05/17/2013
The Assembly Judiciary Committee is set to hear bill SB 192, the Nevada Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (https://nelis.leg.state.nv.us/77th2013/App #/77th2013/Bill/Overview/SB192), tomorrow (Friday) morning at 8:00am in Carson City. If you are interested in testifying against the bill, it is being videoconferenced live to Rom 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 E. Washington Ave., Las Vegas, NV.
Tomorrow's Assembly Agenda:
http://leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Agendas/Assembly/JUD/Final/1132.pdf
Or you can simply take this quick online poll to express your opinion right now:
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Opinions/77th2013/A/
You can also write all the assembly members of the committee with your views on the bill:
Chair: Jason Frierson (D)
[email protected]
V/Chair: James Ohrenschall (D)
[email protected]
Member: Richard Carrillo (D)
[email protected]
Member: Lesley E. Cohen (D)
[email protected]
Member: Olivia Diaz (D)
[email protected]
Member: Marilyn Dondero Loop (D)
[email protected]
Member: Andrew Martin (D)
[email protected]
Member: Ellen B. Spiegel (D)
[email protected]
Member: Tyrone Thompson (D)
[email protected]
Member: Wesley Duncan (R)
[email protected]
Member: Michele Fiore (R)
[email protected]
Member: Ira Hansen (R)
[email protected]
Member: Jim Wheeler (R)
[email protected]
Here is what one local NV attorney has said:
"I write in opposition to the Nevada Preservation of Religious Freedom Act - SB 192, which unnecessarily adds a private right of action to persons who believe that their exercise of religion is being burdened by a governmental entity. Contrary to its stated purpose, SB 192 only further burdens the already scarce judicial resources of the State by duplicating rights already available to individuals under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the First Amendment. In addition, the bill appears to apply a
different level of scrutiny than that already required by the United States Constitution and would likely be held unconstitutional if enacted.
First, SB 192 proposes an unnecessary and duplicative law. Congress already provides individuals with a right of action against governmental entities and state officials through Section 1983 litigation for those who believe their right to religious expression is being impinged. The Federal Courts, and even our State District Courts, are well equipped to handle First Amendment claims without the
need of opening the flood gates to additional litigation as
contemplated by this bill. Further, a quick search of Nevada case law reveals only a handful of cases which invoke Article 1, section 4, of the Nevada Constitution. The bill appears to be nothing more than a remedy in search of a problem.
Second, as a fellow attorney, you are aware that the First Amendment requires every law passed by a governmental entity which burdens the exercise of religion to meet strict scrutiny. Although the Supreme Court's ruling in Sherbert v. Verner, 974 U.S. 398 (1963) permits courts to utilize the analysis proposed in the bill, the Court has limited such analysis to unemployment cases only and not to all cases
in which an individual claims a law burdens her exercise of religion despite its general applicability.
SB 192, in essence, creates a broad exception, based on a lower standard of scrutiny, to generally applicable laws and would be used as a defense to the commission of crimes in the guise of, or in genuine belief of, a person's claimed religion. Congress passed a similar law in 1993 in response to a Supreme Court opinion upholding the denial of unemployment benefits to a member of the Native American
Church who tested positive for pe**te in violation of state law. The Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 as an impermissible exercise of Congress' powers. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). Thus, the proposed law has constitutional flaws.
Third, and finally, SB 192 would creates a class of individuals (those believing in religion) a private right of action, The bill does not provide non-religious individuals the same right to contest laws that create impermissible State and Church entanglement. It leaves secular individuals to resort to Section 1983 litigation to correct establishment and entanglement claims. The law is plainly a bad law that should not be enacted. Again, I urge you to oppose the bill and to vote against it at every opportunity."
