ACLU of Kentucky

Franklin County Circuit Court

In September 2005, Kentucky, at Secretary of State Trey Grayson’s urging, entered into a project with Tennessee and South Carolina to compare voter databases. The three states sought to identify individuals who were registered to vote in more than one state and then purge the “matching” voters with the earlier registration date. A month before the May 2006 primary, Kentucky election officials purged 8,105 names from the list of eligible voters.

Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo filed suit shortly afterwards, alleging that the purge unlawfully  cancelled voters without notice and failed to place voters on an inactive list, as required for those who have changed addresses.  The Board of Elections argued that appearing on another state's voter rolls was akin to a request to be removed from Kentucky's voter list, so the protections normally afforded to voters who move do not apply.

The ACLU of Kentucky was part of a coalition of voting rights organizations, including the League of Women Voters of Kentucky, Project Vote, and Common Cause of Kentucky, in filing a "friend of the court" brief in support of the Attorney General's argument.  Louisville attorney Tom Schulz served as our cooperating attorney.

In October 2006, Franklin Circuit Court Judge Thomas D. Wingate ruling that the purge of names violated Kentucky election law.  Judge Wingate concluded that Kentucky voters who registered in another state had a change of address, not a request that their name be purged from Kentucky’s voter roll.  He ordered that the names of those who were purged be placed on an inactive voter list for two federal election cycles, as is required under Kentucky and federal law for voters who have changed their address. 

United States District Court

In May 2006, the ACLU of Kentucky filed suit in federal court on behalf of a Russell County High School senior who objected to the prayer planned for his public high school graduation ceremony.  The student objected to school-sponsored prayers as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and of specific religious views.  

The ACLU sought, and U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley granted, a temporary restraining order to prevent school-sponsored prayer at the Russell County High School graduation ceremony.  The decision relied upon Supreme Court precedent that graduation is a milestone event for many students, whose celebration of their academic success should not hinge on school officials’ promotion of religious views.

United States District Court

The ACLU of Kentucky has asked that state officials be held in contempt if they move forward with plans to place a Ten Commandments monument on state Capitol grounds, as directed by the 2006 Kentucky General Assembly.

The original case, Adland v. Russ, began in 2000 after then-Gov. Paul Patton signed into law a Senate Joint Resolution calling for placing the Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds near the floral clock.  The Senate resolution contained several religious references — including referring to the United States as a “Christian nation” — and quoted famous Americans about God, the Bible, and/or Christianity.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Hood found at that time that the Senate resolution and proposed monument display violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause and barred the monument’s display.  The federal appeals court agreed and the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in 2003.

The 2006 legislature then directed that the same Ten Commandments monument be removed from storage and placed on Capitol grounds, along with a marker that details “aspects of the legislative and judicial history related to the display of this monument of the Ten Commandments.”  We argue that this new-found “historical” purpose is a sham, thinly masking the same legislature’s overt religious purpose (a purpose that the legislature defended for three years).

Judge Hood now has directed the Commonwealth to detail its plans, describing the content, location and size of each monument it proposes to erect alongside the Decalogue monument.  Once it does so, the parties will argue about the proposed display’s constitutionality.  Until then — that is, unless and until the court approves the Commonwealth’s proposed display — the monument will remain in storage.

Also see:

ACLU of Kentucky, Walker and Howe v. McCreary County

Supreme Court of the United States / United States District Court

These two consolidated suits are our first set of challenges to Ten Commandments postings in Kentucky courthouses. The ACLU of Kentucky, on behalf of its members in Pulaski and McCreary counties and residents of each county, has argued since 1999 that the displays’ purpose and effect are to endorse religion, in violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

In the lawsuits’ early stages, the defendants enacted statements of “purpose,” claiming that the displays were meant to teach the historical lesson about Christians’ role in the nation’s founding. To further this “secular” purpose, the defendants surrounded the Ten Commandments with six unrelated statements about religion. U.S. District Judge Jennifer B. Coffman held that the modified displays likely were unconstitutional and issued preliminary injunctions prohibiting them. The defendants removed their displays, initially appealed the injunction and then, after obtaining new counsel, dropped their appeals.

Several months after removing the displays, the defendants posted new Ten Commandments displays. These displays of “historical documents” contained American (and earlier Colonial and British) political and patriotic documents and the Ten Commandments. Judge Coffman held that these displays too likely were unconstitutional, because the displays’ history showed that the defendants’ purposes were religious, not secular, and because the displays’ effect was to endorse religion. The judge therefore enjoined this third incarnation of the Ten Commandments displays and the defendants appealed that preliminary injunction.

The federal appeals court and U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Judge Coffman’s preliminary injunction prohibiting the latest display.  Both cases now have returned to the trial court for further proceedings.  We are nearing the end of trial court litigation and anticipate asking Judge Coffman for final orders barring both the second and third Ten Commandments displays.