County Bans Poll Worker’s Bible, Calling It “Offensive”

A county banned an election poll worker from having a Bible, outrageously calling it “offensive.” We are taking major legal action to defend our client’s religious liberty.

The ACLJ just sent a legal letter on behalf of a Judge of Elections in Pennsylvania who was ordered to hide his Bible because it might “offend” the people who saw it. We are committed to protecting the fundamental constitutional right to freely exercise one’s religious beliefs. Today, we’re fighting for John Goodhart, a dedicated Judge of Elections in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who was unconstitutionally discriminated against while attempting to read his Bible during personal downtime at the polling place.

During the recent election, Goodhart, an experienced election worker in his second four-year term, was instructed by an Allegheny County Elections Division staff member to remove his Bible from view. The reason? A vague invocation of “separation of church and state” – a misinterpretation that fundamentally misunderstands our First Amendment protections.

Goodhart has never had any previous issues with bringing his Bible to the polling place. It’s been his routine practice, and no one has ever complained. He places the Bible off to the side whenever he engages in his official duties (as anyone would do with a personal item), and he only opens his Bible to read when things are quiet or if he has a break from his official duties. Goodhart has never proselytized to voters, in any way whatsoever.

Goodhart received a telephone call from an Allegheny County Elections Division staff member on Election Day. She informed him that a voter complained about the presence of a closed Bible among his personal effects on the table beside him. She ordered him to remove the Bible from view, as he was a functionary of the state within the polling place at that time. Goodhart asked why, and rather than being given a specific policy from Allegheny County, he was told that the order was based on “the separation of church and state.”

Prohibiting Goodhart from reading a Bible while others engage in private activities violates the First Amendment. The Constitution’s Establishment Clause does not require that government employees be banned from expressing their religious faith. On the contrary, the Constitution requires equal treatment for religious expressions in the public sphere.

We sent a demand letter that explained:

By reading his Bible during his personal time while on a break at his election desk, Goodhart is engaged in private activity, not within the scope of his employment. The Supreme Court’s analysis in Kennedy of a similar matter should be dispositive here. Goodhart wishes to engage in private religious activity, during his personal time, when his fellow coworkers are, likewise, engaging in private, personal activity.

The reason given for banning Goodhart’s Bible – “separation of church and state” – is not a valid one as a matter of law. The Establishment Clause does not include anything “like a ‘modified heckler’s veto’”; it gives no right to stop someone from exercising their faith just because an observer is offended.

The ACLJ has defended this principle for many years, including at the Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Mergens, where ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow successfully defended the principle of equal access in public schools. The Establishment Clause does not require censorship of religious symbols or personal religious activities. On the contrary, the Free Exercise Clause protects the right to personal religious activities.

The significance of this case goes beyond one election worker’s right to read a Bible. It represents a critical stand against the growing trend of religious discrimination in public spaces. Our Founders understood that true religious freedom means protecting the right of individuals to express their faith – not creating a sterile environment that silences religious viewpoints.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the notion that the Establishment Clause requires the suppression of religious expression. As the Court stated in Kennedy, attempting to censor religious activity in the name of protecting religious liberty actually undermines the very freedoms our Constitution seeks to protect: “The Establishment Clause does not include anything like a ‘modified heckler’s veto, in which . . . religious activity can be proscribed’ based on ‘perceptions’ or ‘discomfort.’”

We have formally requested assurances from the Allegheny County Elections Division that our client’s constitutional rights will be respected in future elections and that he will not be prohibited from exercising his constitutional rights to have a Bible – for his personal use and on personal time – during the administration of elections.