Churches oppose Prop 3 with signs

Oct. 23—TRAVERSE CITY — Signs opposing a statewide abortion ballot measure called Proposal 3 have sprung up across the region, including outside of some churches.

But although the signs have raised questions about whether they violate federal rules barring nonprofits from political activity, they're in the clear. That's according to Catholic Diocese of Gaylord spokeswoman Renee Shimmel, who said the signs were the subject of some internal discussion.

"It was all checked out to make sure it's within the rights of the church to be able to do it," she said. "But as long as it's ... not a partisan issue, then you can put the campaign signs out."

In this instance, the ballot question concerning abortion rights is the nonpartisan issue, Shimmel said.

The Johnson Amendment is what the prohibition on nonprofits engaging in political activity is called, said National Council of Nonprofits spokesman Rick Cohen.

"It's a bright line in the sand, and it's very narrow," Cohen said. "It applies to just candidates for office."

That prohibition dates back to 1954 when then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson introduced it. It states that any 501©(3)-registered nonprofit, including charities and churches, is forbidden from participating in or intervening on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office, according to the IRS.

A sign opposing Proposal 3 raised eyebrows for Dana Getsinger, who chairs Leelanau Indivisible and volunteers for a handful of Democratic candidates. She spotted one sign outside St. Mary of the Assumption Catholic Church in Lake Leelanau.

Getsinger pointed to both the IRS tax code and a federal lawsuit decided in 2000 upholding the agency's revocation of a church's nonprofit status for its campaign activity.

The Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals found in Branch Ministries v. Rossotti that the church had to heed the ban, and had broken it by running full-page ads opposing then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton in 1992 for a variety of reasons, including his stance on abortion.

Appeals court judges ruled the restriction didn't violate the church's freedom of speech and that the government shouldn't have to subsidize a nonprofit's political activities through tax exemptions.

Scott Verhage, a certified public accountant and Kindlinger & Company's senior manager, said churches that violate the ban on campaigning for or against a candidate are more likely to get a warning from the IRS — agency training on the subject states the same, and federal law sets strict rules for the IRS to investigate churches.

But if the violations continue, the IRS could take away a church's tax-exempt status, Verhage said.

Getsinger said she was surprised when a lawyer friend told her the Proposal 3 signs outside of churches are legal. To her, a ballot issue seems like a government issue, so the fact that churches are taking a stance on one seems like crossing over into politics.

"Aren't we supposed to have religious freedom, but not freedom for religion to say, "This is how you vote,' " she asked.

At Grand Traverse Area Christian Schools' St. Francis High School, a sign around the playground urged a "no" vote on Proposal 3.

That's one part of GTACS Superintendent Mike Buell's advocacy on a ballot question he said involves Catholic church teachings on life beginning from conception. He wrote an op-ed for the Record-Eagle, and wrote a similarly worded letter to school parents explaining why he took a stance on the issue.

What's more, Buell said, he believes Proposal 3 could go much further. In his letter, he cited the possibility the constitutional amendment could allow minors to have an abortion without their parents' consent.

"People obviously have different opinions on all sorts of issues, including life, but the ballot proposal has implications greater reaching, or farther reaching than just life," he said. "It gets into the parents' role in children's healthcare."

Not everyone agrees with that interpretation, Buell acknowledged. Bridge Michigan reported some law experts believe parental consent could still be legally required if the proposal passes.

Buell wrote in his letter he's tried during his 27-year career to avoid intertwining political issues and church teachings. But he found the proposal concerning enough to take a stance on it.

He said he believes the church's long-standing teachings on life beginning at conception and ending at natural death have become politicized, but they're not partisan.

"If it was a partisan issue, then we would not be able to put up signs or endorse one party or another," he said.

As a rule, GTACS is careful not to violate the ban on religious organizations taking political action for or against a candidate, Buell said. The schools have never hosted a candidate speaker, for example.

Zoning limits

Political signs must comply with city zoning rules, which Traverse City Zoning Administrator Dave Weston said limits both the size and placement.

For one, homes can't have signs bigger than 6 square feet, he said. There's no limit to how many, but multiple signs can't be read together as one, like a row of signs spelling out a candidate's name.

That limit increases to 32 square feet for commercial, industrial and institutional property, although they're limited to two, Weston said. St. Francis High School's large banner is OK since it's an institution, he agreed.

Placing any sign on city property, including the tree lawn between curb and sidewalk, is forbidden without city commission approval, Weston said. It's a common occurrence, since people often think of the area as part of their property.

"People don't know that. They think they mow it, they can use it and put their sign there," he said.

City Code Enforcement Officer Mike Trombley said he typically responds by letting people know about the rule and asking them to move the sign. That includes garage sale, contractor and real estate signs.

Trombley said he asked St. Francis High School administrators to move some anti-Proposal 3 signs that were on city property outside the school, and they complied.

Cathy Nelson, GTACS spokeswoman, echoed this.

City police will occasionally remove signs on city property, Weston said.

There's no limit to how soon campaign or other event signs can go up, but they must come down by 14 days after the event, Weston said.

These zoning rules differ by municipality, Weston said. Traverse City's rules aren't the same as Garfield Township's, for example, and township ordinance limits political signs to four months before an election and five days after.

Grand Traverse County keeps a list online of which townships regulate campaign signs, and how. Some have setback requirements from the road or set spacing limits between signs, while rules in others are more sparse.

Acme Township simply limits signs to go up no more than two months prior to an election, and removed by three days after, the list shows.

As far as these requirements, still other townships — such as Fife Lake, Grant, Paradise and Union — have none, according to the county's list.