Written by Don Byrd
Note: This page is now an archive of the 2015 developments in state RFRA legislation.
For information about current state RFRA legislation around the country, see the BJC’s regularly updated State RFRA Tracker.
(Please update your bookmarks to reflect the permanent URL of the current State RFRA Tracker – BJConline.org/StateRFRATracker)
States that proposed RFRA bills in 2015: AR CO GA HI IN MI ME MT NC NV SD TX UT WV WY
States that proposed RFRA amendments in 2015: FL IN MO NM OK SC
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a federal law enacted in 1993 allowing the federal government to substantially burden a person’s religious exercise only if it furthers a compelling government interest in a narrowly tailored manner. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal RFRA as applied to the states in City of Boerne v. Flores, leaving RFRA to apply only to the federal government. (See the BJC’s RFRA resource page for more background).
In 2015, several state legislatures considered bills modeled in some way on RFRA – so many, in fact, that I put together this 2015 State RFRA Bill Tracker below to help us all keep straight the many proposed state RFRAs and RFRA amendments. For current information about state RFRA bills, see my regularly updated State RFRA Tracker.
2015 State RFRA Developments
Section I monitors states with new RFRA bills filed during 2015. Section II covers states that considered RFRA amendments in 2015.
I. States with RFRA bills filed during 2015:
1. Arkansas – Signed by the Governor into Law (SB975)
Read the Bill: House Bill 1228 | Senate Bill 975 (RFRA “fix”)
Latest Actions:
4/2/2015 – SB 975 signed into law by the Governor
4/2/2015 – SB 975 Passed by the Senate on a 26-0 vote, and by the House on a 76-17 vote, sending bill to the Governor.
4/1/2015 – Governor announces his intention to veto HB 1228.
3/31/2015 – House concurs in all three Senate amendments, sends bill to Governor
3/30/2015 – Bill as amended by Senate recommended to full House by House Judiciary Committee
3/27/2015 – Passed by the Senate on a 24-7 vote as amended by the Judiciary Committee; Sent to the House Judiciary Committee
3/25/2015 – Passed out of the Judiciary Committee on a 5-3 vote, with an amendment that declares federal civil rights laws to be a compelling government interest
3/16/2015 – Amended in committee
3/11/2015 – Amended in committee to, among other things, change the name to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
2/26/2015 – Amended to clarify that the law does not authorize a private action against a non-governmental employer; re-referred to committee
2/25/2015 – Committee fails to Advance bill on 3-3 vote; Withdrawn for Amendment
2/17/2015 – Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee
2/13/2015 – Adopted by the House on a 70-20 vote.
2/11/2015 – House adopts amendment replacing “burdens” with “substantially burdens.”
2/10/2015 – House Judiciary Committee recommends passage with amendment
Current Language: (SB 975) “A government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that a government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is: (1) In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (b)(1) A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government.”
2. Colorado – Postponed indefinitely in State House committee:
Read the Bill: House Bill 15-1171 (State Freedom of Conscience Protection Act)
Latest Actions:
3/9/2015 – Postponed indefinitely in committee (AP reports on the 7-4 vote)
1/29/2015 – Introduced in the House and Referred to the State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee
Current Language: “no state action may burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to a person’s exercise of religion is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
3. Georgia – Legislature Adjourns without a Vote
Read the Bill: Senate Bill 129 | House Bill 218
SB 129
Latest Actions
4/2/2015 – Legislature adjourns without a vote
3/30/2015 – Scheduled committee hearing reportedly canceled
3/26/2015 – Tabled in committee
3/26/2015 – Amended in committee to clarify that anti-discrimination is a compelling government interest
3/11/2015 – Second reading in the House
3/9/2015 – First reading in the House
3/5/2015 – Passed by State Senate on 37-15 vote
[3/3/2015 – The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports the bill was unexpectedly untabled and passed by the Judiciary Committee.]
[2/21/2015 – The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports the bill has been tabled in committee]
2/18/2015 – Referred to the Judiciary Committee
2/17/2015 – Introduced in the Senate
Current Language: “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is: (1) Essential to achieve a compelling governmental interest; and (2) The least restrictive means of achieving that compelling governmental interest.”
HB 218
Latest Actions
4/2/2015 – Legislature adjourns without a vote
2/10/2015 – Second Reading
2/9/2015 – First Reading, referred to House Judiciary Committee
Current Language: “Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if government demonstrates that the application of such burden to a person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
[Note: Another version of the bill, HB 29, generated some controversy for an additional provision which reads: “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to: (1) Impair the fundamental right of every parent to control the care and custody of such parent’s minor children, including but not limited to control over education, discipline, religious and moral instruction, health, medical care, welfare, place of habitation, counseling, and psychological and emotional well-being of such minor children as provided for under the laws of this state and of the United States;” That bill was pre-filed but not read by the House. HB 218 does not contain that language.]
4. Hawaii – In committee in the State House:
Read the bill: HB 1160
Latest Actions:
2/2/2015 – Referred to Judiciary Committee
1/29/2015 – Introduced and passed first reading
Current Language: “State action shall not burden any person’s right to exercise religion; provided that a burden shall be permissible if the burden results from a law or rule of general applicability and the burden to the person’s exercise of religion: (1) Is essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
5. Indiana – Signed by the Governor into Law (SB 101); SB 50 passed by legislature
Read the Bill: Senate Bill 101 | Senate Bill 50 (amending RFRA law)
Latest Actions:
4/2/2015 – The Governor signed SB 50.
4/2/2015 – Senate Bill 50 (adding clarification to enacted SB 101) passes the Indiana House and Senate, sent to Governor.
3/26/2015 – Gov. Mike Pence signed the bill into law.
3/24/2015 – Senate concurred in the House Amendments on a 40-10 vote
3/23/2015 – Passed by the State House on a 63-31 vote.
3/19/2015 – Several proposed amendments in the House failed, including one that would have clarified that civil rights and anti-discrimination qualify as “compelling government interests.”
3/16/2015 – Amended in committee and recommended on a 9-4 vote
3/5/2015 – Referred to the House Judiciary Committee
2/25/2015 – Sent to the House
2/24/2015 – Passed by the State Senate on a 40-10 vote
2/18/2015 – Voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 7-0 vote, headed to the full State Senate.
2/9/2015 – Senate Judiciary Committee holds 5-hour hearing.
Current Language: “A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.”
SB 50 includes this clarification: “This chapter does not: (1) authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service;”
[Notes: 1) The House Judiciary Committee amended SB 101 to clarify that the measure does not create a claim “against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.” 2) another RFRA bill has been filed in Indiana: Senate Bill 568. SB 568 similarly includes “substantially burden” language, but more broadly applies not only to government entities, but also to “action taken by an individual based on state action.” SB 568 was also referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee and reportedly discussed at the February 9 committee hearing, but has not been the subject of a committee vote as of February 19.]
6. Maine – In committee in the State Senate
Read the Bill: SP 485 (LD 1340)
Latest Actions:
5/6/2015 – Committee sends to Legislative Files, (essentially killing the bill)
4/16/2015 – Referred to Judiciary Committee
4/14/2015 – Introduced in Senate
Current Language: “Government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless applying the burden to that person’s exercise of religion in this particular instance: A. Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and B. Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened in violation of this Act may assert the violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding. The person asserting such a claim or defense may obtain appropriate relief, including relief against the government”
7. Michigan – In committee in the State Senate:
Read the Bill: Senate Bill 4
Latest Actions:
4/29/2015 – Committee hearing held
4/21/2015 – Governor Snyder vows to veto if the bill is not accompanied by non-discrimination provisions
1/20/2015 – Introduced in Senate and referred to Judiciary Committee
Current Language: “Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to that person’s exercise of religion in that particular instance is both of the following: (a) In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. (b) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
8. Montana – Failed in State House
Read the Bill: House Bill 615
Latest Actions:
3/27/2015 – Second reading in the House failed on a 50-50 vote
3/27/2015 – Amendment to require businesses to notifiy the public of an intent to discriminate failed on a 56-42 vote
3/26/2015 – Passed out of committee on a 12-9 vote
3/18/2015 – Passed First Reading
3/17/2015 – Introduced in the House and referred to the Judiciary Committee
Current Langauge: “(1) State action may not burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to that person’s exercise of religion: (a) is essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (b) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (2) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened or is likely to be burdened . . . may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state of Montana or one of its political subdivisions is a party to the proceeding.”
9. Nevada – In committee in State Assembly and State Senate, declared dead after opposition from Governor
Read the Bill: Assembly Bill 277 | Senate Bill 272
[AB 277 and SB 272 are matching bills.]
Latest Actions:
4/3/2015 – Legislation in both houses declared “dead” after the Governor announces his opposition and some bill sponsors “back away”
3/13/2015 – SB 272 introduced in the Senate, referred to the Judiciary Committee
3/12/2015 – AB 277 introduced in the Assembly, referred to the Judiciary Committee
Current Language: “A person’s exercise of religion shall not be substantially burdened by state action, whether or not the burden is the result of a rule of general applicability, unless the party who is seeking to apply the burden demonstrates that application of the burden to the person’s exercise of religion in that particular instance is: (a) Essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (b) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
Notes: 1) Nevada’s proposal allows a person to bring a claim or defense ‘whether or not any state or local entity is a party to the proceeding. 2) “Compelling government interest” is defined as a “governmental interest of the highest magnitude that cannot otherwise be achieved without substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion.”
10. North Carolina – In State House
Read the Bill: House Bill 348
Latest Actions:
4/21/2015 – Gov. McCrory reiterates concern about the need for the bill
3/26/2015 – Referred to the House Judiciary Committee
3/24/2015 – Filed in the House
Current Language: (a) “State action shall not burden a person’s right to exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to that person’s exercise of religion in this particular instance: (1) Is essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (b) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened, or is likely to be burdened, in violation of this Act may assert such violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the State or one of its political subdivisions is a party to the proceeding.”
[Notes: 1) HB 348 lacks the “substantial burden” limitation in the federal RFRA; 2) The bill defines “compelling government interest” as “A governmental interest of the highest magnitude that cannot otherwise be achieved without burdening the exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA does not require the government to cross this “highest magnitude” hurdle to be a compelling interest.]
11. South Dakota – Deferred by House Committee
Read the Bill: House Bill 1220
Latest Actions:
2/24/2015 – Deferred by the House State Affairs Committee (Vote: 10-3)
2/4/2015 – Referred to the House State Affairs Committee
2/3/2015 – Introduced and first read in the House
Current Language: “No state action may burden a person’s right to exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to that person’s exercise of religion in a particular instance: (1) Is essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
12. Texas (constitutional amendment) – In committee in the State Senate; In committee in the State House
Read the proposed amendments: SJR 10 | HJR 55 | HJR 125
Latest Actions:
SJR 10:
2/2/2015 – Referred to the Senate Committee on State Affairs after first reading
11/10/2014 – Filed in the Senate
HJR 55:
3/9/2015 – Bill sponsor, Representative Jason Villalba (R-Dallas), announced he would no longer support the bill in its current form after hearing the concerns of the Texas Association of Business.
3/3/2015 – Referred to the House Committee on State Affairs
12/10/2014 – Filed in the House
HJR 125:
3/11/2015 – Filed in the House
Current Language:
SJR 10: “Government may not burden an individual’s or religious organization’s freedom of religion or right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief unless the government proves that the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”
HJR 55: “The state or a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state, including a department, agency, or instrumentality of the state or of a political subdivision of the state, may not burden in any way a person’s free exercise of religion unless the burden is: (1) necessary to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”
HJR 125: “The state or a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state, including a department, agency, or instrumentality of the state or of a political subdivision of the state, may not burden in any way a person’s free exercise of religion unless the burden is: (1) necessary to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”
[Notes: 1) None of the proposals currently provide the “substantially burden” protective language that is present in the federal RFRA law. The Baptist Joint Committee has in the past opposed RFRA proposals that lack that key limitation. 2) Texas currently has a RFRA law on the books (which includes “substantially burden” language. The current proposals would add the modified provision to the Texas Constitution.]
13. Utah – Passed in the House; Legislative Session Ended Without Senate Action
Read the bill: HB 322
Latest Actions:
3/12/2015 – Legislative Session Ends Without Senate Action
3/12/2015 – Introduced in the Senate
3/11/2015 – Passed the House on a 54-21 vote.
3/9/2015 – Replaced with substitute bill (HB 322S03) in the House on a voice vote.
3/4/2015 – Replaced with substitute bill (HB 322S01) and recommended by the committee on a 6-5 vote
3/2/2015 – Referred to House Judiciary Committee
2/12/2015 – Introduced in the House
Current Language: “A person whose lawful and proper exercise of religious liberty is substantially burdened in violation of this chapter may obtain appropriate relief in a judicial proceeding, including recovery of reasonable attorney fees and costs.”
Note: After amendments in the House, the current substitute bill lacks the RFRA language that was included in the bill as introduced.
14. West Virginia – Legislative Session ended without action
Read the Bills: House Bill 2508 | Senate Bill 487 | House Bill 2830
Latest Actions:
HB 2508
3/14/2015 – Legislative session ended without action
1/29/2015 – Introduced in the House and referred to the House Judiciary Committee
SB 487
3/14/2015 – Legislative session ended without action
2/13/2015 – Introduced in the Senate and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee
HB 2830
3/14/2015 – Legislative session ended without action
2/20/2015 – Introduced in the House and referred to the House Judiciary Committee
Current Language
SB 487: “No state action should burden or is intended to burden sincere religious exercise unless both the burden is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest and no less restrictive means exist to achieve that compelling governmental interest.”
HB 2508: “State action may not burden a person’s right to exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to that person’s exercise of religion in this particular instance: (1) Is essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
[Note: HB 2830 is currently identical to SB 487.]
15. Wyoming – Passed by the State House; Senate did not consider for introduction:
Read the Bill: House Bill 83
Latest Actions:
3/3/2015 – Senate failed to consider for introduction
2/3/2015 – Received in the Senate
2/2-2015 – Passed by the House on a 36-23 vote.
1/27/2015 – Recommended by the House Judiciary Committee on a 5-4 vote.
Current Language: “Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion or moral conscience only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to that person’s exercise of religion or moral conscience in that particular instance is: (i) Essential to further a compelling government interest; and (ii) The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
II. States with Bills Filed in 2015 to Amend RFRA Laws
1. Florida – Introduced in the State House
Read the Bill: HB 401
Summary: This bill attempts to provide immunity for health care providers, closely-held corporations, and private adoption agencies from liability for refusing to provide services that are contrary to the religious beliefs, moral convictions or policies of the facility/ownership. add specific protections for health care facilities. It also defines closely-held corporations as a corporation or organization owned by “five or fewer individuals or members of a single family.”
Latest Actions:
10/30/2015 – Referred to Civil Justice Subcommittee
10/21/2015 – Introduced in the State House
Amendment Language:
“A health care facility . . . is not required to administer, recommend, or deliver a medical treatment or procedure that would be contrary to the religious or moral convictions or policies of the facility or health care provider.”
“A person, closely held organization, religious institution, or business owned or operated by a religious institution is not required to produce, create, or deliver a product or service that would be contrary to the religious or moral convictions or policies of the person, organization, institution, or business.”
“A private child-placing agency . . . is not required to perform, assist in, recommend, consent to, or participate in the placement of a child that would be contrary to the religious or moral convictions or policies of the agency.”
2. Indiana – Passed by the State Senate; Passed by the State House
Read the Bill: SB 50
Summary: Indiana enacted a RFRA law in March 2015 (see list of states below). SB 50 would, among other things, clarify that the law does not allow providers to refuse goods, services, housing or employment in a discriminatory manner (including on the basis of sexual orientation). The law would exempt churches, religious organizations and religiously affiliated institutions.
Latest Actions:
4/2/2015 –Passes the Indiana House and Senate, sent to Governor.
Amendment Language: “This chapter does not: (1) authorize a provider to refuse to offer or provide services, facilities, use of public accommodations, goods, employment, or housing to any member or members of the general public on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service;”
Read the Bill: HB 104 (Student Freedom of Association Act) | SB 248
Summary: Missouri has already enacted a RFRA law (see list of states below). HB 104/SB 248, the Student Freedom of Association Act, would among other things explicitly extend RFRA protections to students of public institutions of higher learning.
Latest Actions:
HB 104:
5/5/2015 – Placed on the Informal Calendar
4/14/2015 – Passed out of committee
4/2/2015 – Referred to Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee
3/19/2015 – Passed by the House on a 117-38 vote and reported to the Senate
3/5/2015 – House Select Committee on Education recommends the bill as amended
2/24/2015 – Passed as amended by House Higher Education Committee on a 10-2 vote; referred to Select Committee on Education (see amendment)
2/10/2015 – Public Hearing Completed
1/20/2015 – Referred to House Higher Education Committee
1/8/2015 – Passed Second Reading
1/7/2015 – Passed First Reading
12/3/2014 – Prefiled
Amendment Language: “No public institution of higher learning shall substantially burden a student’s exercise of religion unless the institution can demonstrate that application of the burden to the student is in furtherance of a compelling interest of the public institution of higher learning, actually furthers that interest, and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”
Senate Bill 248:
3/3/2015 – Passed by Senate Education Committee
2/25/2015 – Senate Education Committee conducted hearing
2/11/2015 – Passed Second Reading and referred to Senate Education Committee
1/14/2015 – Passed First Reading
Language: “No public institution of higher learning shall substantially burden a student’s exercise of religion except if it is in furtherance of a compelling interest of the public institution of higher learning, actually furthers that interest, and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”
Read the bill: HB 55
Summary: HB 55 amends both the state RFRA and Human Rights Act. The RFRA changes would replace “government agency” with “person,” meaning the religious freedom protections would be triggered by private as well as governmental restrictions on religious free exercise. It would also specify that requiring a person to provides goods or services when it would conflict with their religious beliefs qualifies as a “discriminatory action” initiating RFRA protections.
Latest Actions:
12/17/2015 – Introduced in the House
Amendment Language: “‘discriminatory action’ means an act by a person or a government agency in response to a person’s free exercise of religion to . . . require a person to perform an act or provide or receive a product, good or service where that act conflicts with that person’s sincerely held religious belief”
5. Oklahoma — SB 440 | HB 1371 | SB 723
SB 440: Read the bill
Summary: SB 440 would repeal the state’s current RFRA law and replace it with language prohibiting the government from requiring any individual or religious entity to provide commercial or social services, employment or benefits, or to solemnize or recognize marriages if such action would be contrary to their religious beliefs regarding sexual orientation.
Latest Actions:
2/3/2015 – Passed Second Reading and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee
2/2/2015 – Passed First Reading in the Senate
1/21/2015 – Introduced in the Senate
Amendment Language: “no individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex, gender or sexual orientation: 1. Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges; 2. Provide counseling, adoption, foster care, and other social services; 3. Provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; 4. Solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; or 5. Treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid.”
HB 1371: Read the Bill
Summary:
This amendment would add a definition of “person” to the state RFRA law to include any corporate entity.
Latest Actions
2/25/2015 – Approved as amended by the House Judiciary and Civil Procedure Committee on a 7-3 vote.
2/25/2015 – Amended in committee
2/3/2015 – Referred to the House Judiciary and Civil Procedure Committee
2/2/2015 – Introduced in the House
Amendment Language: “‘Person’ means a natural or juridical person or any unincorporated nonprofit or for-profit association;”
SB 723: Read the Bill
Summary: This amendment would change the definition of “substantially burden” and also clarify that a person can assert a state RFRA claim even if the state is not a party, and even if the substantial burden has not yet occurred but is likely to occur.
Latest Actions
2/3/2015 – Passed second reading and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee
2/2/2015 – Passed first reading
1/22/2015 – Introduced in the Senate
Amendment Language:” ‘Substantially burden’ means to directly or indirectly constrain, inhibit, curtail or deny the exercise of religion by any person or compel any action contrary to a person’s exercise of religion and includes, but is not limited to, withholding benefits, assessing criminal, civil or administrative penalties or excluding from governmental programs or access to governmental facilities.”
[Note: the current Oklahoma RFRA law defines “substantially burden” as to “inhibit or curtail religiously motivated practice.”]
Read the Bill: Senate Bill 127
Summary: S. Bill 127 would amend the state’s RFRA to specify that free exercise may not be restricted during local government proceedings.
Latest Actions:
1/13/2015 – Introduced and passed first reading; referred to Senate Judiciary Committee.
Amendment Language: “No locality, municipality, county, or other instrumentality of this State may restrict the free exercise of speech or religion during the course of any of its proceedings in violation of the First Amendment of the United States or Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of South Carolina.”
