In a major setback for religious "special rights" and entitlements, California's Governor vetoes the state's Religious Freedom protection Act. It is a significant defeat for groups working to enact RLPA legislation on Capitol Hill, and throughout the various states.

    In another setback for "special rights" and entitlements for faith-based groups, Gov. Pete Wilson has vetoed the California Religious Freedom Protection Act. Introduced by Assemblyman Joe Baca (D-San Bernardino), the measure was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and held government to a "compelling interest/least burdensome" test in dealing with religious groups. RFRA was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court last hear in the historic BOERNE v. FLORES case, but supporters have promoted over a dozen versions of the act in state capitols across the country. In addition, a "son- of-RFRA" has been introduced on Capitol Hill as the Religious Liberty Protection Act.

    The California bill was considered a crucial bellwether; like RFRA, it was crafted by an interfaith group known as the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, an umbrella organization which includes Protestants, Jews, Roman Catholics, Humanists, Hindus, Moslems, new agers and others. American Atheists took the lead in opposing the California measure: in June, AA State Director Dave Kong testified before a legislative committee, and warned solons that the act was a discriminatory violation of the First Amendment and created a "dual standard" of laws.

    "This has nothing to do with protecting legitimate religious exercise," Mr. Kong warned legislators. "It's all about creating 'special rights' for churches and other faith groups, and discriminating against millions of Atheists and other nonbelievers..."

    Assemblyman Baca's proposal cleared the lower house easily, but encountered minor problems in the Senate when legislators debated how it might affect the state's anti-discrimination laws and the penal system. Senators in committee, though, finally gave the measure a thumbs-up by a healthy 25-3 margin. It then headed to Gov. Pete Wilson's office for his signature.

    Officials on the governor's staff, however, and in the State Department of Corrections expressed concerns that the RFPA would jeopardize security throughout the state's burgeoning penal system. For several days, supporters of the act have bombarded the capitol in Sacramento with letters, calls and faxes urging the governor to sign.

California American Atheists Director DAVE KONG told legislators that the RFPA was discriminatory, and created "special rights" for churches and other religious groups.

    When informed of Wilson's veto yesterday, Assemblyman Baca blustered, "The veto threatens religious freedom in California's communities, workplaces, schools and places of worship." He did not mention jails or prisons, though, which had been the focus of Wilson's concerns. Critics warn that in holding government to the "compelling interest" standard, legislators are inviting a wave of litigation by inmates to obtain special diets, conjugal visits and other perks under the guise of "religious liberty." Department of Corrections officials also expressed concern to the governor that by allowing certain types of religious paraphernalia, security might be compromised. They cited exemptions from grooming policies (allowing inmates to conceal weapons) or possession of materials which could be converted into knives, "shanks" or other lethal devices.

   Wilson, who has positioned himself as a social and fiscal conservative, did not address any of the crucial First Amendment aspects of the Religious Freedom Protection Act, and instead went to considerable lengths to identify himself as a believer. "As much as I treasure the religious freedom that is our nation's heritage," he told reporters, "I cannot in good conscience sign this bill."

What is the "compelling interest/least burdensome" test that RLPA demands? Read an analysis by Dr. Marci Hamilton, constitutional attorney who successfully challenged RFRA in the historic BOERNE v. FLORES case

   He added that should it become law, the bill would result in litigation. "While no one can predict the outcome of these challenges, we can predict that law enforcement will be thwarted, delayed and consumed in litigation."

    Wilson joins Illinois Gov. James Edgar in vetoing state versions of the Religious Liberty Protection Amendment. In other states such as Maryland and New Jersey, RFRA/RLPA legislation has been put on the back burner as legislators distance themselves from potential legal problems they fear could result from the acts. And different organizations, from government to historical preservation groups, are now learning more about the proposed "mini-RFRAs," and are beginning to speak out.

    That's bad news for the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, which is also boosting the federal Religious Liberty Protection Act. With about two weeks remaining in this session of Congress, it is increasingly unlikely that RLPA will emerge from either the House or Senate Judiciary Committees for full floor votes. In the Senate, there is also a growing call for the SJC to hold additional public hearings on the act, and not "rush to judgment" by fast tracking RLPA. Should that occur, and should legislators not take up the Religious Liberty Protection Act until next January, the measure could be in serious trouble.

[text only]