Voting July 17th

So I vote in a church, I do not attend this church and I normally walk, it is a tradition. Even since my back surgury since it is only a few blocks and I am about to start physcal therpy tommorro I feel that I will make my semi annual walk once again. Now I have always OCed but I have walked with my brother who always stood right next to me and nobody ever noticed. So here is my question, can they ask me to leave a church that is owned by the chruch when I have a right to be their because I am their to vote?
I am a CPL holder, thanks for the help y'all!
And as all post start off, I give you (only four) dancing bananas...
:banana::banana::banana::banana:

My guess is that they would not be able to do anything about it because, when you are on your way to vote or returning home, you are considered a "privileged person". I am not an attorney, though, so I really don't know but I suspect that this would apply to civil infractions, too.

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT)
Act 236 of 1961
600.1825 Arrest; privileged persons.
Sec. 1825. (1) Every elector is privileged from arrest while going to, attending, and returning from elections in all cases except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
(2) Senators and representatives are privileged from arrest during sessions of the legislature and for 15
days next before the commencement and after the end of each session.
(3) All officers, warrant officers, and enlisted personnel who are in the actual service of this state or the
United States are privileged from arrest and imprisonment during the time of their actual service except for
treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963.

DrTodd said:

My guess is that they would not be able to do anything about it because, when you are on your way to vote or returning home, you are considered a "privileged person". I am not an attorney, though, so I really don't know but I suspect that this would apply to civil infractions, too.

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 (EXCERPT)
Act 236 of 1961
600.1825 Arrest; privileged persons.
Sec. 1825. (1) Every elector is privileged from arrest while going to, attending, and returning from elections in all cases except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
(2) Senators and representatives are privileged from arrest during sessions of the legislature and for 15
days next before the commencement and after the end of each session.
(3) All officers, warrant officers, and enlisted personnel who are in the actual service of this state or the
United States are privileged from arrest and imprisonment during the time of their actual service except for
treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
History: 1961, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 1, 1963.

Click to expand...

Do you think that "privileged from arrest" is equal to an exemption to the law? Could the person be arrested later, after having returned from voting, for a violation of the law?

Taurus850CIA said:

Do you think that "privileged from arrest" is equal to an exemption to the law? Could the person be arrested later, after having returned from voting, for a violation of the law?

Click to expand...

Federal laws exist that ensure voting rights, although I'm not very familiar with them. Preemption (MCL 123.1102) says local governments can't get more restrictive than state or federal law, and in my opinion a church very much becomes part of the local government when it agrees to run voting machines for local elections, and I would say is therefore subject to preemption.

I don't believe you could be legally arrested later, because the only thing they could get you for is tresspassing, which I don't believe would be enforceable on account of preemption and becoming part of a local unit of government, as well as the likely buffer of federal law which would bring preemption out even more strongly. Of course I could be wrong, and I'm not saying a wrongful prosecution legal battle isn't possible, but all signs I see point towards preempted legality.

Michigander said:

Federal laws exist that ensure voting rights, although I'm not very familiar with them. Preemption (MCL 123.1102) says local governments can't get more restrictive than state or federal law, and in my opinion a church very much becomes part of the local government when it agrees to run voting machines for local elections, and I would say is therefore subject to preemption.

I don't believe you could be legally arrested later, because the only thing they could get you for is tresspassing, which I don't believe would be enforceable on account of preemption and becoming part of a local unit of government, as well as the likely buffer of federal law which would bring preemption out even more strongly. Of course I could be wrong, and I'm not saying a wrongful prosecution legal battle isn't possible, but all signs I see point towards preempted legality.

Click to expand...

I don't think they would try the trespassing charge; voting is too important plus the press would probably not be in their favor... especially if you are OC/ with a CPL, in which case no laws have been broken. I don't think that it would be acceptable for them to toss a OCer w/out a CPL either, although then it goes back to what I said in my earlier post...

BTW: IMHO, a church would never be considered part of the local government... the whole separation of church and state thing... you/I/someone else could email the Secretary of State's Office and get their opinion; the SOS is in charge of elections in Michigan.

Taurus850CIA said:

Do you think that "privileged from arrest" is equal to an exemption to the law? Could the person be arrested later, after having returned from voting, for a violation of the law?

Click to expand...

I really have to say I don't know if they could but if it did happen, I think many people whom one would consider "liberals" would be up in arms. It would set poor precedent for other members of their constituency to be excluded from the polls.

PS I don't wear a toga and I am not plotting against you

Man I was hoping for something clear and consise, strait to the point, like, if their are polls you cannot be asked to leave, period. Oh Well. :banghead:

shock!

eastmeyers said:

Man I was hoping for something clear and consise, strait to the point, like, if their are polls you cannot be asked to leave, period. Oh Well. :banghead:

Click to expand...

i too am surprised you arent getting a straight answer.
You can OC with a CPL in a PFZ,,,, everybody knows that,,, its Michigan law!
you know you cant CC in a PFZ.
the polling place is a constitutionally protected place, it may be in a church building, but for awhile, its a place of civic duty!

1245A Defender said:

i too am surprised you arent getting a straight answer.
You can OC with a CPL in a PFZ,,,, everybody knows that,,, its Michigan law!
you know you cant CC in a PFZ.
the polling place is a constitutionally protected place, it may be in a church building, but for awhile, its a place of civic duty!

Click to expand...

Agreed. It's not like you have a choice in the place you have to vote.

1245A Defender said:

i too am surprised you arent getting a straight answer.
You can OC with a CPL in a PFZ,,,, everybody knows that,,, its Michigan law!
you know you cant CC in a PFZ.
the polling place is a constitutionally protected place, it may be in a church building, but for awhile, its a place of civic duty!

Click to expand...

If by a "straight answer" you mean that something is not arguable... or always either "illegal" or "legal", I think you would be hard pressed when it comes to "law". Nothing is certain, rather any outcome is just a set of probabilities.

First, you must know how the legislature defines the words they use in the particular law.

Second, there are almost always exceptions.

Third, the same behavior may be covered under 2 or more laws...

Fourth even if you think that you have understood number 1, 2, and 3 above and therefore, the answer is clear... the judge/ or jury may have a different view and find someone "guilty" or "innocent", even though the decision is contrary to what one would expect. It's great when it goes in your favor but really is bad when it causes you untold expense and possible legal repercussions.

DrTodd said:

BTW: IMHO, a church would never be considered part of the local government... the whole separation of church and state thing... you/I/someone else could email the Secretary of State's Office and get their opinion; the SOS is in charge of elections in Michigan.

Click to expand...

I don't know of any federal or michigan law with any stipulation that separates church and state. I believe it was a failed concept of Thomas Jefferson, kind of like his other failed ideas about ending slavery and outlawing deficit spending and requiring congress to have control over currency.

And again, when you agree to run voting, to be the very place that people must go to do their federally and state protected right to cast votes, you are running a government action. I would argue that this makes you a unit of government very much subject to the laws governing that action. Unless a law can be found that dictates there is a church exemption, I say churches become a state and federal unit of government when they agree to be a polling place.

Michigander said:

I don't know of any federal or michigan law with any stipulation that separates church and state. I believe it was a failed concept of Thomas Jefferson, kind of like his other failed ideas about ending slavery and outlawing deficit spending and requiring congress to have control over currency.

Click to expand...

Saw this in an old thread that was linked so I felt compelled to answer the last post:

Michigan Constitution:
Article 1 § 4 Freedom of worship and religious belief; appropriations.
Sec. 4. Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, or, against his consent, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes or other rates for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion. No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the state be appropriated for any such purpose. The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief.