Federal Court Skirts Religious Discrimination
February 2011
In an unexpected move to deny the complainant's standing, a surrogate Federal judge ended a prolonged series of preliminary hearings where the Illinois Secretary of State had attempted to dismiss drivers license (DL) applicants accusing the Secretary of blatant religious discriminatory practices. The applicants sought a change of statutory rules that had allowed the Secretary to ignore their requests for DLs without using the Social Security Number (SSN) for identification.
Historical
For nearly 40 years, the State of Illinois had acknowledged the concerns of certain religious adherents who considered the SSN to be the Mark of the Beast, or a precursor to it, as described in Revelation 13 of the Bible. The Illinois Drivers License Law was re-crafted in 1972 to accommodate the religious objector based on known religious affiliations, such as Amish, Mennonite, etc. Afterward, an administrative procedure was formulated to direct facility personnel as to how to assist applicants within this class. Spurious and few challenges by individual religious objectors outside this class would result in the applicant submitting to discriminatory practices, joining approved religious orders, abandoning their convictions for sheer need of survival, or leaving the intolerant state.
One previous challenge, Mefford v. White, resulted in the applicant's claim being denied. The irony of this case lies in that "[d]espite his findings that plaintiff had not met the requirements of the statute and rule, the hearing officer recommended that plaintiff's request be granted. According to the hearing officer, the statute and rule violated the free exercise clause of the first amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. I), in that the requirement that plaintiff provide a social security number did not meet the "compelling state interest" test. The hearing officer recommended that the Secretary grant plaintiff's request for an exception to the social security number requirement for issuance of a license."1
"... the Secretary declined to resolve plaintiff's constitutional challenges to the statute and rule, finding that such challenges were "beyond the scope of authority of the administrative hearing." According to the Secretary, the scope of the hearing was "to determine whether the law and rules were followed based on the facts of the case." Finding that the administrative rule was a validly adopted regulation with the force of law, the Secretary found that plaintiff failed to meet the rule's requirements for a religious exemption from the requirement of providing a social security number and denied plaintiff's request."1
The consequent appeal failed because a critical argument, such as IRFRA protection, was not raised during trial and could not be introduced at the time of appeal. As the fate of most depleted litigants goes, he could not afford to complete the challenge. The State triumphed due to virtually inexhaustible resources for litigation; carte blanche. Justice yielded to the bully principle: little guys need not seek justice, we will break you.
Simple Remedies Forsaken
In the latest challenge's infancy stage the Secretary had certain obligations by law to perform. Simply put: when the applicants asked for consideration to be exempt from the SSN requirement at the various facilities, the Secretary merely had to respond with a written notice to the applicants stating why they were rejected. "Sorry, no SSN, no DL." From that statutory requirement, the applicants could then request exemption hearings that would likely have resulted in each receiving a DL, like so many other exempt Illinoisans. They were otherwise qualified to drive.
The statutory procedure was slightly more elaborate with the applicant filling out an exemption form at the Secretary's facility so his application was documented. Then the Secretary would respond by sending an affidavit to be filled out before a hearing was granted. This worked well for anyone whose religious group and leadership shared the SSN restriction.
Just Sign Here
The problem, which was not so difficult to circumvent (if one wanted to accommodate lawful members of society), was that these applicants were not members of any known groups that the State had dealt with before. They still shared the same religious conviction as Amish or Mennonite sects, but were from the vast pool of Bible-believing individuals worldwide that are not members of a denomination. They had no leader to sign a prepared statement that his/her group shared their opinion.
"I the undersigned being a religious leader or minister do hereby and hereon attest that my personal knowledge verifies that the use of a social security number is against the religious conviction of the ________________ faith. I am a religious leader or minister of that faith or sect. I further attest that the applicant is a member of that faith or sect and is therefore prohibited by that faith or sect from obtaining a social security number."
Though the applicants had periodic fellowship with a local church, they were not members thereof and that denomination did not have a charter to forbid obtaining the SSN. Though the minister of that church was willing to testify that the applicants had sincere personal convictions (and who would deny several adults' sincerity after waiting years to get DL approval?), to have him sign that affidavit would be perjury. It was clearly "all or none". He and his denomination did not share in the personal convictions of the applicants, thus they were disqualified. To say that all Bible-believing individuals share the same personal convictions about the SSN would be a falsehood.
Cruel Deadlock
Because the applicants had exhausted legal remedies with the State, which offered no further solution to the problem it created by admission, this deadlock lead the applicants to seek relief for their good and reasonable cause in a federal court, which offered them none, declaring that they had never applied for DLs or exemption. The State was never reprimanded for failing to give the applicants due process or the statutory written notifications of their repeated rejections proving that they had indeed applied and were barred from further progress unless they signed a false affidavit. The applicants were encouraged by the judge to apply so they would face the exact scrutiny as Mefford, an act of futility.
To see more details of this religious discimination and further progress, read The Illinois Story.
References:
1 - Mefford v. White, NO. 4-01-0421, In the Appelate Court of Illinois Fourth District