The prayer appeal

Forsyth County commissioners who want to start their meetings with sectarian prayer have long argued that they're not pushing Christianity, but simply want to guarantee the right of all to pray to the god of their choice. The commissioners should prove that by ending their relationship with a conservative Christian organization that's appealing a federal judge's ruling against that prayer and turn the case over to a local law firm that has also offered to represent the county for free.

To win its case, the commissioners' board must prove it is impartial in regard to the prayers at the start of its meetings. A judge might be more inclined to believe that argument if a secular law firm were making it, instead of an organization with a conservative agenda.

Judge James Beaty of U.S. District Court ruled in January that the prayers, which are almost always given in the name of Jesus Christ, are unconstitutional. He ordered the board to stop the practice.

The Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the county, lost that round to the North Carolina branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed suit on behalf of county residents Janet Joyner and Constance Lynn Blackmon. Commissioners voted last week to appeal that decision, with the ADF, whose other causes include opposing abortion and same-sex marriage, continuing to handle the case.

Just days before the board made its decision, Kilpatrick Stockton, a Winston-Salem firm with a strong reputation throughout the region, had offered to represent the county. The informal offer was made to Dave Plyler, the commissioners' chairman. Plyler didn't tell the board about the offer, saying later that the timing was inappropriate because the commissioners were already set to vote on the appeal.

Plyler should have told them, and the public, before he joined his fellow Republicans and voted for the appeal, ending a deadlock. It was one more lapse in accountability to taxpayers in this matter.

Our longstanding opposition to the board's insistence on sectarian prayer hasn't changed. It's a losing proposition that could potentially cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Federal courts in the 4th Circuit have correctly ruled that such prayer violates the Constitution, specifically the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." County Attorney Davida Martin, realizing the constitutional violation, has declined to represent her client in this case.

By policy, the county welcomes people of all faiths to give the opening prayers. But in practice, the prayers are almost always given by Christians. That gives the perception that the county is endorsing Christianity over other religions.

If the board insists on continuing this costly, time-consuming case, it should proceed appropriately. The board should agree to allow Kilpatrick Stockton to take over the appeal that the ADF has filed. Plyler said yesterday he'd vote for the change, but he doubted he could get enough votes to get it approved. All he needs, however, is his vote and that of the board's three Democrats, who should demand this change.

Doing so won't restore all accountability in the matter, but it may save the county money. Should the county lose, a judge might well order it to pay the legal costs of the ACLU, already estimated at $127,000 for its first-round victory. The only thing standing between taxpayers and that rising tab is a local fundraising group, the North Carolina Partnership for Religious Liberty, which had raised $300,500 by last week but declined to release a list of its donors.

Plyler said in October that local lawyers told him that the bill for the county could be as high as $700,000 if the case goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and the county loses there.

The commissioners can restore confidence and accountability by ending their relationship with the ADF, which clearly has its own agenda. It would be just as objectionable if the county had joined forces with a left-wing group.

Kilpatrick Stockton is a conventional law firm with clients with widely varied interests. Its lawyer on the prayer case would be Adam Charnes, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has handled constitutional litigation. Drawing on his firm's significant resources, Charnes should be able to quickly master the intricacies of this case. Charnes said that the firm would not take a stand on sectarian prayer, but would represent the county as a public service.

The firm, like the ADF, also stands to gain prominence through involvement in a case that's already made national news and could be in law books for years to come.

But Kilpatrick Stockton would clearly be the better choice.

A judge, or panel of judges, might be more inclined to believe the county's prayer policy is impartial if its law firm is. Taxpayers might be more inclined to believe the argument as well. And they should demand an explanation if the commissioners choose to stick with the ADF.