OKLAHOMA CITY—A federal appeals court ruling against a Ten Commandments monument at the Haskell County Courthouse in Stigler bodes poorly for a state law authorizing a similar display on the state Capitol grounds, Attorney General Drew Edmondson said Tuesday.
Edmondson, who is charged with defending Oklahoma statutes in court, said he fully expects the new Oklahoma law to face a legal challenge.
“I think everybody expects it to be challenged or they wouldn’t have written a provision for defense in the bill,” Edmondson said.
The bill, approved overwhelmingly by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Brad Henry, authorizes the placement of a privately funded Ten Commandments monument at the Oklahoma Capitol. It also authorizes the attorney general or the Texas-based Liberty Legal Institute to defend the monument if it’s challenged in court.
Edmondson said Tuesday he hasn’t researched Liberty Legal’s expertise, but says he would be hesitant to endorse the group without determining all the legal costs that would be involved.
“If this outside group is willing to assume not only the cost of the defense of the statute, but will also pay the attorneys fees on the other side in the event we lose, then I think it’s a big ol’ green light—you guys go for it,” Edmondson said.
On Monday, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Haskell County monument, also privately funded, was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion based on comments made by county commissioners after it was installed.
The court noted that commissioners knew of the monument’s religious nature when they approved of it and that they supported and defended its installation.
But the House author of the new Oklahoma law, state Rep. Mike Ritze, has been careful to avoid referring to the Ten Commandments monument as a religious display, saying instead he is motivated by the historical context of the Ten Commandments.
“I took great care to ensure my legislation falls in line with Supreme Court rulings that have allowed for several monuments in the U.S. to remain,” said Ritze, R-Broken Arrow. “This monument recognizes its important role in the historical foundation of modern law.”
Ritze’s bill even directs that the Oklahoma monument use the same words as a display on the Capitol grounds in Texas that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Van Orden v. Perry case.
But Edmondson said the words on the display are not the crux of the case, and that the Texas monument had been on display on the Capitol grounds for more than 40 years.
“How you spell ‘thou shalt not kill’ is not the issue,” Edmondson said. “The issue is how did it get there, why is it there, and in what context is it there. And that’s where we may have difficulties.
“I think the experience at the state Capitol is closer to the experience in Haskell County than it is closer to Texas in terms of the facts and the situation involved.”
Chuck Thornton, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, the group that challenged the Haskell County display, said the group has concerns with the Oklahoma law but stopped short of saying a legal challenge was inevitable.
“Although I’m not going to commit to any course of action today, we at the ACLU are looking at the developments at the state Capitol concerning that monument,” Thornton said. “We’re watching it very closely.”
Thornton said he believes such a monument would send a message to people of non-Christian faiths that they are not welcome at the state Capitol.
“I believe it’s a divisive measure as opposed to something that draws people together,” he said. “I don’t see where this is a particularly good way to focus time and energy when our state is in such a dire financial situation.”
