Oaths of Office in American States: Problems and Prospects

• Author: Jonathan P. West,James S. Bowman
• DOI: 10.1177/0091026020913072
• Published date: 01 March 2021
• Date: 01 March 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

913072PPMXXX10.1177/0091026020913072Public Personnel ManagementBowman and West
research-article2020
Article
Public Personnel Management
2021, Vol. 50(1) 109 –132
Oaths of Office in American
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
States: Problems and
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020913072
DOI: 10.1177/0091026020913072
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm
Prospects
James S. Bowman1 and Jonathan P. West2
Abstract
Upon assuming office, executive, legislative, and judicial officials swear an oath as
evidence of dedication, commitment, and duty to the Constitution. As such, they
play a quintessential role in upholding democratic values. Yet contrasted to codes
of ethics, oaths get little recognition in the study of public administration. What
attention they do receive focuses primarily on the presidential oath of office. This
article examines a little-researched topic: governmental oaths in American states. The
inquiry is useful because oaths can help safeguard the integrity of civic institutions.
As a distinguishing feature of public service, oath-taking nonetheless may be seen as
a routine formality without consequence. The article discusses this rite of passage,
explores its past and current functions, reviews the literature, and analyzes state
oaths. The work concludes with observations on the prospects of these testimonials
in troubled times, times that require the restoration of honor, dignity, and virtue in
government.
Keywords
oath of office, U.S. state government, ethics, accountability
Upon taking office, public officials affirm an oath as evidence of dedication to the
Constitution. Oath-making is a formal ceremony and a personal pledge to honorable
service required of every federal official as well as state officeholders under the
supremacy clause in Article VI. The pronouncement is the predominant ethical claim
1Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
2University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jonathan P. West, University of Miami, 1300 Campo Sano Avenue, Room 110B, Coral Gables, FL 33124,
USA.
Email: jwest@miami.edu

---

110
Public Personnel Management 50(1)
accepted by public authorities, as implied by the inherently governmental nature of
elective and appointive office. In general, it is a
promise of a heavy moral weight to abide by certain principles, made orally and publicly
along with certain symbolic gestures, whereby the oath-taker puts his/her integrity on the
line and expresses a willingness to undergo a penalty if he/she breaks his/her word.
(Metz, 2013, p. 23)
The official can be prosecuted, impeached, recalled, or otherwise expelled from office
for violating his or her oath. A potential sanction, then, may not be only legal or politi-
cal in character, but also moral.1
The declaration is a deed that emphasizes that “public service requires a moral com-
mitment of a special kind,” one that guides actions and confirms obligations (Rutgers,
2013, p. 430). The objective is to restrain the exercise of power by appealing to ethical-
ity and the responsibility to perform the duties of office. The oath-taker, in a defining
act of ethical maturity, establishes a binding covenant with the citizenry by committing
to decide what the oath obliges them to do (Horowitz, 2009; Keskel, 2002). As such,
officeholders play a quintessential role in helping to uphold democratic values.
Indeed, calls for ethics reforms in the last decade have included questions about
how or whether oaths are honored, most notably at the federal level. Those concerns,
inter alia, include several issues prior to the current administration as well as more
recent incidents. Regarding the former events, Congressman Keith Ellison chose to be
sworn in using the Quran rather the Bible in 2006, there was a perceived need to retake
the presidential oath in 2009, and a 2013 controversy arose over the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) director-designate’s use of the Constitution (instead of the Bible) when
reciting the oath.2
Concerning the latter events, there have been many allegations, including the fol-
lowing: (a) attempts to politicize military and civilian service, the judiciary, the cen-
sus, and scientific research; (b) violations of the Constitution’s clauses on emoluments,
faithful execution of law, and protection against foreign enemies; (c) corruption of
elections; (d) obstructions of justice with respect to Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) and Congressional investigations; (e) abuses of the power of pardon in addition
to the potential use of presidential self-pardon; (f) unprecedented classification and
declassification of documents; (g) derelictions of duty in the disregard of responsible
civic culture, informed discourse, and rule of law as the basis of decisions; (h) appre-
hensions over the obligation of cabinet members under the 25th Amendment; and (i)
the apparent dishonoring of the oath of impartiality taken by U.S. Senators at the
beginning of the recent impeachment trial.3 (see Appendix).
These issues, while controversial in their own right, become much more divisive if
citizens believe that public servants cannot be trusted to be true to their vows. The
Constitution, in fact, was designed to ensure that “the people” could protect the office
from an official who failed to fulfill the covenant. The current study, however, is not
focused on any particular administration and its officeholders. Rather the events noted
simply illustrate a renewed interest in the oath of office, albeit at the national level.

---

Bowman and West
111
Exhibit 1. Governmental Oaths.
Presidential
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of
the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States (Constitution, Article 2, Section 1)a
Federal and State Elected, Appointed Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Officialsb
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitutions of
the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to do the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharged the duties of office on
which I am about to enter. So help me God. (5 U.S.C. & 3331)
aGeorge Washington added “so help me God,” a phrase used by all subsequent presidents.
bBy extension local officeholders.
Many of the same accusations have been made at the state level of officials failing to
faithfully implement the law, politicizing the civil service, obstructing justice, abusing
power, or neglecting duties.4
This exploratory article contributes to the literature by examining a little-studied
topic: oaths in state government. The inquiry is useful because the oath declarations,
as a distinct feature of governmental service, can help preserve the dignity of civic
institutions. Nonetheless, the ceremony is frequently seen as a routine formality with-
out effect. The discussion below consists of background information and a literature
review on the promise, problems, and prospects of these testimonials as well as a
review of their content. The findings and conclusions should be of interest to scholars,
governmental personnel, and students interested in public service ethics and the integ-
rity of democracy.
Background
This section considers the following: (a) oaths as an element in governance, (b) their
attributes and functions, and (c) criticisms of them. Embedded in a larger organiza-
tional infrastructure, these commitments can be seen as an anchor as well as a start-
ing point for ethics in government (Bowman & West, 2020). Exhibit 1 shows, for
comparative purposes, oaths taken by the president in addition to other elected and
appointed officeholders. Typical features include an opening statement (I swear or
affirm), material substance, and a closing that confirms the compact. The traditional
protocol consists of hand raising, hand resting on the Bible, the presence of high
officials, and a suitable institutional environment (Blok, 2013), elements that signify
its solemn quality that transcends contractual or managerial approaches to
sovereignty.
The vow is intended to be a profound declaration that “binds the conscience” and
appeals to a higher power (Rohr, 1989, Ch. 4). Obligating the individual to uphold the
Constitution, not necessarily one’s superiors,5 it distinguishes government service
from that in other organizations. Public administrators, further, are “the only officials

---

112
Public Personnel Management 50(1)
that pay attention to governmental activities all the time,” and therefore have a special
duty to protect and serve the public interest (Goodsell, 2006, p. 630, original empha-
sis). Thus, the Constitution not only establishes the American system of government
but also defines (according to the Preamble) the work of civil servants is “to establish
Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the gen-
eral welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty . . .”
The tradition of making oaths comes from ancient times and was common in
Europe and prerevolutionary America (Rudd, 2009). The significance of formal prom-
ises to the Founders is unmistakable: The president’s oath is specified in the
Constitution. Furthermore, the first act of the new Congress was to...