Religious Freedom Prevails Against Nevada Secretary of State

When one runs for public office as a third party or independent candidate, the establishment uses every opportutnity to quash the entire movement. If you are not a democrat or a republican, you can expect the full power of the state to be brought to bear against you in an effort to "convince" you not to run for office ever again.

When several of my friends and I ran for office in the last election cycle, we ran under the banner of the Independent American Party of Nevada. The procedure for declaring as a candidate involves signing a Declaration of Candidacy form, paying a fee, and then receiving the information about reporting campaign contributions and expenses. Folks like us do things a little differently, however.

First, the fee. In Nevada, I had to pay a $100 fee in order to run for the state assembly seat (the lower house in the Nevada Legislature). At the time that I originally tendered the fee, the price of silver was $12.50 per ounce. Accordingly, I took in eight (8) one-ounce silver dollars and tendered that as payment of the fee. The State Board of Elections (a division within the office of the Secretary of State) refused to accept this tender at anything but face value. Accordingly, I tendered ninety-nine (99) "dollars" denominated in Federal Reserve Notes, together with a one-ounce Silver Dollar. The point of this will be clear later.

Second, you have to sign all of the Declaration of Candidacy forms under penalty of perjury. Most people have no problem doing that, but folks like me do have a problem. Some, like me, have a religious objection to taking an oath. If you review Matthew, Chapter 5, James, Chapter 5, and 2nd Corinthians, Chapter 1, you will find a prohibition against swearing or the taking of any oath in any form. I always strike out that part of the oath or affirmation is objectionable to my faith and instead cite the only form of "oath" I can find in Scripture, Romans, 9:1. My friend, Christopher believes that one should not affirm under penalty of perjury, but should instead call the Lord as a witness as is found in 2nd Corinthians 1:23.

Third, you have to sign a form that says that you will comply with the requirements of the campaign contributions and expenses statutes and report those who contribute to your campaign and how those contributions are spent. However, we have a problem with this, first, because the forms require declaration under penalty of perjury (which is contrary to our faith), and second, to report what was accepted and spent as denominated in "dollars." My definition of a dollar is the same as that defined by Congress: a one-ounce silver coin. I do not receive any of those as contributions, nor do I spend any of those. How am I to fill out the forms if I do not understand what constitutes a dollar as required by the Secretary of State. Accordingly, as I am asked to fill out the form, I ask the representative of the Secretary what is meant by the term "dollar" on the form. What is the size, shape, color, substance, or any other meaningful characteristic of the form of tender so that I understand what is to be reported? Because I get a non-responsive response, I refuse to sign the form that says that I will fill out the C&E reports.

In Nevada, during and after the elections, there are a series of three C&E reports that have to be filed. In my own case, I write "zero" into each of the form fields, and report that I neither received nor spent any dollars denominated in silver or gold. At the bottom of the form, I strike out the declaration under penalty of perjury and replace that with the promise to tell the truth found in Scripture at Romans, 9:1.

Well after the reports are due, I get a letter from the Secretary that I did not fill out the forms properly and that I am being assessed a $5,000 fine for each improperly filed C&E report. After I wrote to him this letter, he never responded.

I have heard tell that the Secretary filed suit against me for my alleged failure to file the C&E reports for the 2006 election cycle, but I have never been served with that suit. However, my friend Christopher has been sued for the 2006 election cycle C&E reports, and the Secretary of State has been relentless in pursuing that suit. A couple of weeks ago, Christoper received a notice of deposition where he would be called to testify. He submitted a formal notice to the court and to the Secretary about the obligations of his faith with respect to testifying. The judge called a hearing and ordered Christopher to take an oath in a specific manner. What the judge was trying to do was to sabotage Christopher's case and force him to take a form of an oath or affirmation that was contrary to his beliefs. If Christopher were to comply with this order, then Christopher's case would then evaporate, as his main contention was one of religious beliefs and the judge was trying to establish that Christopher's beliefs were not sincerely held.

The judge should have known that he cannot do that. See Gordon v. Idaho, 778 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1985):

The First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion requires that our procedural rules be interpreted flexibly to protect sincerely-held religious beliefs and practices. In Callahan v. Woods, 736 F.2d 1269, 1273 (9th Cir.1984), we set forth factors that courts must consider in determining whether a neutrally based statute violates the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion. We stated that the "government must shoulder a heavy burden to defend a regulation affecting religious actions." Id. at 1272. And we emphasized that it is "the 'least restrictive means' inquiry which is the critical aspect of the free exercise analysis." Id. The specific verbal formula offered by the district court was not the least restrictive means of assuring that Gordon testify truthfully at his deposition.

So, Christopher filed a Towbin motion to disqaualify the judge (Towbin Dodge, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State ex rel. County of Clark 112 P.3d 1063, 2005) on the grounds that the judge exceeded his clearly defined powers in light of Gordon. Christopher then attended the depostion and refused to take the oath in the manner ordered by the Court. He stuck to his beliefs and the attorney for the Secretary of State buckled under the pressure.

Christopher told me yesterday that the attorney for the Secretary of State has offered to dismiss the lawsuit.