Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 25

THE DEFEAT OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ORDINANCE

PROHIBITING ANTI-LGBT DISCRIMINATION:


WAS IT FAIR TO HAVE POLLING PLACES IN CHURCHES?
By Dan Durning
March 4, 2015
Voters in Fayetteville, Arkansas repealed the citys Civil Rights Administration
ordinance at a referendum on December 9, 2014. The ordinance had been
approved by Fayettevilles city council at a meeting on August 19 th that ended in the
early hours of August 20th. The purpose of ordinance 5703 was to protect the right
of all persons to be free from discrimination based on real or perceived race,
ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, gender identity, gender expression, familial
status, marital status, socioeconomic background, religion, sexual orientation,
disability and veteran status to ensure equal access to employment, housing, and
public accommodations.[1]
This ordinance was adapted from one drafted by the Human Rights Campaign
(HRC), a Washington-based advocacy group for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender (LGBT) people.[2] In addition to prohibiting discrimination, it called for
designation of a city civil rights administrator to investigate discrimination
complaints and refer them, if needed, to the city prosecutors office. The ordinance
specified that violators could be fined up to $500 if convicted of violating its
provisions. It applied to businesses in the city employing five or more people and to
contractors doing business with Fayetteville. Similar ordinances have been enacted
in about 200 cities in 18 states. None had been passed in Arkansas.[3]
Technically, ordinance 5703 would have added chapter 119, titled Civil Rights
Administration, to the city code, and this chapter would have provided the
protections and their administration. However, chapter 119 never became part of
the code because a group calling itself Repeal 119 collected enough signatures to
require a vote on whether ordinance 5703 should be repealed. The referendum title
was: Repeal, in its entirety, Ordinance No. 5703 which enacted Chapter 119 of the
Fayetteville, Arkansas city code. A yes vote was to repeal the ordinance and stop
the enactment of Chapter 119.
Because a majority of Fayetteville voters voted yes, ordinance 5703 was repealed
and chapter 119 was never implemented. Of the 14,574 citizens who voted on the
issue, 7,527 of them (51.6%) supported repeal and 7,047 (48.4%) voted against
repeal. The margin of victory for the repeal supporters was 480 votes.
This narrow margin is significant because of the extraordinary circumstances of the
referendum: 16 of the citys 17 polling places were in church buildings, sites
associated with ministers and religious spokespersons who led the effort to repeal
ordinance 5703. These spokespersons asserted that the ordinance was an attack on
religion and it would unleash sexual predators to prey on women and children in
publicly accessible bathrooms. They, including several who live elsewhere, exhorted

Fayetteville ministers to take urgent action to get voters to the polls to stop an
ordinance that would restrict religious freedom and degrade morality.
When Election Day came, almost all voters cast their votes that day at polling sites
located in the buildings of organizations that had been in the forefront of the
campaign to repeal the ordinance. Did the fact that almost all of the polling places
on December 9th were in churches have an effect on the outcome of the election?
Some data suggest, but do not prove, that it did. If it did have even a small effect,
influencing just a few people to vote for repeal of the ordinance, that number might
have been sufficient to swing the election. The ordinance would not have been
repealed if 241 election-day voters had voted to reject the repeal instead of
supporting it.
The Church-Based Campaign for Repeal
The campaign to repeal ordinance 5703, cancelling implementation of Chapter 119,
was conducted largely by Repeal 119, a church- and religion-dominated ballot
question committee.[4] According to Repeal 119s website, more than half of the
churches in Fayetteville supported repeal of the ordinance. Apparently, the
remaining Fayetteville churches did not take a public position on the issue, except
that the clergy of three churches, St. Pauls Episcopal Church, First United
Presbyterian Church, and Good Shepard Lutheran Church, spoke against the repeal
of 119.[5]
Several churches and religious organizations donated money to Repeal 119 to help
pay for its campaign. Contributors included Baldwin Baptist Church ($1,000), Rocky
Beach Baptist Church, Rogers ($215), Lighthouse Baptist Church, St. Paul ($500),
Pathway Baptist Church ($500), Trinity Fellowship Rolling Hills ($500), and Eastside
Baptist Church ($300).[5] Also, Repeal 119 received a $6,000 contribution from an
organization called Wallbuilders that leads efforts to rewrite American history based
on their evangelical beliefs. (see http://www.wallbuilders.com/ABTOverview.asp )
The president of the Repeal 119 campaign organization was a minister, Duncan
Campbell, and his wife Wendy Campbell was secretary of the organization. The two
have what they call apostolic and prophetic ministries. According to their
website:
As a dynamic Apostolic and Prophetic team, Duncan and Wendy minister by
preaching, teaching, and demonstrating the presence of God. Preparing the
Bride for her wedding march up to Zion and revealing the Bridegroom is at
the core of what Duncan and Wendy are all about. From evangelistic and
healing campaigns and creative arts worship and prophetic conferences to
the streets of cities around the world the Campbell's are dedicated to bring
people the joy of knowing God and knowing His plan for their lives.
During meetings it is common to experience miracles, healings, freedom and
fresh anointing- discovering how to praise God with all heart, mind, soul, and
strength. They have an unending love and devotion for the Messiah and a
vision to see people from every nation released into the presence of God.
(from website http://duncanandwendy.com/profile.html )
2

Explaining his personal beliefs, Duncan Campbell said his conscience tells him
homosexuality is a sin, like adultery. He said, Many people who study the Bible
believe its unbiblical behavior.[6]
The attorney for Repeal 119 was Travis Story whose firm donated $16,590 in legal
fees to it.[7] Story graduated from Liberty Universitys School of Law. Liberty is a
fundamentalist Christian university founded by Jerry Falwell. According to his law
firms website, Story is a member of and does volunteer work at Cross Church, a
megachurch based in Springdale (with branches in other locations, including
Fayetteville) that is headed by Ronnie Floyd, at present president of the Southern
Baptist Convention. Floyd strongly supported repeal of 119. His views were
distributed in a blog entry dated December 8 th on his personal blog (see
http://www.ronniefloyd.com/blog/8282/southern-baptist-convention/fayettevillearkansas-americas-current-religious-liberty-battleground/ ; that entry was reprinted
on the same day in the blog of the Biblical Recorder:
http://www.brnow.org/Opinions/Guest-Columns/December-2014/Arkansas-America-scurrent-religious-liberty-battl
The Repeal 119 campaign focused on three assertions that were included in its halfpage advertisement in the December 7th edition of the Northwest Arkansas
Times (NWAT): (1) This law is dangerous for people of faith, (2) This law is
dangerous for women and children, and (3) This law is dangerous for business. The
third argument, concerning the putative impacts of the ordinances on businesses,
echoed the claims of the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce.[8] The first and
second claims, addressing religious and moral concerns, were central to Repeal
119s campaign.
Dangerous to People of Faith
As spokespersons for Repeal 119, the Campbells had much to say about it. Wendy
Campbell asked, Why do they want to persecute the church.?[9] And in a video
on the Repeal 119 website, Duncan Campbell claimed that the ordinance would
allow the city to dictate to a church, to ministers, and to believers who they must
hire for certain positions they deem secular, who must serve same sex ceremonies,
and there are no stated exceptions in the law for ministers.
In its December 7th advertisement in the Northwest Arkansas Times, Repeal 119
stated that the law is dangerous for people of faith, because:
This ordinance limits the scope of both free speech and the free practice of
religion guaranteed to us by the U.S. and Arkansas Constitutions. It goes as
far as to dictate the criteria by which churches hire their own staff. It requires
pastors, rabbis, and imams to perform same sex ceremonies unless they can
prove they are not being discriminatory; otherwise they will face CRIMINAL
charges.This does NOT protect religious rights it puts believers at great
risk.
In his personal blog, Ronnie Floyd elaborated on the putative effects of the
ordinance on religious freedom:
3

(1) Christian small-business owners could be fined or even face jail time if
they refuse services to one of this new protected class. Just like the recent
episode with a baker in Colorado, if someone refused to bake a cake for a
same sex wedding because it violated the business owners conscious or
religious view, they would now be violating the law.

(3) Churches must allow a biological man, who identifies himself as a woman,
to use the womens restroom, and it would be an illegal act for the church to
stop this use.

(4) Churches now must hire a person who is not of the same belief as the
church for any job except a pastor, such as a secretary or custodian.

(5) Pastors face fines and potential jail time if they refuse to marry a gay
couple. These fines could reach $8,500 in the first 30 days, and if not paid,
they could be put in jail.
See http://www.ronniefloyd.com/blog/8282/southern-baptist-convention/fayettevillearkansas-americas-current-religious-liberty-battleground/
Dangerous for Women and Children
While Repeal 119s assertion that the ordinance would infringe on religious
freedoms was an important part of its campaign, another claim was featured even
more prominently in its message, perhaps because it was more a more effective
way to alarm and frighten voters. In its December 7 th newspaper advertisement,
Repeal 119 stated that the ordinance was dangerous for women and children
because it would enable men who said they were transgender to use womens
bathrooms, dressing rooms, and locker rooms.
Even before the ordinance was passed, Jeremy Flanagan, pastor of Pathway Baptist
Church on Mount Comfort Road in Fayetteville, complained that under this
ordinance, a man could claim to be a woman in an effort to gain entry to womens
bathrooms or changing areas. He said the ordinance gives anyone claiming to be
transgender the right to choose which public locker room, dressing room, bathroom
or other previously gender-specific area they wish to use. If anyone questions them
or refuses to let them use the space of their choice, that individual could be held
4

criminally liable. This new, special privilege opens a door for sexual predators to
claim being transgender in order to access these private areas.[10]
About the same time as Flanagan was making his assertions, Michelle Duggar, a
Springdale resident who apparently is famous because of the number of children
she has borne and a cable reality show featuring her Christian family, was making
robocalls to Fayetteville households. Her message was this:
Hello, this is Michelle Duggar. Im calling to inform you of some shocking
news that would affect the safety of Northwest Arkansas women and children.
The Fayetteville City Council is voting on an ordinance this Tuesday night that
would allow men yes, I said men to use womens and girls restrooms,
locker rooms, showers, sleeping areas and other areas that are designated for
females only. I dont believe the citizens of Fayetteville would want males
with past child predator convictions that claim they are female to have a legal
right to enter private areas reserved for women and girls. I doubt that
Fayetteville parents would stand for a law that would endanger their
daughters or allow them to be traumatized by a man joining them in their
private space. We should never place the preference of an adult over the
safety and innocence of a child. Parents, who do you want undressing next to
your daughter at the public swimming pools private changing area?"
http://www.examiner.com/article/reality-show-star-says-trans-women-aremen-with-past-child-predator-convictions
Echoing these assertions, Duncan Campbell, in a video on the Repeal 119 website,
said that the ordinance legalizes indecent exposure for transgender men in
womens locker rooms, showers and bathrooms because under the new law they
would be considered women. He continued, If you refuse to let a man enter a
womans locker room at your local gym, even if your wife or daughter was in the
locker room taking a shower, you become a criminal.
Rise Up and Send a Clear and Compelling Message
Another argument for repeal, though not featured in Repeal 119 advertisements,
was that its defeat would help stop the LGBT movements broader efforts to gain
civil rights protections. Many repeal supporters came from outside Fayetteville with
the message that the city had the chance to be the first local government to reject
the type of ordinance some called a SOGI [Sexual Orientation Gender Identity] law.
They apparently not only viewed Fayetteville as one of many battles to be fought
against advocates for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender rights, but most were
also contemptuous of the idea that such people needed or deserved protection.
They urged ministers to fully use their pulpits and positions to get Fayetteville
voters to take a historic stand.
One repeal supporter who spoke in Fayetteville was David Welch, director of the
Houston Area Pastor Council. In his remarks in a video message on the Repeal 119
website, he made clear what he and other religious leaders believed was at stake in
the referendum. He called the ordinance a direct assault against the foundational
principles that this nation was built on. He continued, When we are battling over
an ordinance that says a male is not a male and female is not a female, and we can
5

decide our own genders, we are at the last stage of cultural degradation. We have
to turn this thing around.
He urged pastors to act:
Between now and next Tuesday (December 9th), every pastor in this city who
has any commitment to their calling or the word of God, please step forward
and use every means at your disposal in your church electronically and
personally to communicate with every voter that this is show up time.
The opportunity for the city of Fayetteville, right now, to be the first city in
America to stop and defeat one of these egregious ordinances is literally a
historic moment that cannot be described adequately.

In his blog, Ronnie Floyd, president of Southern Baptist Conference, added to the
exhortation to Fayetteville voters to strike down the ordinance. He wrote:
This is the nations current battleground on which to stand for religious
freedom. Fayetteville, please rise up and send a clear and compelling
message to all those propagating this agenda that the people of
Fayetteville will stand up and protect our religious freedoms. Fayetteville
is the first city to get this issue on a public ballot, and the first city with a
chance to repeal this ordinance. This is the chance for Fayetteville to
make a national impact by becoming the first city to reject this offensive
SOGI [Sexual Orientation Gender Identity] law. (See
http://www.ronniefloyd.com/blog/8282/southern-baptistconvention/fayetteville-arkansas-americas-current-religious-libertybattleground/ )
Another minister from San Antonio, Charles Flowers, made a similar plea to voters:
It is a privilege to be here in Fayetteville to help the body of Christ confront
this ordinance that so restricts freedoms and so compromises safety and so
degrades morality.I plead with all of you listening to get to the polls and
vote your biblical convictions.[11]
A Texas-based organization, the National Black Robe Regiment (NBRR) wrote about
the referendum on its website. The NBRR is a network of national and local pastors
and pastor groups that equips and empowers pastors to engage in their Biblical and
historical role to stand boldly for righteousness and transform society through
spiritual and cultural engagement. It supported the repeal effort and made the
following observations in an article titled, Fayetteville, Arkansas Pastors Rally to
Repeal Anti-Religious Freedom Ordinance:
[T]he goal [of the ordinance] is to punish individuals and businesses that do
not override their deeply held Biblical convictions to affirm special rights for
homosexuals.
The churches in Fayetteville are stepping up. They are making phone calls,
walking blocks and mobilizing pastors and churches to educate their
congregants about the importance of voting on December 9. There is
6

unprecedented unity and cooperation between Black, white and Hispanic


pastors in Fayetteville as well as pro-family organizations across the nation,
state and city. What happens in Fayetteville depends upon the involvement of
pastors and churches in that city. And the efforts currently underway in
Fayetteville need to be replicated across the nation in the more than 170
cities that have also passed SOGI ordinances that include penalties for
dissenters. http://nationalblackroberegiment.com/fayetteville-arkansaspastors-rally-repeal-anti-religious-freedom-ordinance/
These calls to battle for Fayetteville churches and ministers illustrate the primacy of
the religion-based campaign for repeal of 119 as well as the motives and beliefs of
many of the repeal supporters.[12] They sought to make all churches active
advocates and partisans in the referendum campaign. It is not hard to imagine what
ministers in Baptist Churches, and probably in many others, had to say about the
ordinance on the Sunday before the referendum vote.
Opposition to Repeal of 119
Opposition to the repeal of Chapter 119 was led by a ballot question committee
called Keep Fayetteville Fair. Its president was Anne Shelley, executive director of
the Northwest Arkansas Rape Crisis Center. This organization argued that gay,
lesbian, bisexual, and transgender residents of Fayetteville needed the same
protections as provided by state and federal law against discrimination based on
age, color, religion, national origin, and sex. (see http://fairfayetteville.com )
The alderman who was the leading advocate for the ordinance, Matthew Perry,
spoke often against repeal. He summarized the argument against repeal as follows:
No one should be kicked out of their house. No one should be kicked out of a
restaurant. Nobody in Fayetteville should lose a job because of who they are or who
they love.[13] He also argued:
All folks who work hard, pay their taxes, serve in our military, and contribute
to our community deserve to be treated fairly under the law, including our
gay and transgender neighbors. Freedom means freedom for everyone it is
wrong to treat people differently solely on they are or who they love. After all,
everyone needs to be able to earn a living and provide for their families.[14]
The Fairness group spent much of its efforts trying to refute the many assertions of
the Repeal 119 group and its allies. They pointed out that the city council had
passed an amendment to the ordinance that made it clear that ministers would not
be forced to conduct gay marriages and that the city council had also amended the
ordinance that would stop prohibit anyone to enter any gender-segregated space
for any unlawful purpose.[15] In an op-ed piece in the NWAT on Nov. 30, Petty
maintained that all of the arguments of the opposition have either been debunked
or are addressed by the ordinance.
The two groups, Repeal 119 and Keep Fayetteville Fair, each collected and spent
about $33,000. Repeal 119 received over $30,000 worth of nonmonetary donations;
other pro-repeal expenditures by the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce and the
Little Rock-based Family Council were not reported. Keep Fayetteville Fair received
7

$166,080 in nonmonetary contributions from the Human Rights Campaign whose


staff helped conduct the campaign against repeal of the ordinance.[17]
Church-Based Polling Places
While no one would suggest that churches and religious organizations did not have
the right to actively support the repeal of 119, their deep involvement in the
referendum created a strange and unsettling situation: a majority of Fayetteville
churches actively supported repeal of the Civil Rights Administration ordinance AND
their church buildings were used as polling sites. Because 16 of the citys 17 polling
places were in churches, almost all election-day voters had to travel to, enter, and
vote in buildings of organizations that, as a whole, had actively taken a position on
the issue.
Among the church-located polling places, one (Covenant Presbyterian Church) gave
Repeal 119 office space to use as its headquarters. Three of the polling places were
in Baptist Churches; as noted above the president of the Southern Baptist
Convention, Ronnie Floyd, was a zealous supporter of repealing 119. At least one
church took advantage of its location as a polling place to put up a sign at an
entrance to its parking lot urging voters to vote to Repeal 119.[18] This sign was a
legal distance (more than 100 feet) from its entrance, but was visible from polling
place.
Aside from the obvious observation that it is strange that active partisans in the
election hosted supposedly neutral polling places, other potential problems of using
churches as polling places for votes on moral or religious issues are these:
* Some voters may be uncomfortable going into churches or into buildings
associated with certain denominations or religions and thus may deterred
from voting. For example, if a polling place were in a mosque or a temple,
some Christians might be uneasy about voting, or even unwilling to vote, in
those locations.[19] Similarly, non-religious or non-Christian voters may have
qualms about going into church buildings to vote, especially if they know the
churches have taken a public stance opposed to theirs.
In the Fayetteville case, the voters most likely to have no discomfort with, or
have any doubts about, voting in polling places located in Protestant
churches are the ones most likely to vote for repeal of 119.
* When going into churches to vote, voters are inevitably subjected to
religious cues or stimuli both subtle and not-so-subtle -- that may, often
unconsciously, influence their voting behavior. The influence of these cues or
stimuli has been called the Polling Place Priming Effect. The existence of
such an effect has been found in the limited research done on the topic of
how voting in polling places located in schools affect voting results. This
research has shown that voters who vote in school-located polling places are
more likely (compared to voters who vote in non-school locations) to vote for
measures, such as tax increases and bond issues, that would benefit schools.

At present, research is inconclusive on the effects of voting in church-located


polling places on vote results when issues are moral or religious. Priming
theory suggests the existence of such an effect, and a few empirical and
experimental research studies have found that some votes cast in churches
on issues such as gay marriage were influenced by the setting. However,
other empirical studies have found no such locational effect. (See a summary
of research on this topic in appendix 1.) Until more and better research has
been conducted on the topic, it is not possible to make a definitive claim that
voting in a church-located polling place does or does not influence some
voters.
Did Voting in Churches Affect the Outcome of the Fayetteville
Referendum?
For the Fayetteville referendum, voters had the option of voting early by going to
the county courthouse to vote or by submitting absentee ballots by mail. In all,
roughly one-third of the voters (4,622) cast their votes during the two-weeks prior
to Election Day.
None of the early voters went to church-located polling places to vote. Neither did
the people who voted on Election Day at the Yvonne Richardson Community Center
Polling Place (525 persons). In all, the total number of voters who did not vote in
polling places within church buildings was 5,147 persons. The other 9,427 voters,
voted on Election Day in church buildings
The voting results differed greatly by location of polling place and by when people
voted. Voters who voted in polling places in churches strongly supported repeal of
the Civil Rights Administration ordinance: 56.7% voted for repeal and only 43.3%
voted against it. In contrast, only 42.4% of the voters who did not vote in churchlocated polling places supported repeal while 57.6% voted against it. See table 1.
Similarly, among voters who voted on Election Day, 55.3% supported repeal and
44.7% opposed it. Of the voters who voted early, casting their votes at the county
courthouse or by mail, only 43.8% supported repeal and 56.2% opposed it. See
table 2.
The 14.3 percentage point difference in support for repeal of 119 by voters in
church-located polling places (56.7%) and by voters at non-church polling places
(42.4%) suggests that voting in churches might have influenced how some people
voted. If not, other good explanations must be found to account for the differences
in vote results by church and non-church polling locations.
One possible alternative explanation is that the socio-economic characteristics (e.g.,
age, employment, and income) of voters opposing repeal made them find early
voting more appealing than voting on Election Day, or perhaps they found it more
necessary than election-day voters to vote early because of their work
responsibilities. Another possible explanation is that perhaps some repeal
opponents did not want to go to a church-located polling place to vote, so they
voted early to avoid doing so; conversely, some repeal supporters might have

preferred voting in church-located polling places, especially if the polling place was
in their own church, so they waited to vote on Election Day.
Unfortunately, none of the explanations of voting result differences by location can
be tested statistically because the voting data are incomplete. While the votes cast
on Election Day were tabulated by the polling places (although not by precinct) of
voters, the early votes were not. That is, early voters were not identified by the
precinct in which they live, or by their polling place jurisdiction. Thus, it is not
possible to determine by precinct or by polling place jurisdiction how many people
voted or how the votes for and against repeal of 119 were distributed.

10

Table 1
Votes on Repeal of Ordinance 5703 (Chapter 119)
By Voters Who Voted in Church Buildings and Voters Who Did Not

Type of Voters
Voted in Church Polling
Places
Number
Percentage
Voted in Non-Church Polling
Places
Number
Percentage

Votes For
Repeal

Votes Against
Repeal

Total
Votes

5,347
56.7

4,080
43.3

9,427

2,180

2,967

5,147

42.4

57.6

7,527
51.6

7,047
48.4

Total
Number
Percentage

14,574

Table 2
Votes on Repeal of the Ordinance 5703 (Chapter 119)
By Early Voters and Election Day Voters
Type of Voter

Votes For
Repeal

Votes Against
Repeal

Total
Votes

Election Day
Voters
Number
Percentage

5,502
55.3

4,450
44.7

9,952

Early Voters*
Number
Percentage

2,025
43.8

2,597
56.2

4,622

All Voters
Number
7,527
7,047
14,574
Percentage
51.6
48.4
*Includes 132 absentee ballots. All others are early votes in the County
Courthouse

11

12

The problems with the data can be seen in table3. It lists the 17 polling places and
shows for each: (1) the precincts within it, (2) the number of registered voters, (3)
the number of voters who voted on Election Day, and (4) the percentage of voters
who voted for repeal on Election Day. These numbers are incomplete because the
vote counts exclude voters living within polling place boundaries who voted early.
Thus, we cannot determine accurately the total number of referendum votes cast by
voters living in each polling place jurisdiction nor the percentage of voters living in
each polling place jurisdiction who voted for repeal.

Table 3
Precincts, Number of Registered Voters, Referendum Vote on
Election Day, and
Percentage Voting for Repeal on Election Day by Polling Place
Polling Place
Churches
Awakening
(Baptist)
Baldwin C. of
Christ
Buckner Baptist
Central
Methodist
Christs Church
Christian Life
Cathedral
Covenant Life
(Presbyterian)
First Assembly
Mt. Comfort C. of
Christ
First Presbyterian
Sang Baptist
Sequoyah
Methodist
St. Johns
Lutheran
Trinity Fellowship
Trinity Methodist
Wiggins
Methodist
Total Churches

No. of
Registere
d Voters

Number
Voting in the
Referendum

Pct.
Voting
for Repeal

28

1,374

300

79.7

11, 47

1,226

382

67.5

12

2,421

595

66.2

4, 5, 36

3,739

568

21.4

1, 10, 15, 16
14, 22, 37,
38, 41
30, 32, 43,
46, 48
21
2, 27, 31,33,
40
7, 29
2, 3, 26, 42

2,671

381

51.0

2,865

374

57.2

3,499

654

75.2

654

189

70.4

6,829

1337

67.0

1,810
5,386

542
824

55.0
49.5

17, 18

2,314

767

45.2

19, 44

2,211

610

59.3

13, 14
6, 30, 35, 39,
45

2,458

1188

64.6

5,071

294

25.1

9, 24

2,546

418

34.7

47,074

9,957

56.3

Precincts

Non-Church
13

Yvonne
Richardson
Center
Total Polling
Places

8, 25

2,445

525

29.5

49,519

9,947

55.3

The vote results presented in table 3 show that, at least on election-day, votes for
and against repeal varied greatly by where voters live within Fayetteville. At one
extreme, 79.7 percent of election-day voters at the Awakening Baptist Church
polling place (located along the northeast border of the city) supported repeal of
119. At the other extreme, only 25.1% of election-day voters at the Trinity Methodist
Church polling place, which lies in the center of the city, voted to repeal the
ordinance. In general, the greatest election-day support for the repeal came from
precincts west of I-49 and on the eastern edges of the city. The strongest opposition
came from the center of the city and areas to the north of it (see map in appendix
2).
Ultimately, without the complete voting results by polling place jurisdiction, which
would have enabled some interesting statistical analysis of the votes, it is possible
only to point out the huge difference in vote results for election-day voters who
voted in churches and for all other voters. One plausible, but unprovable,
explanation for at least part of the difference is that the locational effect influenced
some votes. That is, some people who voted in church-located polling places for
repeal may have voted against repeal if they had voted in a polling place not in a
church. If 241 election-day voters did so, they provided the margin of victory for
repeal supporters.
Conclusion
The Washington County Election Commission, according to the local newspaper,
received several complaints about the use of churches as polling places for the
December 9th referendum.[22] Similar concern about this practice has been
expressed in several other states.[23] The use of churches as polling places has
even been challenged in court in a couple of states. However, so far, courts have
not ruled against this practice.[24]
Using churches as polling places for the Fayetteville referendum seems especially
problematic because of the involvement of churches in the effort to repeal
ordinance 5703. Not only did a majority of local churches take a position on the
issue, national religious leaders called on churches and ministers to convince voters
to vote to repeal the ordinance. Also, several churches contributed money to the
campaign supporting repeal and others provided assistance to the repeal campaign
by providing office space or putting up campaign signs.
While the involvement of churches in the referendum campaign was appropriate, it
seems in this situation it was inappropriate to use of churches as polling places.
Given the nature of the issue and the referendum campaign, it is hard to see how on
December 9th churches could be considered neutral places to vote.
14

The placement of polling places in buildings of organizations that have taken a


public position on an issue raises three questions:
(1) Does the use of such polling places have an effect on vote results?
The Fayetteville vote showed a big difference in referendum vote results
based on the location of polling places, with people who voted in churchlocated polling sites much more likely to favor repeal of the ordinance. One
possible, but unproven, explanation is that a polling place priming effect
influenced some voters at church-based polling places to support the
ordinance repeal.
(2) Is it fair to allow organizations that have taken a public position on or have
a stake in the outcome of an election to host a polling site?
If organizations take a vocal and vigorous position on an issue to be decided,
are their buildings still neutral sites for voting? Couldnt knowledge of their
stance on the issue encourage some voters to go to polling places located in
their buildings while deterring other voters from doing so? When voters are in
polling places located in buildings associated with partisans in a referendum,
couldnt they be reminded by visible symbols of the organizations position on
the issue and, perhaps subconsciously, have their votes influenced?
(3) Is it fair to put polling places in locations that are likely to deter some
people from voting?
In regard to using the buildings of religious institutions as polling places, an
assortment of voters may not want to go into the buildings of certain
churches or religions, even to vote. If the location of polling places inhibits
voting, is the election still fair?
It isnreasonable to expect that elections will be free and fair, conforming to
democratic norms. These standards can be met only if the administration of
elections is neutral, providing each voter with a place to vote that is sheltered from
partisans who might influence him or her as the ballot is marked. The mechanics of
an election, such as the selection of polling places, should not give advantages to
particular candidates and should not favor one side of an issue. When they possibly
do, as when churches are used as polling places for votes on religious or moral
issues on which they have taken a stance, questions about the fairness of the
election and the legitimacy of vote results must be raised.

15

FOOTNOTES:
[1] To read Ordinance 5703, go to his link: http://fairfayetteville.com/chapter119/
The ordinance can be downloaded from this link:
http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/chapter-119-civilrights-ordinance.pdf
[2] Several people who supported repeal of the ordinance suggested that it was the
product of outside forces trying to work their will in Fayetteville. Just as civil rights
opponents in the 1950s and 1960s claimed that the issue was being created by
outside agitators, mostly communists, several Chapter 119 opponents blamed the
Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for the ordinance and the controversy surrounding
the repeal effort. For example, Greg Harton, editorial page editor of the Northwest
Arkansas Times (NWAT), which editorialized against 119, wrote in his
commentary on December 8:
The population was dragged into battling encampments by Alderman
Matthew Perrys sponsorship of the Human Rights Campaigns so-called civil
rights ordinance.
The Human Rights Campaign didnt tackle a city rife with discrimination. The
group didnt come to Fayetteville because the town is full of bigots, but
because it is a place where people generally live and let live.The town still,
however, has a streak of Ozark independence and doesnt always take kindly
to being manipulated by an outside influenceSome view this ordinance as
Fayetteville being on the cutting edge, at least within Arkansas; others
believe the elected leaders have allowed the city to be manipulated to the
national organizations purpose.
See http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2014/dec/08/commentary-fayetteville-ist-so-simple
On December 22, he wrote:
Fayetteville Alderman Matthew Perry thought a stand on principle would lead
to victory in his effort to pass the Human Rights Campaigns ideas for how
Fayetteville should govern itself. The organization found in Petty a political
leader willing to sponsor an ordinance drawn up by national LGBT activists
trying to wage a national battle on local battlefields.
http://www.nwaonlinecom/news/2014/dec/22/commentary-can-principlepragmatism-co-/
According to a column in the NWAT by Woody Bassett, a local lawyer: The blame
[for the divided community and bad publicity] belongs mostly on the shoulders of
our city government, which choose to enact a poorly written and overreaching
ordinance and mistakenly allowed an out-of-state special interest group to use
Fayetteville as a tool to advance its own national political agenda. See Woody
Bassett. City Can Heal, Find Resolution After Election. NWAT, Dec 18, 2014, p 2a.
Apparently Harton viewed Perry as a simple-minded tool of the outside agitators
(this echoes the widely held view in the South during the 50s and 60s that local
16

Blacks were duped simpletons manipulated by the sinister NAACP). I guess


somehow it did not seem possible to Harton and Bassett that Perry and other
aldermen who supported the measure viewed HRCs model ordinance as, with some
tweaks, a suitable legislative vehicle to accomplish an end they saw as desirable.
Did the issue change because a particular organization provided a model ordinance
or that it promoted its passage? Or were the complaints just another aspect of the
effort to defeat the ordinance?
Another effort to smear the Human Rights Administration ordinance, its supporters,
and HRC can be seen in a video on the Repeal 119 website. In a video statement by
Duncan Campbell, he associated the ordinance with Terry Bean, a co-founder of HRC
and a long-time Democratic political activist, who had been arrested in the middle
of November on charges related to sex with a 15-year-old male. According to
Campbell, it was Bean who founded HRC and who conceived of the ordinance
(in reality he was one of several founders and was not involved in the day-to-day
work of the HRC). Clearly, Campbell was using Beans arrest to suggest something
unsavory about the ordinance and to smear its supporters.
[3] The Arkansas state legislature passed legislation (Senate Bill 202) in February
2015 to prohibit local governments in Arkansas from enacting such ordinances as
Fayettevilles ordinance 5703 in the future. Because the bill was not signed (or
vetoed) by the governor, it becomes law 90 days after the adjournment of the
legislative session ends.
Taking advantage of the delay of the laws implementation, Eureka Springs passed
on February 9th an ordinance similar to Fayettevilles, prohibiting discrimination
against people based on real or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity,
gender expression, or socioeconomic background. The city council approved a
referendum on ordinance 2223, to be held on May 12 th. Travis Story, the Fayetteville
attorney for the Repeal 119 organization, is the attorney for a group in Eureka
Springs called Repeal 2223. See Spencer Williams. Anti-bias-law ban, to end, goes
unsigned. Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, February 24, 2015, pp. 1a,
4a and Bill Dowden. Eureka springs sets vote on its new anti-bias law. Northwest
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, February 25, 2015, pp. 1a, 2a.
[4] Ballot question committees are organizations set up under state law to oppose
or support ballot issues. In addition to Repeal 119, the Fayetteville Chamber of
Commerce and the Family Council, a Little Rock-based organization, campaigned in
support of repeal of the ordinance.
[5] Joel Walsh, Civil Rights Vote, Supporters: Community Needs Protection. NWAT,
Nov. 30, 2014, p. 1a, 2a.
[5] By law, Ballot Question Committees are required to file financial reports with the
Arkansas Ethics Commission. The reports for both Repeal 119 and Keep Fayetteville
Fair are available on line.
[6] Joel Walsh, Civil Rights Vote, Opponents Cite Religious Concerns. NWAT, Nov. 30,
2014, p. 5a.

17

[7] See Repeal 119s Ballot Question Committee Financial Report for 11-10-14 to 1202-14 filed December 4, 2012 with the Arkansas Ethics Commission. According to
this report, Stephanie Nichols, a lawyer in Jonesboro also provided legal advice
valued at $7,000 to Repeal 119. See http://www.arkansasethics.com/blqc/Local
%20Committee/Fayetteville/repeal119/Repeal1192014-12-04.pdf
[8] In its advertisements, Repeal 119 included the assertion that the ordinance was
dangerous to business. This argument echoed and supplemented the main talking
points of the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, which also supported the Repeal
119 effort. The Chamber bought a full-page advertisement in the Northwest
Arkansas Times on the Sunday before the referendum to advertise its support for
the repeal of the ordinance because of its putative effects on businesses. The
chamber did not, at least publicly, echo the claims that the ordinance was a
danger to children and women and a danger to religion.
[9] NWAT, Nov. 30, 2014, p. 1a (see note 6)
[10] NWAT, Nov. 30, 2014, 5a (see note 6)
The use of this argument continued even though the city council addressed the
concerns on August 19th by amending the ordinance to state that a person was not
allowed to enter any gender-segregated space for any unlawful purpose.
[11] Dan Holtmeyer. Campaigns Condemn Sign Slur. NWAT, Dec 3, 2014, p. 2a
[12] See the Repeal 119 website (http://www.repeal119.com/) for additional
information on the leaders supporting repeal of 119. The site includes videos
supporting repeal by:
*Charles Flowers, pastor of Faith Outreach Center International in San
Antonio, TX.
*Dave Welch, director of the Houston Area Pastor Council.
*H.D. McLarty, long-time Baptist pastor in Fayetteville (described on the site
as Pastor of the Razorbacks for 30 years)
*Jeremy Flanagan, pastor of the Pathway Baptist Church in Fayetteville.
*Jerry Cox, director of the Little Rock-based Family Council, a religion-based
anti-abortion and anti-gay lobbying group. This group actively campaigned
against 119 through telephone calls to Fayetteville voters.
*Carolynn Long, apparently a local celebrity based on her television
appearances in Fayetteville over several decades
At the Repeal 119 website, you could download a song written by a local artist
titled, Gay is NOT the new Black. http://www.repeal119.com/news1/local-artistproduces-song-gay-is-not-the-new-black
[13] Joel Walsh. Special Election Today. NWAT. Dec. 9, 2014, p. 2a.
[14] Matthew Petty. Lets Keep Fayetteville Fair, NWAT, Nov. 30, 2012, p. 5b.
[15] NWAT, Nov. 30, 2014, 5a (see note 6)
18

[16] Petty, p. 5b (see note 14).


[17] See the financial reports for Repeal 119 and Keep Fayetteville Fair at the web
site of the Arkansas Ethics Commission (http://www.arkansasethics.com/ )
[18] Dan Holtmeyer. Church Polls Raise Questions. NWAT, December 14, 2014, pp.
1a, 7a
[19] They might be upset if their polling place were in, for example, a Church of
Scientology. According to the Hollywood Reporter, voters in a district in Los
Angeles voted in the Hollywood headquarters of the Church of Scientology in the
2014 general election. The newspaper reported:
If some Los Angeles residents wanted to vote in Tuesday's midterm elections,
there were required to enter the Church of Scientology's mammoth blue
Hollywood headquarters to do so.
Voters living in the 90029 zip code area were first required to pass several
Scientology members handing out promotional leaflets at the corner of
Sunset Boulevard and Vermont Avenue.
They then walked down a long pathway to the entrance of the building at
4810 Sunset, one voter tells The Hollywood Reporter, where they were
instructed by a church member to descend a set of stairs.
Along the way, voters were made to pass several framed posters. One
beckoned to "attend a Scientology Sunday service." Another featured the
silhouetted image of a man staring out at a sunlit path, promising that
attendees of a "Happiness Rundown" would "flourish and prosper and live a
happier life."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/church-scientologys-la-headquartersserving-746485
[20] Thanks to the Washington County Election Commission staff for providing the
vote results by polling place and for responding to questions about how to
understand them.
[21] Northwest Arkansas Times, December 14, 2014, p. 1a, 17 (see note 18]
[22] For a summary of controversies in Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, Missouri,
Ohio, and Virginia, see the document at the following link:
http://americanindependent.com/217973/civil-liberties-groups-decry-churchmessaging-at-polling-places
[23] In 1991 Frank Otero, an atheist running for mayor of Miami, Oklahoma brought
suit against Oklahoma challenging the use of churches as polling places (Otero v.
State Election Board of Oklahoma 975 F.2d 738 (Sept. 1992)). Otero argued that the
use of churches as polling places harmed his campaign by increasing the chance
that voters will think about religion when voting. A year later, in Florida, Jerry
Rabinowitz filed suit because in the church where he voted there were pro-life
19

banners and various religious symbols and sayings which he felt could bias voters
choices (Rabinowitz v. Anderson Case No. 06-81117 Civ.). In both cases, the courts
failed to find evidence that voting at churches taints elections.
Quote from Ben Pryor, Jeanette M Mendez, R. Herrick. 2011. Does Where You Vote
Matter? Polling Location Priming for State Ballot Issues. Oklahoma Politics, 21, p.
56. Available at this link:
http://ojs.library.okstate.edu/osu/index.php/OKPolitics/article/view/1020/920
Also, see: http://www.nysun.com/national/court-okays-using-churches-as-pollingplaces/59575/
For an in-depth discussion of the legal issues involved in these cases and the
general issue of voting in church polling places, see Jeremy Blumenthal and Terry
Turnipseed. 2011. The Polling Place Priming Effect: Is Voting in Churches (or
Anywhere Else) Unconstitutional. Boston University Law Review. Volume 91, pp.
563 598. Available at this link:
https://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/BLUMENTH
ALandTURNIPSEED.pdf

20

Appendix 1
Research on the Impact of Location Cues on Voters
Assertions that the location of a polling place can influence voters choices are
based on research on how external cues or stimuli can influence behavior. This
research has found that certain cues prime (or nudge) behavior, often even when
people are not consciously aware of them. For example, one study showed that
individuals behave more aggressively when in the presence of a weapon, even
when the task is unrelated to it. Another study has shown that playing French
classical music in a wine store resulted in increased sales of French wine while
playing German classical music in the same store increased sales of German wine.
Summaries of these studies and other examples on the priming effect are found in
Blumental and Turnipseed (2011, pp. 563-565), Glas (2014, pp 2 7), and Pryor,
Mendez and Herrik (2011, pp. 58-62).
Drawing on the general literature concerning priming effects, some researchers
have applied the findings to elections, suggesting that the location of a polling place
can, under certain circumstances, affect decisions made by some voters. The two
most-hypothesized effects of location on voting decisions are (1) if a polling place is
in a school, voters there are more likely to vote favorably on proposals, such as tax
increases and bond issues, to improve schools, and (2) if a polling place is in a
church, voters at that location are more likely to vote for conservative candidates
and to be influenced by religious or moral arguments when contentious social
issues (e.g., alcohol, gambling, abortion, gay rights etc.) are on the ballot. In both
cases, the locational effects are expected to be marginal, influencing a small
number of voters.
These two hypothesized relationships between polling places and voting results
have been investigated in recent years by a small number of researchers. When
researching the effects of voting in a polling place located in school, researchers
have consistently found that the polling place marginally affected voting results.
Using different methodologies to analyze voting results in several different states,
researchers have identified a small priming effect: holding other things equal, a
larger percentage of voters who cast their votes in schools, compared to voters who
voted in other locations, favored proposals that would benefit schools. These
studies include: Berger, Meredith, and Wheeler (2008), Rutchick (2010), Glas 2011,
and Pryor, Mendez, and Herrick (2011, 2014)
Research has been less conclusive when the hypothesis is that voting at polling
places located in churches influences votes on moral or religious issues. The first
research on the topic (Ruthick 2010) found an effect that Blumenthal and
Turnipseed (2011) labeled, in a Boston College Law Review article, the Polling
Place Priming Effect.
Rutchicks (2010) work, published in Political Psychology, examined votes cast at
different types of polling places in South Carolinas sixth congressional district.
First, he examined votes in a congressional election in which a conservative
Republican challenged an incumbent Democrat. Then, he analyzed votes on a
proposal to amend the South Carolina constitution to state that marriage is legal
only between a man and a woman. Controlling for age, race, gender, and party
21

affiliation, he found that the Republican candidate and the constitutional


amendment got greater percentages of the vote in polling places located in
churches than in other polling places. His concluded that voting in churches was
associated with support fora conservative constitutional amendment, but only if
the amendment was relevant to Christian values.
Based on this research by Rutchick (2010) and related research by Berger, Meredith,
and Wheeler (2008), Blumenthal and Turnipseed (2011) suggested that when
people vote at polls in churches, they are influenced by cues or stimuli associated
with the location. According to them, a non-trivial percentage of the population is
affected on an unconscious level by voting in churches. (p. 563)
However, research published after Rutchicks journal article has been at best
ambiguous on whether voting in a church polling place affects votes. In some of the
research, the hypothesis has been rejected.
In his 2011 masters thesis for Georgia State University, Jeffery Glas analyzed the
effect of polling place location on votes cast in Californias 2008 general election on
various ballot initiatives. He analyzed votes on two social issues: (1) a requirement
that parents or guardians be notified before a minor could have an abortion and (2)
a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages. In both cases, the
percentage vote for the proposal was greater in churches than in other locations,
but the differences between the vote results were not statistically significance.
These results provide some weak support for the hypothesis of the effect of location
on votes, but was not as conclusive as Rutchicks study or the research of the effect
voting in schools on vote results.
S.R. Daniel, in papers for the American Political Science Association (2011) and the
Midwest Political Science Association (2012) annual meetings, also analyzed the
effect of voting in churches on the 2008 Prop 8 results in California. Using a
structural equation model to test for the effect of voting in churches on votes for
Proposition 8 (prohibiting gay marriage, he found, after controlling for numerous
factors, including education and precinct conservatism, no independent impact; that
is, his model did not find a significant effect on polling place on voters decisions.
However, the power of the model was diminished because his data mixed precinct
voting data with county-wide social and demographic data.
Two studies by Pryor, Mendez, and Herrick (2011, 2014) also did not find that voting
in churches influenced voters in way that was hypothesized. Their 2011 study
examined a referendum in the 2004 general election in Oklahoma on a proposal to
prohibit gay marriage. The researchers found that voters who cast their votes in
churches were not more likely to support the proposal; instead, they were more
likely to oppose it.
The second study analyzed votes in the 2012 general election on proposals in
Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota to either allow or prohibit same sex marriage.
Again, their analysis found voters who their voted at polling places in churches were
not more likely that voters at secular locations to support limitations on same sex
marriage. As in their first study, they found that such voters were more likely to
oppose it.
22

The consistent results showing that voting in schools has a marginal effect on vote
results supports the assertions about the existence of a polling place priming effect.
However, the mixed results of the research on the effect of voting in churches
leaves open the question of whether voting in churches has a consistent polling
place priming effect. The amount of research on the topic is still quite small, and
each study has its strengths and weaknesses. None, singly or together, is
conclusive. Thus, research to date is insufficient to either strongly support or reject
hypotheses about the existence of the influence of church polling places on voters.

Sources:
Berger, Jonah, M. Meredith, and SC Wheeler. 2008. Can Where People Vote Influence
How They Vote The Influence of Polling Location Type on Voting Behavior.
Stanford School of Business Research Paper no. 1926.
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/can-polling-location-influence-how-voters-vote
Berger, Jonah, M Meredith, and SC Wheeler. 2008. Contextual Priming: Where
People Vote Affects How They Vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science of the United States, 105: 8846-8849.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/26/8846.full
Blumenthal, Jeremy and Terry Turnipseed. 2011. The Polling Place Priming Effect: Is
Voting in Churches (or Anywhere Else) Unconstitutional. Boston University Law
Review. Volume 91, pp. 563 598.
https://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/BLUMENTH
ALandTURNIPSEED.pdf
Daniels, R. Steven. 2011. Voting Context and Vote Choice: The Impact of
Voting Precinct Location on Voting for California Proposition 8. Presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle WA, Sept
1-4.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228198068_Voting_Context_and_Vote_Choi
ce_The_Impact_of_Voting_Precinct_Location_on_Voting_for_California_Proposition_8
Daniels, R. Steven. 2012. Voting Context and Vote Choice: The Impact of
Balloting in Churches on Voting for California Proposition 8. Paper presented
at the Western Political Science Association Annual Meeting.
http://wpsa.research.pdx.edu/meet/2012/daniels.pdf
Glas, Jeffery M. 2011. The Priming Effect of Polling Locations on Ballot
Initiative Voting Decisions. Thesis, Georgia State University. Accessible at:
http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/political_science_theses/39
LaBouff, Jordan. 2014. How Balloting in Churches Sways Attitudes and Votes.
Scholars Strategy Network Key Findings.

23

http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/ssn_key_findings_labouff_
on_how_voting_in_a_church_influences_voter_attitudes.pdf
LaBouff, Jordan, Wade Rowatt, Megan Johnson, and Callie Finkle. 2012. Differences
in Attitudes towards Outgroups in Religious and Non-Religious Contexts in a MultNational Sample: A Situational Context Priming Study. International Journal for
the Psychology of Religion, 22, pp. 1-9.
Pryor, Ben, Jeanette M Mendez, R. Herrick. 2011. Does Where You Vote Matter?
Polling Location Priming for State Ballot Issues. Oklahoma Politics, 21, pp. 55-71.
http://ojs.library.okstate.edu/osu/index.php/OKPolitics/article/view/1020/920
Pryor, Ben, Jeanette M. Mendez, and Rebekah Herrick. 2014. Lets Be Fair: Do Polling
Locations Prime Votes? Journal of Political Science and Public Affairs (open
access), Vol. 2 (3), p. 126.
http://esciencecentral.org/journals/lets-be-fair-do-polling-locations-prime-votes2332-0761.1000126.php?aid=32194
Rutchick, Abraham. 2010. Deux ex Machina: The Influence of Polling Place on Voting
Behavior. Political Psychology, 31 (2): 209-225
Appendix 2
Percentage Vote for Repeal by Precinct/Polling Place

24

25

You might also like