> I don’t think this is true everywhere in the US.
It’s not clear that the religious test clause per se does, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendments religion clauses (the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses) include the same protection and equivalent protections to those in the First Amendment are applied against the states by the 14th Amendment. See, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), cited in your own article. So, yes, the Constitutionally-protected right exists eveywhere in the US.
That article just notes the laws are on the books, despite being Constitutionally unenforceable. (Maryland's was the one specifically struck down in Torcaso.)
Completely irrelevant. Lack of a legal religion test does not mean that people can't choose candidates or make policy on the basis of religion. This is just like how protection from political discrimination doesn't prevent people from voting on candidates based on their party affiliation. It just means that states can't have a no democrat/republican criteria for office.
It’s not clear that the religious test clause per se does, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendments religion clauses (the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses) include the same protection and equivalent protections to those in the First Amendment are applied against the states by the 14th Amendment. See, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), cited in your own article. So, yes, the Constitutionally-protected right exists eveywhere in the US.
That article just notes the laws are on the books, despite being Constitutionally unenforceable. (Maryland's was the one specifically struck down in Torcaso.)