Elkhart monument ruled unconstitutional

ELKHART, Ind. -- A judge who approved a plan to erect monuments to other important documents near a Ten Commandments marker so it could remain on city property has reversed that decision, ruling that the proposal is unconstitutional.\nU.S. District Judge Allen Sharp gave Elkhart officials 30 days to come up with a new plan, The Truth reported in a story for Saturday's editions.\nSharp wrote in his order Wednesday that the city's proposal to set up markers to documents including the Bill of Rights and the Preamble to the Constitution could create an impression that the government was endorsing a religion.\nThat was part of the grounds on which the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago had rejected a similar plan by Indiana officials to place a Ten Commandments marker at the Statehouse.\n"The city of Elkhart has choices, but the proposed remedy is not among them," Sharp wrote. "The religious language…cannot remain in its place of prominence by the Elkhart Municipal Building."\nSharp set aside previous orders that contradicted Wednesday's ruling, including one he made March 4 in favor of the city's proposed remedy.\nIndiana Civil Liberties Union attorney Ken Falk welcomed the decision.\n"You can't put the Ten Commandments next to U.S. historical documents and convert the Ten Commandments into a historical document," he said.\nMayor Dave Miller said the city was unlikely to appeal Sharp's latest ruling because of the cost. Elkhart City Attorney Vlado Vranjes said officials would have to consider their next step and try to come up with another remedy.\nIn his ruling Wednesday, Sharp said the city's other options included removing or covering religious language on the marker, moving it to private property or placing it within the context of other documents, including secular ones, similar to the frieze on the wall of the U. S. Supreme Court.\nThe ICLU has argued that is not practical in Elkhart's case.\nFalk suggested the easiest option would be to move the marker to private property, where it would be constitutionally protected.\nTwo Elkhart residents represented by the ICLU sued in 1998 to try to remove the monument, which was given to the city by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1958.\nThe sides began settlement talks after the U.S. Supreme Court last spring declined to hear the city's appeal.