Download This Bill in Microsoft Word format
Current Status Bill Number:View additional legislative information at the LPITS web site.3158 Ratification Number:79 Act Number:38 Type of Legislation:General Bill GB Introducing Body:House Introduced Date:19990112 Primary Sponsor:Campsen All Sponsors:Campsen, Knotts, R. Smith, Loftis, Barfield, Tripp, Altman, Wilder, Easterday, Edge, Leach, Harrison, Robinson, J. Brown, Miller, Hamilton, Barrett, Rice, Cato, J. Smith, Delleney, Gilham, Lourie, Rhoad, Bailey, Sharpe, Kirsh, Bales, Jennings, M. Hines, Neilson, Kennedy, Ott, Cobb-Hunter, Hayes, Gourdine, J. Hines, Inabinett, Breeland, Lee, Moody-Lawrence, F. Smith, McMahand, Mack, Maddox, Riser, Simrill, Sandifer Drafted Document Number:l:\council\bills\kgh\15080som99.doc Date Bill Passed both Bodies:19990504 Date of Last Amendment:19990429 Governor's Action:S Date of Governor's Action:19990601 Subject:Religious Freedom Act, Acts Cited By Popular Name, Courts, State Government, Political Subdivisions, Prisons History Body Date Action Description Com Leg Involved ______ ________ ______________________________________ _______ ____________ ------ 19990618 Act No. A38 ------ 19990601 Signed by Governor ------ 19990526 Ratified R79 Senate 19990504 Concurred in House amendment, enrolled for ratification House 19990429 Senate amendments amended, returned to Senate Senate 19990427 Read third time, returned to House with amendment Senate 19990422 Read second time Senate 19990422 Committee amendment adopted Senate 19990421 Committee report: Favorable with 11 SJ amendment Senate 19990330 Introduced, read first time, 11 SJ referred to Committee House 19990325 Read third time, sent to Senate House 19990324 Amended, read second time House 19990310 Request for debate by Representative Scott F. Smith Howard Pinckney Lloyd J.H. Neal Easterday Moody- Lawrence McMahand Lee McGee Campsen J. Hines Davenport Leach R. Smith Clyburn Mack Loftis Hamilton House 19990310 Request for debate by Representative Stuart House 19990309 Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 19990310 House 19990309 Co-Sponsor added (Rule 5.2) by Rep. Sandifer House 19990302 Debate adjourned until Tuesday, 19990309 House 19990302 Co-Sponsor added (Rule 5.2) by Rep. Simrill House 19990224 Committee report: Favorable 25 HJ House 19990211 Co-Sponsor added (Rule 5.2) by Rep. Riser House 19990203 Co-Sponsor added (Rule 5.2) by Rep. Maddox House 19990202 Co-Sponsor added (Rule 5.2) by Rep. Hayes Gourdine J. Hines Inabinett Breeland Lee Moody- Lawrence F. Smith McMahand Mack House 19990128 Co-Sponsor added (Rule 5.2) by Rep. Kirsh Bales Jennings M. Hines Neilson Kennedy Ott Cobb-Hunter House 19990126 Co-Sponsor added (Rule 5.2) by Rep. Lourie Rhoad Bailey Sharpe House 19990121 Co-Sponsor added (Rule 5.2) by Rep. Gilham Delleney J. Smith Cato Rice Barrett Hamilton Miller House 19990119 Co-Sponsor added (Rule 5.2) by Rep. J. Brown House 19990112 Introduced, read first time, 25 HJ referred to Committee House 19990106 Prefiled, referred to Committee 25 HJ Versions of This Bill Revised on February 24, 1999 - Word format Revised on March 24, 1999 - Word format Revised on April 21, 1999 - Word format Revised on April 22, 1999 - Word format Revised on April 29, 1999 - Word format
(A38, R79, H3158)
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 1, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT, BY ADDING CHAPTER 32 SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT" UNDER WHICH THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE IS PROHIBITED FROM BURDENING A PERSON'S CONSTITUTIONAL EXERCISE OF RELIGION EXCEPT UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND UNDER WHICH A PERSON WHOSE EXERCISE OF RELIGION HAS BEEN BURDENED IN VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER MAY ASSERT THAT VIOLATION AS A CLAIM OR DEFENSE IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AND OBTAIN APPROPRIATE RELIEF AGAINST THE STATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 27, TITLE 24, RELATING TO INMATE LITIGATION, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT TO THE REGULATIONS OF STATE OR LOCAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES.
Whereas, the General Assembly finds that:
(1) The free exercise of religion is an inherent, fundamental, and inalienable right secured by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of this State.
(2) Laws "neutral" toward religion, as well as laws intended to interfere with the exercise of religion, may burden the exercise of religion.
(3) The State or any political subdivision of the State should not substantially burden the exercise of religion without compelling justification.
(4) In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that government justify burdens on the exercise of religion imposed by laws neutral toward religion.
(5) In City of Boerne v. P. F. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Supreme Court held that an act passed by Congress to address the matter of burdens placed on the exercise of religion infringed on the legislative powers reserved to the states under the Constitution of the United States.
(6) The compelling interest test, as set forth in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing governmental interests. Now, therefore,
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
Religious Freedom Act
SECTION 1. Title 1 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
Section 1-32-10. This chapter may be cited as the 'South Carolina Religious Freedom Act'.
Section 1-32-20. In this chapter:
(1) 'Demonstrates' means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
(2) 'Exercise of religion' means the exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 2 of the State Constitution.
(3) 'Person' includes, but is not limited to, an individual, corporation, firm, partnership, association, or organization.
(4) 'State' means the State of South Carolina and any political subdivision of the State and includes a branch, department, agency, board, commission, instrumentality, entity, or officer, employee, official of the State or a political subdivision of the State, or any other person acting under color of law.
Section 1-32-30. The purposes of this chapter are to:
(1) restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), and to guarantee that a test of compelling state interest will be imposed on all state and local laws and ordinances in all cases in which the free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) provide a claim or defense to persons whose exercise of religion is substantially burdened by the State.
Section 1-32-40. The State may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the State demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is:
(1) in furtherance of a compelling state interest; and
(2) the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling state interest.
Section 1-32-45. This chapter does not affect the application of and must be applied in conjunction with Chapter 27 of Title 24, concerning inmate litigation.
Section 1-32-50. If a person's exercise of religion has been burdened in violation of this chapter, the person may assert the violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding. If the person prevails in such a proceeding, the court shall award attorney's fees and costs.
Section 1-32-60. (A) This chapter applies to all state and local laws and ordinances and the implementation of those laws and ordinances, whether statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the effective date of this act.
(B) Nothing in this chapter may be construed to authorize the State to burden any religious belief.
(C) Nothing in this chapter may be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address:
(1) that portion of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion;
(2) that portion of Article I, Section 2 of the State Constitution prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion.
(D) Granting state funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the constitutional provisions enumerated in subsection (C)(1) and (2), does not constitute a violation of this chapter.
As used in this subsection, 'granting', with respect to state funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions."
Application of Religious Freedom Act to prison regulations
SECTION 2. Chapter 27 of Title 24 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 455 of 1996, is amended by adding:
Section 24-27-500. For the purposes of Chapter 32 of Title 1:
(A) A state or local correctional facility's regulation must be considered 'in furtherance of a compelling state interest' if the facility demonstrates that the religious activity:
(1) sought to be engaged by a prisoner is presumptively dangerous to the health or safety of that prisoner; or
(2) poses a direct threat to the health, safety, or security of other prisoners, correctional staff, or the public.
(B) A state or local correctional facility regulation may not be considered the 'least restrictive means' of furthering a compelling state interest if a reasonable accommodation can be made to protect the safety or security of prisoners, correctional staff, or the public."
Time effective
SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Ratified the 26th day of May, 1999.
Approved the 1st day of June, 1999.
This web page was last updated on Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 9:12 A.M.