Judge blocks mandatory Colorado pledge law

Casper Star-Tribune/AP ^ | 8/15/03 | STEVEN K. PAULSON

[DPB101]

Calling it divisive and discriminatory, a federal judge blocked a Colorado law Friday that requires public school students and teachers to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

In issuing a temporary injunction, U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock said the law discriminates against teachers by allowing students to opt out with a note from their parents. Teachers have no such option.

The judge also said the law pits students who choose to say the pledge against those who do not, and students against teachers.

''What is instructional about that? Isn't that compelled speech? To mandate every day that one make this pledge whether you believe it or not?'' Babcock asked. ''You can't compel a citizen of the United States to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.''

The injunction will be in effect until a full hearing on the challenge. A date for that hearing was not set.

The pledge has long been part of the routine in many Colorado schools but it was not required for all 750,000 public school students from kindergarten to 12th grade until the law took effect Aug. 6.

The law was challenged less than a week later by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of nine teachers and students from four Denver-area districts.

Anne Rosenblatt, a 14-year-old freshman at Cherry Creek High School and one of those who challenged the law, said she has refused to say the pledge since January.

''I don't believe in pledging my allegiance to an inanimate object,'' she said after the ruling. Her father, Richard, said he respected her rights.

Rick Kaufman, a spokesman for Jefferson County schools, said the injunction would not stop school officials from saying the pledge daily. He said principals were advised even before the court case not to discipline anyone for refusing to say the pledge, regardless of their reasons.

''We do look forward to this litigation,'' Kaufman said. ''It will help clear up any further direction for school districts with respect to the mandate of the state law.''

State Senate President John Andrews, R-Centennial, said the ruling was an insult.

''This is a gross insult to the patriotism of most Coloradans. It's bad jurisprudence. I'm confident it will be overturned on appeal,'' he said.

ACLU attorney Allen Chen told the judge the law posed irreparable harm to the First Amendment rights of students and teachers.

''This is nothing less than ritualistic recitation of words that have much meaning to some people and no meaning to other people,'' he said.

State officials say anyone can choose not to say the pledge under certain circumstances. Assistant Deputy Attorney General Maurice Knaizer said the pledge requirement was just part of a state-mandated curriculum.

''I don't think there's any argument that the education of children is an important state objective,'' he told the judge.

Colorado is one of 33 states that require students to recite the pledge during the school day, according to the Education Commission of the States. Specific rules vary.

Last month, a federal court ruled a Pennsylvania law requiring all students to recite the pledge or sing the national anthem violated students' freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court is expected to announce this fall whether it will consider another federal court ruling in San Francisco that said regular classroom recitations of the pledge are unconstitutional because of the phrase ''one nation, under God.'' That case began with a lawsuit by an atheist who sued the school district where his daughter was a second-grader.

[secret garden]

What's wrong with pledging allegiance to the government in a government school? Next, they'll want to tell kids in religious schools not to pray. This is just plain goofy.

[ladylib]

"In issuing a temporary injunction, U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock said the law discriminates against teachers by allowing students to opt out with a note from their parents. Teachers have no such option."

In the PA case, the federal court said that it didn't matter whether or not parents gave their child permission to opt out. The government (state schools) can't coerce speech.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

The gov of Colo is going to be very upset.

This is not about compelling students to make the pledge because they already have the right to opt out for any reason with a note.

Its obviously about banning the pledge outright. This judge wanted this outcome, and then worked backwards with the JCLU to get it. Whatever happened to the old lib standby- that anyone should then be able to make a pledge to anything of their choice also?? I guess this new decision is more iron clad in shutting down the pledge.

The NEA must be celebrating tonight.

[cake_crumb]

Divisive and discriminatory against WHOM, exactly?

Thanks again ACLU, for being a bastion of hatred, discrimination and divisiveness under the guise of diversity and tolorance.

[fish hawk]

False headline. It is not a mandatory thing. Anyone, student or teacher that does not want to do it does not have too. The Governor was on TV yesterday explaining the whole thing. Another Media hype.

[tet68]

''This is nothing less than ritualistic recitation of words that have much meaning to some people and no meaning to other people,'' he said.

And because it has NO meaning to some people, they want those that it has meaning for, NOT to be able to do it.

Liberals!

[Cold Heat]

14yr olds are now making law.

This has also come after the program has started. I wonder how the rest of the 14yr olds feel about it and the courts and the stupid decisions that they make.

[DPB101]

Sickeningly enough, Ronald Reagan nominated this judge. Here is another of his rulings:

Thursday, December 24, 1998
DENVER (AP) -- A new federal law ordering legal immigrants who have committed crimes to be jailed during deportation hearings has been ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock . . .

The impact of Babcock's ruling could spread nationwide, said Judy Rabinovitz of New York City, senior staff counsel for the Immigrants' Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union . . .

"It isn't binding on any other district courts, but that's not to minimize its significance," Rabinovitz said of the ruling. "The first decision certainly sends a message to other courts, and we think it's persuasive authority for them to look at.

"And it certainly sends a message to Congress that there are limits in how far they can legislate away the rights of immigrants."
continued

[ladylib]

"This is not about compelling students to make the pledge because they already have the right to opt out for any reason with a note."

I bet you the court is going to say that the kid doesn't need a note, just like in PA.

[Kevin Curry]

The government (state schools) can't coerce speech.

The government sure doesn't have any compunction against forcing citizens to "speak" on their income tax returns.

In addition, there's a whole lot of speech-coercion going on in the courts. I suspect that following this judge's ruling, his next case involved witnesses summoned to court by subpoena to speak on pain of jail and a fine if they refused.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

I bet you the court is going to say that the kid doesn't need a note, just like in PA."

I wish that they would be honest and say that they are not loyal to this country. Nice and simple. Why don't they exercise THAT 1st amendment right?

No mre legal mumbo jumbo BS reasons to fit their goal. Just say you have no allegiance to the USA.

And coming from a judge? He needs to disappear...

[At _War_With_Liberals]

What about the kids that WANT to say the pledge?

How come reporters NEVER interview them???

[ladylib]

It's not to their advantage to interview them, that's why.

Do you think someone like Katy Couric would ever want to interview an articulate teenager with patriotic views? The kid would wipe the floor up with her.

I'm against coercing students into say the Pledge of Allegiance, but I feel that if they don't want to say it, what are they doing here in this country? They should move to Iran.

We don't force people in this country to pledge allegiance to this country, but that doesn't mean we can't have contempt for them if they don't.

[Mushinronshasan]

After reading the replies to this article, I am surprised that so many people have misinterpreted the ruling. The obvious "what's wrong with the pledge" response ignores what the ruling did. It's not prohibition of the pledge, it's a prohibition of a government from compelling it's citizens to do something they are not required to do.

If the state of Colorado thought that tolerating gays was a good thing, would it be a good idea to require all teachers and students to swear a pledge to say so? Some of those who disagree with that lifestyle might not want to pledge an oath to it. Would the state have the authority to make them do so? I don't think so.

The judge is right. Whether the pledge is good or bad is not the question. The freedom of the citizens to accept it or not should not be a function of government.

[ladylib]

I totally agree.

[BenLurkin]

How the blazing H-E-[-[ is the Pledge of Allegiance DIVISIVE?

Those who undermine the pledge are those who would divide us!

[ijcr]

Since when did a 14 yr old have standing in a court of law?

[ladylib]

You would be surprised at the rights a 14-year-old has. In one state mentioned on Free Republic recently, 13-year-olds have the right to determine their mental health care.