But I suspect the Texas Statutes includes many more than 400 statutes!
Moreover, my sense is that many states that provide for initiative
constitutional amendments also provide for initiative statutes, which are
easier to put on the ballot than the amendments; that's certainly true in
California. And if a legislature thinks a court decision interpreting a RFRA
statute is wrong, it can correct it by just enacting a statute. If it thinks a
court decision interpreting a state constitutional amendment is wrong, it needs
to put a proposed amendment on the ballot, which (I believe) generally requires
a greater majority of the vote in the legislature coupled with (in all states
but Delaware) a vote of the people. And while constitutional amendments can be
put on the ballot by initiative in many states (about half, if I recall
correctly), that usually takes a good deal of money, something that often might
not be available.
So it seems to me that it is indeed generally a good deal easier to
change a court decision handed down under a state statute than one handed down
under a state constitutional amendment.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Rassbach
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 1:24 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Religious exemptions in ND
>
>
>
> Should we really assume that it is harder to get something through a
> legislature than to get a ballot measure passed? I can't speak to how easy it
> is
> to get a ballot measure together in North Dakota, but in several states and on
> some issues it is arguably easier to change the constitution than to get a
> bill
> through the legislature. The Texas Constitution has over 400 amendments, I
> believe.
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund [l...@wayne.edu]
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 11:03 AM
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> Subject: RE: Religious exemptions in ND
>
> That is true.
>
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:49 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Religious exemptions in ND
>
> Chris Lund writes:
>
> It's also important to keep in mind that the protection of state RFRAs can
> always be legislatively narrowed-and that has happened. Concerned with a
> pending suit by a Muslim to claim a drivers' license without having to take
> off
> her headscarf, Florida statutorily (and retroactively) removed such claims
> from the protection of Florida's RFRA. Judging by Florida's reaction to it,
> that
> apparently is the most threatening state RFRA claim that has ever been
> brought. I leave it to the listserv to evaluate how bad it really is, but it
> is
> certainly less scary than what Measure 3 opponents feared.
>
>
> I think the opportunity for legislative narrowing is a critical
> argument
> in favor of state RFRAs - but wouldn't that have at least been somewhat
> harder with Measure 3, which would have been a state constitutional
> amendment and not a state statute?
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
> unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-
> bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
> Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people
> can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward
> the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
