constitution, I address the federal Establishment Clause only because the Commission argues that it is appropriate. | Oklahoma's establishment clause compared with the federal Establishment Clause is far more specific in its limitations on state action. The federal Establishment Clause provides, in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." U.S. Const. amend. I. It is evident from the difference in language used in Article II, Section 5 of Oklahoma Constitution and the federal Establishment Clause that they require different analyses.
« 22 While a violation of Article II, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution may also violate the federal Establishment Clause, a state can always restrict its government's powers beyond the limits imposed on state action by the federal constitution Alva State Bank & Trust Co. v. Dayton, 1988 OK 44, ¶ 7, 755 P.2d 635, 638; cf. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 489, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005) ("We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power."). The Commission fails to explain and fails to support its position with any authority to the contrary. |
28 Interestingly, and wrongly in my opinion, the defendant and the Legislature heavily relied on Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 (2005), for the constitutionality of and framework for erecting the monument in the present case. On June 27, 2005, the United States Supreme Court decided Van Orden, a plurality opinion,5 and McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005), in which five Justices concurred in the Supreme Court's opinion. In my opinion, McCreary is analogous to the present case, whereas Van Orden is not. These two United States Supreme Court cases, like the case presently before us, involve placement of the Ten Commandments on government property.
4 24 There are several similarities between the monument on the Oklahoma state capitol complex and the Ten Commandments display in McCreary. Both originally stood segregated from any other historically significant monuments or displays. Both displays were initiated by the governing legislative body with a stated purpose of the display being of historical value but lacking any context to indicate an object beyond the religions nature of the text. Both were displayed only shortly before the legal attack seeking their removal and neither were long-installed displays. The monument on the Oklahoma state capitol complex is more religious in nature than the Ten Commandments display in McCreary because the Oklahoma monument has the additional language, "I AM the LORD thy God," which was not present in McCreary. 545 U.S. at 852, 855, 869, 125 S.Ct., 2722. In contrast, the monument upheld as constitutional in Van Orden was in place forty years before it was legally challenged. ©
¶ 25 Concurring in judgment, Justice Breyer. cast the deciding vote in Van Orden While the deciding factor for the four concurring Justices was the monument's purpose, the deciding factor for Justice Breyer was the length of time the Texas monument had been in place before being challenged. Justice Breyer found Van Orden to be a borderline case, My reading of Justice Breyer's opinion concurring in result leads me to the conclusion that had the longevity factor been absent, as it is here and in McCreary, the *1042Texas monument would not have passed constitutional serutiny under the Establishment Clause. Further, while the Texas monument was identical in wording to the monument here, the less sectarian language on the Kentucky display that was unconstitutional shows that wording alone is not the determining factor.
T26 If a federal analysis is needed in the future, this case is without question much more analogous to McCreary than Van Or-den. Under a proper federal analysis, this monument would likely be held unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
Hi. Ten Commandments' Historical Significance
T27 While agreeing that the Ten Commandments has historical significance, it is above all a religious symbol, and there is no basis to determine that the monument is primarily historical. Article II, Section 5 does not provide an exception for a religious monument that may be of some historical value. Article II, Section 5 is clear; legislative intent, the nature of the placement of a religious monument, its historical value, and whether a reasonable person would be offended are irrelevant; and any reliance on these factors in applying Article II, Section 5 is misplaced. The only question here is whether the monument benefits a system of religion, The Ten Commandments is an iconic symbol of the Christian religion and is inherently religious. Further, with the initial inscription being "I AM the LORD thy God," the monument needs no external references to know that it is primarily and foremostly religious. It is honored in the Judeo-Chris-tian system of religion for its religious significance.
Twenty-five years ago in a case prompted by posting the Ten Commandments in Kentucky's public schools, this Court recognized that the Commandments "are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths" and held that their display in public classrooms violated the First 'Amendment's bar against establishment of religion. Stone found a predominantly religious purpose in the government's posting of the Commandments, given their prominence as "'an instrument of religion....'"
McCreary, 545 U.S. at 859, 125 S.Ct. 2722 (internal citations omitted). Simply, the monument's placement on state property supports and benefits a system of religion in violation of Article II, Section 5.
128 Nonetheless, I would note that the historical value of the Ten Commandments is a recognition of the role they played in religion.6 The Ten Commandments are an iconic historic religions text from the Old Testament. However, the Ten Commandments are not mentioned in the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Paul Finkelman, Ten Commandments Mon-wments and the First Amendment, 22 Okla. Bar J. 1749 (Aug. 18, 2005), available at http://www.okbar.org/members/BarJournal/ archive2005/Augarchive05/obj7622ten.aspx. There was no mention of the Ten Commandments in the debates at 1787 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention. Id. The United States Supreme Court has never cited the Ten Commandments
VI, CONCLUSION
1 29 The plaintiffs brought their challenge to the Ten Commandments monument's placement on state property and the Capitol Preservation Commission's actions under Article II, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The monument is an icon of the Judeo-Christian system of religion and is now situated on state property. Its placement on *1043state property benefits the Judeo-Christian system of religion in violation of Article II, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The questions of whether artworks housed in the State Capitol or other alarmist extraneous issues raised violate Article II, Section 5 are not before this Court. Article II, Section 5 applies to all religions equally by preventing the use of public funds or property for any religious benefit. A conservative, strict construction of the law leads to the conclusion that the Ten Commandments monument's location on state property is a clear violation of a straightforward, unambiguous provision of the Oklahoma Constitution.
APPENDIX
[[Image here]]
*1044Ten Commandments Monuments on the North Plaza of the Oklahoma State Capitol.

. This axiom was expressed by Justice Scalia when he stated: "Words have meaning. And their meaning doesn't change. I mean, the notion that the Constitution should simply, by decree of the Court, mean something that it didn't mean when the people voted for it...." Jennifer Senior, In Conversation: Antonin Scalia, New York (Oct. 6, 2013), http://nymag.com/news/ features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/.

. This analysis is supported by the prominent Oklahoma historian and scholar, Dr. Bob L. Blackburn, Oklahoma Historical Society's executive director. Dr. Blackburn stated that even though the founders started their 1906 and 1907 proceedings with a prayer, they were against state support of any particular church. Dr. Blackburn noted that the Baptists " 'would have been the biggest advocate of separation (of church and state)' " and that the Baptist church " 'had been persecuted by mainline churches for well over a century.'" Barbara Hoberock, Oklahoma Supreme Court Not Likely to Change Position on Ten Commandments, ACLU Attorney Says, Tulsa World (July 3, 2015) httpy//www, tulsaworld.com/news/capitol.report/oklahoma-supreme-court-not-likely-to-change-position-on-ten/article_59f599e0-f7d3~-563d-ad40-e1 7daaf12 f49.html.

. It is noteworthy that the Meyer's cross was removed from the fairgrounds in 2003. The city manager of Oklahoma City at the time of its removal believed it to be unconstitutional and ordered its removal with the support of the city counsel. Steve Lackmeyer, Residents Protest Removal of Fair Cross, NewsOK (Feb, 28, 2003), http://newsok.com,/residents-protest-removal-of-fair-cross/article/1917528. As evidence of its religious significance, the cross was placed on the property of two Oklahoma City churches. Jerry Pierce, Baptist Church, Church of Christ to Share Banned Okla. Cross, Baptist Press (June 10, 2003), http;//www.bpnews.net/16059/baptist-church-church-of-christ-to-share-banned-okla-cross-to-share-banned-okla-cross.

, This wording is a direct quote of requirements to be provided for in the Oklahoma Constitution in order to be admitted as a State. Oklahoma Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, ch. 3335, 34 Stat. 267. ;

, A plurality opinion is one in which no opinion receives a majority of the votes, but receives more votes than any other opinion, and the result receives five votes. Opinion, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.2014).

. The U.S. Supreme Court has the Ten Commandments displayed in their Courtroom in several locations, but their display is limited to representations of tablets with only roman numerals or, where written out, limited to a portion of the later secularly phrased commandments written in Hebrew and placed in the midst of 17 other historical lawgivers, religious and secular, also carrying representations of the law of their society or religion. McCreary Cnty., 545 U.S. at 874, 125 S.Ct. 2722.