Slavery is still on the constitutional books in at least five states. West Virginia is the only state where incorporating religious organizations is against the law. And there is not a single state in the union where collective bargaining is protected as a constitutional right.
All of that might soon change.
The upcoming midterm elections on Nov. 8 are an opportunity for voters to judge how well things have been going since the last national election. Besides casting votes in the flashier congressional races, voters will get to speak up on any number of local and regional concerns through local ballot measures.
Besides casting votes in the flashier congressional races, voters will get to speak up on any number of local and regional concerns through local ballot measures.
For Catholics, this means considering how their faith intersects with their vote and what Catholic leaders have to say on these measures. Here are just a few that Catholic voters will face on Tuesday.
The battle continues over Dobbs
Following the Dobbs v. Jackson decision in June, the legal status of abortion is now an issue left up to the states. Three (California, Michigan and Vermont) are proposing measures to strengthen existing legal abortion rights into constitutional commitments. Kentucky—where abortion, in a law to be activated if Roe v. Wade was overturned, has been banned since Dobbs—will decide on an amendment that achieves the exact opposite of ballot measures that shore up abortion rights: It would clarify that there is no language in the Kentucky constitution that could protect the right to or funding for an abortion.
All three Catholic conferences in states with a pro-abortion ballot measure are, no surprise, advocating in opposition to those measures. Alongside the California Catholic Conference, the state’s Knights of Columbus has funded and officially endorsed California Together, the No on Proposition 1 campaign.
“California has such a rich history of Catholicism,” said Catherine Hadro, the director of media relations for the No on Proposition 1 campaign in an interview with America.
“It is the land where St. Junípero Serra walked. It is the state that has cities named after the saints and the angels, which makes Proposition 1 all the more scandalous,” she said.
“It is the land where St. Junípero Serra walked. It is the state that has cities named after the saints and the angels, which makes Proposition 1 all the more scandalous.”
Mrs. Hadro stressed that the No on Proposition 1 campaign is a bipartisan coalition of people on both sides of the abortion debate and from different faiths who oppose late-term abortions. Mrs. Hadro said supporters of the campaign also object to a potential misallocation of state tax dollars propelled by Proposition 1 to pay for abortions for non-residents heading to California.
Similarly, Montana voters will be asked to consider LR-131, also known as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This act deems that infants born alive, including those who are born during the course of an abortion, are legal persons, meaning that health care providers are required to provide medical treatment to help preserve their lives or risk criminal charges.
“The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act is the epitome of common-sense legislation,” said the Catholic Bishops of Montana in a statement supporting the ballot measure on Sept. 29.
“These children, having somehow survived a violent attack on their [lives] in utero, should never face a similar threat once born,” the bishops said.
The act does not, however, touch on fetal personhood, a current controversial issue in the national abortion debate, disappointing anti-abortion activists who hoped to create that legal standard in Montana.
“Law and order” and criminal justice on the ballot
Sixty percent of registered voters said that violent crime was an important concern to them in the midterms, according to the Pew Research Center, just behind gun policy and the economy. States have responded to calls for “law and order” with ballot measures designed to address this pressing issue among voters.
In Alabama and Ohio, ballot measures aim to push back against bail reform campaigns. A ballot measure in Alabama asks voters if offenses ranging from murder and first-degree arson to terrorism should require that suspects be ineligible for bail.
A ballot measure in Ohio would remove the State Supreme Court’s power over setting bail. The court had previously limited the ability of bail to be used only to ensure attendance in court. If approved, this measure would give more power to the state legislature to decide issues on bail policy. It would also amplify protocols on determining bail based on elements like public safety.
Catholic diocesan and conference leaders in Alabama and Ohio have not commented on the ballot propositions, but Catholic groups have supported bail reform initiatives in the past.
Catholic diocesan and conference leaders in Alabama and Ohio have not commented on the ballot propositions, but Catholic groups like the Jesuit Conference’s Office of Justice and Ecology and Catholic Prison Ministries have supported bail reform initiatives in the past.
Missouri voters will be asked to consider an amendment that would allow the state legislature to increase minimum funding for local police departments. One sponsor of the amendment argued this would be a way to push back against calls to “defund the police.”
The Missouri Catholic Conference republished a 2020 U.S.C.C.B. statement calling for police reform and issued their own condemnation of police brutality in the wake of George Floyd’s murder. But Heather Buechter, director of communications for the conference, told America that it was not taking a position on the police funding measure.
Voters in Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont are being asked to consider the treatment of prison workers, as ballot measures in those states seek to strike “legacy” language from state constitutions that protects slavery and indentured servitude. The 2016 documentary, “13th,” revealed how the federal government still allows slavery as an acceptable punishment under the 13th Amendment. Groups like the Innocence Project and other prison reform activists charge that this constitutional provision is what allows for exploitation of penal labor today.
The U.S.C.C.B. accepts prison labor under the 13th Amendment, as long as the labor is rehabilitative and remains comparable to labor conditions experienced by non-prisoners (for example, that prison work pay the minimum wage).
Looking at union rights and the economy
Union organizing campaigns and public approval of unions have both been increasing in the 2020s. One state is proposing a constitutional amendment that might further enhance growing union power.
Illinois voters will decide on a constitutional right to collective bargaining; prohibiting laws that might interfere in that right. The ballot’s language mirrors statements issued by the state’s Catholic leaders.
Illinois voters will decide on a constitutional right to collective bargaining. The ballot’s language mirrors statements issued by the state’s Catholic leaders.
In a 2020 election guide, the Catholic Conference of Illinois asked voters to consider whether or not a candidate they would vote for “promote[d] basic rights for workers, such as collective bargaining.” And in an amicus brief offered for Janus v. AFSCME in 2018, the U.S.C.C.B. argued that U.S. bishops “have long and consistently supported the right of workers to organize for purposes of collective bargaining.”
But in Tennessee, a right-to-work amendment on the ballot would make it illegal to require union membership in employment. Supporters of the Illinois amendment point out that it would prohibit a right-to-work law.
While Catholic leaders in Tennessee have not spoken out against the proposed amendment, the Tennessee Register reports that a national group, the Catholic Labor Network, has been detailing the adverse consequences of the amendment. “Right to Work hinders [the Catholic] call to solidarity,” Aimee Shelide Mayer, Nashville’s C.L.N. representative, told The Register.
“It allows us to wash our hands of whatever is hurting our brothers and sisters and [say], ‘That’s not my problem.’”
Challenging the complexities of religious liberty
Three states this year are sponsoring ballot measures intended to expand religious liberty.
In Tennessee, a proposed constitutional amendment strikes down a prohibition on Christian and religious ministers of other faiths from serving in office. The exact language currently in the constitution is a prohibition on “ministers of the gospel and priests of any denomination.” But that may be of little interest to Catholics. Canon law already prohibits Catholic clergy and religious from serving in public office at all.
Other ballot offerings are more pertinent to Catholics. In Arkansas, voters will be deciding on the Government Burden of Free Exercise of Religion Amendment. This amendment, if implemented, would strengthen the protections from the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed in 2015, by moving its provisions into the state constitution. Bishop Anthony Taylor of the Diocese of Little Rock previously expressed support for the state’s R.F.R.A. in 2015. The bishop highlighted the need to prevent “invidious discrimination” of the L.G.B.T. community, a problem, he argued, the R.F.R.A. succeeded in avoiding.
Bryan Minor, executive director of the West Virginia Catholic Foundation, said that it “would be a plus” for religious organizations in West Virginia to be allowed the same rights as other incorporated non-profits.
West Virginia is the only state that prohibits the incorporation of religious organizations. The state’s anti-incorporation language was designed during the time of the founding fathers to prevent the state endorsement of religion. If approved, West Virginia’s amendment would reverse this antiquated prohibition, putting its laws in line with the rest of the country.
The Catholic Conference of West Virginia did not respond to an inquiry from America, but Bryan Minor, executive director of the West Virginia Catholic Foundation, said in an email to that it “would be a plus” for religious organizations in West Virginia to be allowed the same rights and protections as other incorporated non-profits.
Mulling over marijuana and magic mushrooms
Voters will be asked in a number of states to consider measures to legalize or decriminalize drug use, continuing a legalization and decriminalization trend across the country. Arkansas, Maryland, Missouri and both Dakotas are putting the issue of marijuana legalization before voters, while Colorado’s Proposition 122 could decriminalize drugs like psilocybin mushrooms statewide if approved.
Despite recent victories for drug legalization and decriminalization, little has changed on the issue among members of the U.S.C.C.B., who remain steadfast in their resistance to recreational drug use.
But despite recent victories for drug legalization and decriminalization, little has changed on the issue among members of the U.S.C.C.B., who remain steadfast in their resistance to recreational drug use.
The Missouri Catholic Conference issued a statement urging Catholic voters to oppose legalization. The conference believes that legalization will increase health complications associated with regular marijuana use, namely respiratory and cognitive issues.
“We believe that marijuana legalization will negatively impact Missouri families, health outcomes, communities and workers,” the statement reads. “Legalization sends the message that marijuana is safe and socially acceptable.”
Bishops in North Dakota, South Dakota and Arkansas have also come out against marijuana legalization efforts for similar reasons. Since these ballot measures support recreational legalization, the catechetical exception for the therapeutic use of drugs like marijuana or psychedelics does not apply.
So far, the Maryland Catholic Conference has not commented on their state’s legalization efforts.
