Despite church-state separation, voting in church as old as America

In the beginning, North America was God's country. Throughout much of what later would become the United States, church and state were one. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, the church of choice was Congregational; in Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia, Anglican; Maryland, Anglican and Catholic.

It was not until December 1791 that the First Amendment of the newly enacted Bill of Rights - guaranteeing freedom of religion - swept away the cobwebs of state-sanctioned belief.

Today, the concept of separation of church and state is fundamental to the American way of life. Except on Election Day.

As Harris County voters Tuesday help select a new governor and other key officials in an unusually contentious mid-term election, many will cast their ballots at places of worship. Almost one-fifth of the county's 1,069 precincts vote in churches. And while election officials say they endeavor to ensure that such venues are neutral, recent studies suggest that even when overt political messages are absent, religious spaces can subtly affect voter choices.

"Neutral? There really isn't such a thing," said University of Maine psychology professor Jordan LaBouff, lead author of a study that measured the impact the mere proximity to a church can have on political beliefs.

In LaBouff's study, Baylor University students queried pedestrians on a range of religious and political topics as they walked near - but not into - a church. Responses of those individuals to the questions were more conservative than those of people walking near an office building. The experiment was conducted in England and The Netherlands to ensure participants had a wide range of cultural backgrounds.

"We questioned them about their attitudes toward other religious groups, Muslims, immigrants," LaBouff said. "We found that overall, people in a religious context had a harsher attitude to the target groups. Politically, their views were more conservative. They were more in favor of capital punishment and tougher sentences."

Other studies brought similar findings.

A 2010 California State University study found people filling out questionnaires in a church awarded less money to insurance claimants seeking compensation for abortion pills than those taking the same survey in a secular setting. The same phenomenon was seen when study participants, physically in a secular setting, subliminally were exposed to religious imagery.

In other studies, people interviewed in front of funeral homes indicated charities were more important to them than those interviewed several blocks away and people in corporate settings performed more competitively in negotiation games than those in more neutral environments.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said such studies are "absolutely on target."

Lynn, an ordained United Church of Christ minister, said the impact of voting in a church can be subconscious. If voters were purely rational, he said, "then the emotional appeal in political advertising would have no effect on voters and, obviously, advertising people believe it does."

Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart said his office follows state election code guidelines in selecting polling locations.

"The election code lists government buildings as first choice – office buildings, schools, fire stations, community centers," Stanart said. Beyond that, polling venues must meet a number of criteria. They must be accessible to disabled voters. Large, paved parking lots are desirable, Stanart said. Above all, the sites must be rent free.

When churches are used – the preliminary list of November voting sites includes more than 190 – they must be free of placards expressing views on ballot issues, Stanart said. Harris County leaves the selection of polling locations and ensuring they meet state requirements to a private contractor.

Stanart said he has received no complaints about polling taking place in churches.

The practice dates to North America's first colonial settlements.

In Massachusetts, said University of Connecticut historian Robert Gross, all community business – secular and religious – took place in town meetinghouses.

"Townspeople appeared to have no difficulty differentiating between the two functions," he said. "We might imagine that a sacred site (a place of worship) would carry an ethos of religion that might spill over into elections. But Congregationalists and Unitarians, like Quakers, for that matter, did not view the building in which sermons were delivered and worship conducted as sacred."

Houston church leaders said they historically have made their facilities available simply as a public service.

"We're here to serve," said the Rev. Kerry Nelson, senior pastor at Faith Lutheran Churchin Houston, where voters have cast ballots for more than two decades.

At his church, he said, voting machines are set up in the church gymnasium. "It's just a two-day experience. They bring the machines on Monday and you vote on Tuesday. We're glad to make the adjustments."

At Heritage Park Baptist Churchin Webster, where voters cast ballots in a fellowship hall typically used for church meetings and Bible study, Associate Pastor Roger Hammonds said elections have caused no problems. "Signs go up in the yard the day before the election," he said, "but the great majority get taken down, as well. We've been very pleased. It hasn't affected the ministry we do. People come into a particular room and vote. We don't even know they are there."