If an unlawful law is kept on the state books and used occasionally - although ineffectually, the state is signalling to its citizens that although it's been overruled, it still believes its law is legitimate.
The law wasn't used, and the anti-atheist laws have not been used in recent memory. Sure, there is some anti-atheist sabre rattling, but that is not unconstitutional.
In fact, the public was probably given an important civics lesson that the anti-atheists probably didn't want taught. The public learned that these laws can not be enacted without violating a person's constitutional rights.
But it does seem that in at least one case, the law was attempted to be used.
It wasn't even attempted. Attempting to use the law would require them to submit preliminary papers to the courts to have the atheist removed from office. No papers were even filed. There was no attempt to use the law.