Religion angles in recall elections

November 9, 2011 By

I haven’t really followed much of the news from election day, but one of the more intriguing stories was the first recall election ever mounted against a state legislator in Arizona. What’s more is that it was successful. Here’s the Christian Science Monitor:

A powerful Republican state Senate leader who championed Arizona’s controversial crackdown on illegal immigrants lost his office on Tuesday in a historic recall election, returns showed. Russell Pearce’s defeat is a message to the GOP, say some analysts, that jobs and the economy should be a higher priority than illegal immigrants.

The only mention we get of religion in this story about the race in the conservative Phoenix suburb of Mesa is:

“I intend to spend a little time with my God, my wife and my family and reassess where we need to go,” he added. Later, a Pearce campaign spokesman confirmed that this was his concession speech.

Now, had I not read anything else about this race, I’d think the analysis that Pearce’s defeat is a message to the GOP is fine. But I happened to read a story in The Economist a few days ago that put things in a very different light.

Pearce, it turns out, is Mormon and in a heavily Mormon area. And it sounds like some Mormon constituents didn’t think he was putting the best image forth. His opponent, Jerry Lewis, is also a Mormon and they don’t even disagree that much on the issues. The entire article explains what really happened in this race, which is as much or more a story about religion as a national message to the GOP. The story is from a few days ago but here’s a good chunk of it:

It has become a bizarre contest. Like Mr Pearce, Mr Lewis is a Mormon and a conservative Republican. “This is a Mormon family feud,” says Dave Richins, a Mesa councilman (and also Mormon and Republican, like most local leaders). What makes it odd is that “I don’t disagree with Pearce on much,” Mr Lewis insists. They both want small government and low taxes, and the rest of it. With so much agreement, a debate between the two candidates was unbearably boring. …

Mesa’s Mormon elders become very discreet when explaining what is really going on. With two Mormons running for president of the United States, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, much distrusted by mainstream Christians, is currently taking great pains to prove that it stays out of politics. But its theology values families (and thus frowns on the separation, through deportation or incarceration, of illegal family members). Its image is inclusive and global. Mr Pearce and SB1070 have “damaged missionary work” in Latin America, says one Mormon.

So tone and style have become substance in this race, as arguably in national politics. And what a contrast emerges there. Next to Mr Pearce’s aggression, Mr Lewis embodies niceness and politeness. Aged 55 and fit, he seems to have stepped out of a Norman Rockwell painting. He used to be a Boy Scout leader and a missionary in Hong Kong (he proudly vocalises the eight tones of Cantonese), as well as a baseball coach. His manner of speaking is strange because he is always smiling. His seventh grandchild is due next month, there are Halloween pumpkins all over his modest house, and he displays endless patience in explaining the stark Mormon iconography of the paintings on his walls.

This, then, is Mr Lewis’s message: he is for civility, good listening and compromise. Mr Pearce’s proxies, by contrast, have sent other signals. After the padlock incident, a fake Twitter account was online for a while, in which Mr Lewis appeared as some sort of pervert. Most brazenly, a third candidate entered the race. Also Mormon but an immigrant from Mexico, Olivia Cortes ostensibly ran against Mr Pearce. But it became clear that she had been placed on the ballot by Mr Pearce’s supporters, including his nieces and a local tea-party boss. A judge ruled that “Pearce supporters recruited Cortes, a political neophyte, to run in the recall election to siphon Hispanic votes from Lewis to advance Pearce’s recall election bid.” Ms Cortes withdrew, but her name remains on the ballots, which may confuse some voters.

Who says politics isn’t fun?

There is a lesson in this for everyone. For one thing, we should remember just how local local elections are. National political reporters want to turn every vote into a big message. It’s not bad to glean messages from local votes, but we should always do so humbly. But if this story isn’t a great example of how “getting religion” improves reporting, I don’t know what is.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Journalism, Mormons, People
  • Jerry

    Mollie,

    I agree. I had heard about Pearce’s dirty tricks and the differences over immigration, but this story fills in a large hole.

    we should remember just how local local elections are.

    That used to be the case. I read the other day how Republicans had organized to take over a school board and now Democrats were fighting back including putting in piles of money http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/11/09/1629974/democrats-again-control-wake-school.html So the war between left and right has politicized almost every race and probably soon will inflict races for dog catcher.

  • Stan

    This is an interesting story but I was taken aback when I got to this paragraph: “With two Mormons running for president of the United States, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, much distrusted by mainstream Christians, is currently taking great pains to prove that it stays out of politics.” Surely this needs to be unpacked or at least elaborated upon. I fail to see how a race between two (and at one point three) Mormons provides evidence that the Church of Latter-day Saints is offering proof that it stays out of politics. At best, this is a counter-intuitive lesson from this race. It certainly is not self-evident and the reporter needs to offer something more than assertion to substantiate this conclusion.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    You’re right, Stan. I meant to say something about that line.

  • Marie

    But its theology values families (and thus frowns on the separation, through deportation or incarceration, of illegal family members). /blockquote>

    This the only part of the article I take issue with. It takes a theological aspect (valuing families) and makes a leap to a political standing (being opposed to deportation). It may seem like an obvious conclusion to someone on the outside but it ignores other aspects of LDS beliefs such as being “honest with you dealing with your fellow man” (a Temple Recommend requirement) or the the belief in “honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law” (one of the LDS Articles of faith). Both of these aspects cloud the issue of wether LDS theology would lead members to support or oppose illegal immigration laws.

  • Tim

    The LDS Church has stated:

    “The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.”

    http://newsroom.lds.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

    So, in response to Marie’s comment, no leap is necessary–the LDS church supports an approach that allows undocumented immigrants to “continue to work,” an approach that is most definitely opposed to deportation.

    Pearce’s disagreement with this, and the fact that he falsely claimed his approach to immigration had support from LDS church leadership, was a big part of his downfall.

  • Dave

    Mollie, thank you for posting this. I had no idea, through my usual news sources, of this strong undercurrent in the Arizona election.

  • Raymond Takashi Swenson

    Stan: You said “I fail to see how a race between two (and at one point three) Mormons provides evidence that the Church of Latter-day Saints is offering proof that it stays out of politics.” But having Mormons opposing each other in an election is precisely a demonstration that the LDS Church is NOT picking favorites in election campaigns. There is no “Mormon primary” in which the Church picks a candidate who represents the Church as an institution. The Church does not tell people which political party to join, or whether or not to run for election, or who to vote for. This recall election made clear that Mr. Pearce was not being opposed because he was Mormon (the way Reverend Jeffress opposes Mormons for election to any office), but that he was opposed in spite of sharing a religious affiliation with many of his constituents.

    In Utah, where Mormons are a majority of voters in many cities and counties and legislative districts, the competing candidates in both primaries and in the general elections are often Mormons. The Church does not tell anyone not to run, or endorse one or the other candidate, regardless of whether they are Mormon or not, or whether they are in good standing in the Church or not.

    Utah has elected three different non-Mormons as governor, including the first Jewish governor in the US, for a total of 5 four year terms. It has elected nominal Mormons, like hard-drinking Cal Rampton, who got three terms in office. The only way the Church intervenes in elections between candidates is to tell its own high level officers to avoid direct political involvement, including making campaign contributions (which are now public record) because it does not want its membership to think it is telegraphing a secret endorsement of one candidate or another through one of its respected leaders.

    The fact is that the majority of Mormons live outside the US. There are millions of Mormons in Mexico, Brazil, Chile, and other nations of Latin America. It tries to persuade its members in those nations to stay there, and support their own local congregations, since all Mormon leadership positions are staffed by unpaid volunteers who belong to the local congregation. The Church provides its own educational loan system to help members in developing nations prosper in place, and members in the more prosperous nations help support the costs of building and maintaining chapels in poorer nations.

    The imbalance toward conservative politics and the Republican Party among Mormons in the Western US is an artifact of the Democratic Party adoption of a left wing, anti-military, pro-abortion agenda in the 1970s. It has alienated many Christians as well as many Mormons. Before that, Utah had a long history of splitting statewide and congressional offices between the major parties. It should be remembered that Jon Huntsman, perceived as a RINO by many conservative talk show hosts, was a popular, re-elected governor of Utah.

    The recall of Mr. Pearce is evidence that many Mormons do not buy into the knee-jerk right wing conservatism that many incorrectly assume is their view. In my own experience, I think Mitt Romney is very representative of most Mormons, a center-right kind of conservatism that is willing to consider good ideas no matter where they originate, and actually think about public policy proposals, as opposed to embracing or rejecting them based on gross political labeling.

    Mormonism supports freedom in all of its forms, including free markets, but that is mitigated by a deep concern for the poor, a concern they implement through fasting the first Sunday of each month so they can donate the money saved to help the needy, and by giving volunteer labor to raise food that is dedicated to being given to the unemployed and disabled. The root of Mormon concern for immigrants is that deep compassion and empathy, combined with a diminished xenophobia born out of years of personal service as missionaries in Mexico and other less-developed countries. They have felt at home in Mexico, so they don’t feel threatened by Mexicans.

    When Mitt Romney was an (unpaid) Mormon bishop in Boston, he helped lead and care for Mormon immigrants from Haiti and refugees from Cambodia. He is familiar with extreme poverty because it was his responsibility to alleviate it, using donations from the local congregations and work donated by himself and others to repair homes and provide other aid. He wrote checks to help unemployed people pay their rent, and worked to help them get new jobs using the network of Church members in the area. He personally donated a tenth of his income earned at Bain Capital, plus more to aid the poor.

    The Mormon ideal in commuity governance was stated by Joseph Smith: “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

    Mr. Pearce’s problem was that he strayed from the Mormon concept of compassion for the less fortunate. The LDS Church did not tell him to resign, or tell its members to vote against him. Many of the Mormons among his constituents decided that on their own.

  • Stan

    Raymond: your comment doesn’t have anything to do with journalism. It simply makes a pretty dubious argument that the often Mormons disagree with each other and sometimes the LDS Church does not involve itself in politics. One can cite many other examples, most notably the Church’s intervention in the Prop 8 campaign and in Hawaii and other states to campaign against same-sex marriage. The evidence of the Church’s involvement in politics is overwhelming (they recently had to pay a fine in California for lying about the extent of its involvement in the Prop 8 campaign). But my point was a simpler one: the journalist made a large generalization about the Church is currently trying to prove that it stays out of politics, but provides no evidence that the generalization is true or give any source for the statement. My comment was about the journalist’s statement. (I suspect that the Church might indeed have intervened to support the challenger here because it may think that to have Mormons too closely associated with the extremism represented by Pearce might come back to harm Romney, but that is simply speculation on my part.)

  • Jettboy

    Stan, the point isn’t that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn’t participate in politics proper. It admits that is what it does when it feels a moral obligation. I and many Mormons completely agree with that. The point is that the LDS Church stays out of Party Politics where a set of nominees are involved. They get involved with ideas and positions, not candidates and party affiliations.

    “I suspect that the Church might indeed have intervened to support the challenger here because it may think that to have Mormons too closely associated with the extremism represented by Pearce might come back to harm Romney, but that is simply speculation on my part.”

    Doesn’t that kind of prove the point? You say there is ample evidence, and then end up saying there isn’t enough evidence.

  • Stan

    Jettboy, you obviously have a problem with reading. I said there is not enough evidence to say whether the LDS Church intervened in the Pearce recall. I have no doubt at all that the LDS Church intervenes in politics–and neither do you. The difference is that you support their intervention and I do not. My critique is a journalistic critique. The reporter of this story made a generalization that was not supported in the story. If you want to debate the ethics of the LDS Church’s political interventions, I am happy to do so, but I don’t think that is the purpose of this site.