Suit Challenges IRS Church Exemption From Filing Form 990

A lawsuit was filed yesterday in D.C. federal district court challenging the exemption for churches from filing annual Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service.  The exemption is set out in Internal Revenue Code Sec. 6033(a)(3). The complaint (full text) in Nonbelief Relief, Inc. v. Kauter, (D DC, filed 10/11/2018), contends that:

The information return exemption given to churches and other religious organizations constitutes discrimination on the basis of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The suit was filed by a nonprofit organization set up by the Executive Board
of the Freedom From Religion Foundation for nonbelievers to use to channel contributions for relieving human suffering and injustice on a global scale, whether from natural disasters, human actions or adherence to religious dogma. The organization's non-profit status was suspended for its failure to file Form 990 for 3 years. FFRF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

7th Circuit Upholds Wisconsin's Limit on Busing Benefit To One School of Each Denomination In District

In St. Augustine School v. Evers, (7th Cir., Oct. 11, 2018), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1- decision, upheld Wisconsin's statue which requires school districts to bus private school students, but limits the obligation to only one private school affiliated with the same religious denomination or sponsoring group in each attendance district. St. Augustine school did not qualify for busing because another Catholic school in the district qualified first. The majority rejected free exercise and Establishment Clause challenges to the arrangement, saying in part:

The reason why St. Augustine cannot demand services within its desired attendance zone is not because it is a Catholic school; it is because—by its own choice—it professes to be affiliated with a group that already has a school in that zone.  By the same token, Wisconsin is not denying the Forros a transit subsidy because they are Catholic or because they seek to send their children to Catholic school. It funds transportation for all of the Catholic families who send their children to St. Gabriel. The problem for St. Augustine is not that it is Catholic; it is that it is second in line.

Judge Ripple dissented arguing that St. Augustine and St. Gabriel should not be seen as affiliated with the same denomination because St. Augustine is organizationally unaffiliated with the Catholic Archdiocese.

Dreiband Confirmed As Assistant AG For Civil Rights Division

Reuters reports that Eric Dreiband was confirmed by the U.S. Senate yesterday by a vote of 50-47 to become Assistant Attorney General heading the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division.  Dreiband is currently a partner at the law firm of Jones Day. Prior to that he served as the EEOC's general counsel. (Bio).  U.S. Law Week reports that many civil rights activists opposed Dreiband's nomination, recounting:

Dreiband represented the University of North Carolina when it implemented policies under the state’s since-repealed “bathroom bill,” requiring people to use gender-designated restroom facilities based on the biological sex listed on their birth certificates....

Dreiband unsuccessfully represented Abercrombie & Fitch Co. in a case in which a Muslim teenager alleged the clothing company refused to hire her because she wore a religious head scarf. He led a discrimination lawsuit challenging Abercrombie’s employee appearance requirements while at the EEOC but took the opposite position when he went into private practice.

Rabbi Sues Condo Association For Religious and Disability Accommodations

Jersey Shore Online reports on a lawsuit filed yesterday in New Jersey federal district court by a retired Orthodox rabbi against his condominium association claiming religious and disability discrimination. Rabbi Philip Lefkowitz moved to the Jackson, NJ senior living community with his two sons in 2016.  All three are confined to wheelchairs because of complications from diabetes. Lefkowitz seeks permission to build a Sukkah -- a temporary structure for the Fall holiday of Sukkot-- that is larger than the association bylaws permit in order for the structure to be wheelchair accessible. He is also asking that a path be built between the sidewalk and a nearby gate that is currently kept locked.  He wants the gate equipped with a Sabbath-accessible lock so he and his sons can get to religious services.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Jasmaine v. Futrelle, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164821 (ED NC, Sept. 26, 2018), a North Carolina federal district court dismissed a complaint by a Wiccan inmate that group worship was not provided because of too few adherents to satisfy the minimum requirement for providing it.

In Jenkins v. Sinclair, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164485 (WD WA, Sept. 25, 2018), a Washington federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165580, Sept. 4, 2018) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that he can no longer obtain prayer oil from his preferred outside vendor and is denied access to donated prayer oil unless he attends services of Muslim sects with which he disagrees.

In Newsome v. Fairley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165994 (SD MS, Sept. 27, 2018), a Mississippi federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166587, Aug. 3, 2018) and refused to issue a TRO or preliminary injunction in a suit by an inmate practicing the Natsarim faith seeking to obtain immersion baptism, a kosher diet and religious counseling.

In Hatcher v. Rubenstein, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166045 (SD WV, Sept. 27, 2018), a West Virginia federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168091, Aug. 8, 2018) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaints regarding lack of Halal meat and his inability to wear his kufi throughout the prison.

In Jones v. Galske, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166331 (ED WI, Sept. 27, 2018), a Wisconsin federal magistrate judge dismissed an inmate's claim that her 1st Amendment rights were infringed when she was not released into the dayroom to watch televised bible study.

In Mann v. Spatney, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166847 (ND OH, Sept. 27, 2018), an Ohio federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166570, July 31, 2018) and dismissed claims by a Native American inmate that there are no Native American materials in the chapel library and complaints about access to sacred herbs, sweat lodge, spiritual advisor, smudging and observance of holy days.

In Gawlik v. Semple, 2018 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2305 (CT Super. Ct., Aug. 31, 2018), a Connecticut state trial court, after a bench trial, ruled against plaintiff who complained about policies that prevented him from receiving various books, newspapers, blank cards and envelopes, decorated cards and artwork.  Plaintiff, who was serving a 60 year sentence for murder, was studying in the hopes of becoming a Catholic priest.

In Richardson v. Welch, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167224 (WD VA, Sept. 28, 2018), a Virginia federal district court dismissed a complaint by a Nation of Islam adherent that prison authorities refuse to recognize the NOI practice of observing Ramadan in December, instead of on the lunar cycle recognized by other Muslims.

Tax Court: "Pastoral Gifts" Were Taxable Income

In a 36-page opinion peppered with New Testament quotations and citations, the U.S. Tax Court in Felton v. Commissioner, (US TC, Oct. 10, 2018) held that the over $200,000 per year that congregants donated to Rev. Wayne Felton should be taxed as income rather than treated as gifts.  The amounts were received in "Pastoral Gift" envelopes that were available to congregants each week. The court explained:

The dispute between the Commissioner and the Feltons has roots deep in Christian history, and both parties can see their positions staked out as far back as St. Paul. “Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who  feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?” 1 Cor. 9:7. And “[e]ven so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” 1 Cor. 9:14. In our era, the Commissioner might have argued, all this milk and fruit constitute income upon receipt. See sec. 61 (gross income defined as income from whatever source deriveth).

But the relationship between a pastor and his flock is far from entirely commercial, and the Feltons argue that, at least in part, they are supported by gifts, not wages justly bargained for and justly earned in the marketplace: “[W]hen I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.” 1 Cor. 9:18. And “[y]e sent once and again unto my necessity. Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account. But I have all, and abound: I am full.” Phil. 4:16-18.

We have already found that the transfers--whether gifts or compensation-- have left the Feltons very full indeed. But our tax system is somewhat more complicated than the ancients’, and meeting its exactions can only rarely be extinguished with the draught of a single fish. See Matt. 17:27. To decide this case, we must therefore descend from the sacred to the profane.

The court also approved of the tax penalties assessed by the IRS. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

EEOC Sued Over Enforcement of LGBT Protections Without Religious Exemption

A class action lawsuit was filed last week in a Texas federal district court against the EEOC on behalf of all churches that oppose homosexual or transgender behavior for sincere religious reasons and on behalf of all businesses with similar beliefs.  The complaint (full text) in U.S. Pastor Council v. EEOC, (ND TX, filed 10/6/2018), says that the EEOC interprets Title VII as covering employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, without a religious exemption. It contends that this violates RFRA and the First Amendment.  the suit seeks to enjoin the federal government from interpreting or enforcing Title VII in a manner that requires churches or businesses with religious objections to recognize same-sex marriage or extend spousal benefits to same-sex partners, or to require objecting businesses to allow employees to use rest rooms reserved for persons of the opposite biological sex.  It also asks the court to require that any future EEOC guidance on Title VII's application to gay or transgender individuals include a religious exemption. The lawsuit was filed by the same law firm that has recently filed two challenges to Austin, Texas' anti-discrimination ordinances. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Jeff Pasek for the lead.]

Quebec Appellate Court Allows Litigant To Wear Hijab In Courtroom

A Canadian appellate court has upheld the right of a litigant to wear a hijab in the courtroom.  In El-Alloul v. Attorney General of Quebec, (QCCA, Oct. 3, 2018), the Quebec Court of Appeals held:

[72] Contrary to what the trial judge decided, the provisions of the Regulation of the Court of Québec dealing with the dress code do not prohibit a litigant from wearing a religious head scarf (hijab) in a courtroom when that practice results from a sincerely-held religious belief. It is only where that practice could conflict with an overriding public interest, such as another person’s constitutional rights, that a court may restrict it in a courtroom environment. The provisions of the Regulation of the Court of Québec dealing with court attire, in and of themselves, do not express such an overriding public interest sufficient to restrict the constitutional right to freedom of religious expression....

[91] ... [I]t is not necessary for a trial judge to test the sincerity of religious beliefs and practices each time someone appears in a courtroom wearing religious garments, particularly where such garments are well-known, such as a hijab for a Muslim woman, a Roman collar for a Catholic priest, a kippa for an orthodox Jew, etc. This is also the case for those litigants wearing a pendant or other suitable religious jewelry. Where the religious practice is well known and understood, there is rarely a need to proceed to an inquiry. As rightly noted by Justice Iacobucci in Syndicat Northcrest v. Anselem:  “an intrusive government inquiry into the nature of a claimant’s beliefs would in itself threaten the values of religious liberty”....

[93] Of course, from time to time, there may occur situations which warrant further inquiry; it is incumbent on trial judges to identify these situations by using common sense. An example is the full facial covering, such as the niqab, which raises issues related to the proper identification of litigants, the proper assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the fairness of the judicial proceedings.... 

Lawyer's Daily reports on the decision.

U.N. Experts Decry Prosecution of Baha'is In Yemen

In a press release yesterday, the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner has called for the Shia Muslim Houthi rebels who control the city of Sana'a in Yemen to stop the persecution of Baha'is.  The release focuses on the prosecution of 24 individuals, 22 of whom are Baha'is, in Sana's Specialized Criminal Court on charges of apostasy, teaching of the Baha'i faith and espionage. The espionage charges are punishable by death.  UN News reports on the call by U.N. experts.

Second Broad Challenge To Austin's Anti- Discrimination Ordinances Filed

Following a federal court lawsuit filed last week by churches challenging Austin, Texas' ban on employment discrimination (see prior posting), a broader lawsuit has been filed in state court challenging the application of Austin's public accommodation, housing and employment discrimination ordinances to any individual or business that has religious objections to homosexual or transgender behavior.  The complaint (full text) in Texas Values v. City of Austin, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 10/8/2018) asks the court to declare that the ordinances violate Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Texas Constitution

to the extent that they: (a) prohibit individuals and entities from refusing to hire or retain practicing homosexuals or transgendered people as employees for reasons based in sincere religious belief; (b) prohibit individuals and entities from refusing to rent their property to tenants who are engaged in non-marital sex of any sort, including homosexual behavior, for reasons based in sincere religious belief; (c) prohibit individuals and entities from declining to participate in or lend support to homosexual marriage or commitment ceremonies, for reasons based in sincere religious belief; and (d) prohibit individuals and entities from declining to provide spousal employment benefits to the same-sex partners or spouses of employees, for reasons based in sincere religious belief; (e) prohibit individuals and entities from establishing sex-specific restrooms and limiting them to members of the appropriate biological sex, for reasons based in sincere religious belief.

Austin Statesman reports on the lawsuit.

UK Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Baker Who Refused To Supply Cake Supporting Gay Marriage

In a widely followed case, the United Kingdom Supreme Court today ruled in favor of Christian bakers in a case that became particularly high profile after the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.  In Lee v. Ashers Baking Company Ltd, (UKSC, Oct. 10, 2018), the court framed the question-- which arose under anti-discrimination provisions in the law of Northern Ireland-- as follows:

The substantive question in this case is whether it is unlawful discrimination, either on grounds of sexual orientation, or on grounds of religious belief or political opinion, for a bakery to refuse to supply a cake iced with the message “support gay marriage” because of the sincere religious belief of its owners that gay marriage is inconsistent with Biblical teaching and therefore unacceptable to God.

Rejecting the claim that the bakery engaged in direct discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the court said in part:

The reason for treating Mr Lee less favourably than other would-be customers was not his sexual orientation but the message he wanted to be iced on the cake. Anyone who wanted that message would have been treated in the same way.... By definition, direct discrimination is treating people differently....

In a nutshell, the objection was to the message and not to any particular person or persons....

Experience has shown that the providers of employment, education, accommodation, goods, facilities and services do not always treat people with equal dignity and respect, especially if they have certain personal characteristics which are now protected by the law. It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics. But that is not what happened in this case and it does the project of equal treatment no favours to seek to extend it beyond its proper scope.

The court also rejected the contention that the bakery had discriminated against Mr. Lee on the basis of his political opinion:

The objection was not to Mr Lee because he, or anyone with whom he associated, held a political opinion supporting gay marriage. The objection was to being required to promote the message on the cake. The less favourable treatment was afforded to the message not to the man.... The situation is not comparable to people being refused jobs, accommodation or business simply because of their religious faith. It is more akin to a Christian printing business being required to print leaflets promoting an atheist message.

The court went on to hold that were the bakery required to furnish the cake, it would violate the owners' freedom of conscience and free expression rights protected by Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court gave a broad interpretation to the rights:

[T]here is no requirement that the person who is compelled to speak can only complain if he is thought by others to support the message. Mrs McArthur may have been worried that others would see the Ashers logo on the cake box and think that they supported the campaign. But that is by the way: what matters is that by being required to produce the cake they were being required to express a message with which they deeply disagreed.

In a Postscript, the court discussed the U.S. Supreme Court's Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion.  The court also issued a Press Summary of the opinion. Irish Times reports on the decision.
[Thanks to Marty Lederman and Seth Tillman via Religionlaw for the lead.] [This post has been updated to eliminate the statement that this case was "analogous" to Masterpiece Cakeshop.]

Alaska Borough's Invocation Policy Held Unconstitutional

KBBI News reports that an Alaska state trial court judge yesterday in Hunt v. Kenai Peninsula Borough (complaint) held that the Kenai Peninsula Borough's invocation policy violates the Establishment Clause of the Alaska Constitution.  The Borough implemented a policy that allows only representatives of pre-approved religious organizations to offer invocations at meetings of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly. The move came after a member of the Satanic Temple offered an invocation that ended with "Hail Satan."

Churches Sue For Exemptions From City's Employment Non-Discrimination Ordinance

A Texas-based organization of churches has filed suit against the city of Austin claiming that the city's non-discrimination ordinance violates member churches' federal and state constitutional rights and Texas' Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The complaint (full text) in U.S. Pastor Council v. City of Austin, (WD TX, filed 10/6/2018), contends that the Austin ordinance which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity infringes the rights of churches that will not hire women as senior pastors or which will not hire practicing homosexuals or transgendered individuals for any church position.  The only religious exemptions set out in the Austin ordinance are for religious institutions' hiring on the basis of religion.  The complaint declares that objecting churches "rely on the Bible rather than modern-day cultural fads for religious and moral guidance." KXAN News reports on the decision.

EEOC Sues Over Religious Objections To Flu Shot

The EEOC announced last week that it has filed suit against Saint Thomas Rutherford Hospital in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for requiring an employee of the contractor providing food and environmental services to have a flu shot if the employee wished to continue to work there. The employee refused on religious grounds.  In prior years accommodation was provided by allowing employees to wear a protective mask instead.

Certiorari Denied In Suspension of Oregon Judge Who Refused To Perform Same-Sex Weddings

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Day v. Oregon Commission on Judicial Ethics, (Docket No. 18-112), certiorari denied 10/9/2018). (Order List.)  In the case, the Oregon Supreme Court suspended Judge Day from office without pay for three years on six different charges, one of which was refusing to solemnize same-sex marriages. (See prior posting.) The petition for certiorari included the following among the questions presented:

Whether the Oregon Supreme Court, and certain Oregon ethical rules, violated the Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses of the First Amendment when he declined, on the basis of his sincerely-held religious beliefs,to perform the non-mandatory judicial function of solemnizing same-sex marriages.

Other filings in the case with the Supreme Court are available from the online docket.

Street Preacher's Suit Against Police Survives Dismissal Motion

In Craft v. Wright, (D NM, Sept. 26, 2018), a New Mexico federal district court refused to dismiss a street preacher's 1st and 4th Amendment claims against Hobbs, New Mexico police officials. The court concluded that plaintiff Al-Rashaad Craft was arrested without probable cause for assault and battery and disorderly conduct after an incident described as follows:

[Craft] was standing in the public square ... preaching a religious sermon, recording himself while doing so.... Susan Stone, began yelling at him, using obscenities, and waving a lighter only inches from Craft’s face and in front of the camera that Craft had set up to record his sermon.... Craft ignored the woman, but when he started to read from his Bible, Stone struck Craft in the face with his Bible.... In response, Craft pushed the woman away, and she lost her balance and fell.... Stone got up and continued to shout obscenities at Craft, walking in circles around him, smoking, and waving her lighter; she appeared intoxicated, which Craft later reported to the police.

No Immunity For Order That Kept Plaintiff Away From Her Church

In Krupien v. Ritcey, (MA App., Sept. 26, 2018), a Massachusetts appellate court held that officials of the state-run Chelsea Soldiers' Home do not have qualified immunity in a suit against them under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act alleging free exercise infringement.  The multi-building campus on which the Home was located included a chapel open to the public.  The lawsuit grew out of a stay-away directive issued during the investigation of a complaint that Teresa Krupien injured her co-worker's wrist while transferring a patient from a bed to a wheelchair. Until modified, the order to keep off the campus prohibited Krupien from attending her church for 37 days, including Christmas. the court concluded that reasonable officials would have known that the order was not narrowly tailored.

Recent Prisoner Free Exercise Cases

In Young v. John, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163439 (CD CA, Sept. 24, 2018), a California federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163470, Aug. 14, 2018) and dismissed an inmate's claim that his free exercise rights were infringed by the chaplain's twice interrupting Nation of Islam services and threatening to cancel them.

In Walker v. Director., Texas Department of Criminal Justice- Correctional Institutions Division, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163582 (ED TX, Sept. 24, 2018), a Texas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164341, Aug. 9, 2018) and dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaint that the prison served inmates observing Ramadan insufficient calories.

In Cary v. Stewart, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163938 (ED MI, Sept.25, 2018), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164358, Aug. 17, 2018), and refused to dismiss a complaint by an inmate who follows Native American Traditional Ways that his possession of herbs is being wrongly restricted in violation of the Free Exercise clause. Various other claims were dismissed.

In Dyer v. Osterhout, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163936 (ED MI, Sept. 25, 2018), a Michigan federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165340, May 8, 2018), and allowed a Jewish female inmate to move ahead with her free exercise challenge to the cancellation of Jewish religious services for several months, as well as her retaliation claim, but dismissed claims under RLUIPA and other 1st, 8th and 14th Amendment claims.

In Rivera v. Raines, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164284 (SD IL, Sept. 25, 2018), an Illinois federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164298, Sept. 5, 2018) and allowed an inmate to move ahead with his free exercise claim alleging that prison officials did not allow Nation of Gods and Earths to conduct religious services.

In Heikkila v. Kelley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163562 ED AR, Sept. 25, 2018), an Arkansas federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164411, Aug. 27, 2018) and dismissed a Native American inmate's complaint that his request to construct and use a sweat lodge was denied.

In Jones v. Sherman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164649 (EDCA, Sept. 25, 2018), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing an inmate's complaint that he received only one meal for dinner on Yom Kippur, when he was told he would receive two meals.

South African Court Finds Online Postings To Be Hate Speech

In South African Human Rights Commission v. Khumalo, (S. Africa Equality Ct, Oct. 7, 2018), a South African Equality Court held that anti-White statements made on through Facebook and Twitter by Velaphi Khumalo, a youth sports officer, qualify as Hate Speech under Sec. 10 of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act of 2000.  One of Khumalo's posts read in part: "I want to cleans this country of all white people. we must act as Hitler did to the Jews." The court summarized its holding:

[S]ection 10 must be understood as an instrument to advance social cohesion. The "othering" of whites or any other racial identity, is inconsistent with our Constitutional values. These utterances, in as much as they, with dramatic allusions to the holocaust, set out a rationale to repudiate whites as unworthy and that they ought deservedly to be hounded out, marginalised, repudiated, and subjected to violence in the eyes of a reasonable reader, could indeed, be construed to incite the causation of harm in the form of reactions by Blacks to endorse those attitudes, reactions by Whites to demoralisation and rachet up the invective by responding in like manner, and thus by such developments, on a large enough scale, derail the transformation of South African Society.

The court enjoined Khumalo from repeating his speech and ordered him to apologize to all South Africans, ordered him to pay costs, and referred the case to the public prosecutor for possible further action. Another action in a different court had already ordered the payment of damages. News24 reports on the decision.

Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment to Romanian Constitution Fails

In Romania, voters have failed to approve a proposed constitutional amendment that would have enshrined a ban on same-sex marriage into the constitution.  As reported by the Washington Post and Reuters, the two-day referendum failed to generate the 30% turnout needed for passage of the measure.  Only 20.4% of the voters cast ballots for the measure that was backed by the Social Democrat Party and the Orthodox church. According to the Post:

The referendum itself did not give voters a choice to vote in favor of allowing same-sex marriage, but only whether the constitutional definition of a “family” should continue to be gender-neutral. Either way, the result would not have had an immediate legal impact, but may have prevented possible future court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage or same-sex civil union.

But as a growing number of government critics urged Romanians to boycott the vote, the same-sex marriage referendum also became a de facto confidence vote over the Social Democratic government. The ruling party has repeatedly shocked domestic and international observers with corruption scandals and attempts to disrupt the rule of law that triggered large protests across the country.