Well, I suppose sometimes it might be so. But I think that on balance
ordinary legislation is easier to pass than a 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 3:52 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Religious exemptions in ND
>
>
> Would you agree that for political reasons it is sometimes easier to get a
> ballot initiative (even a constitutional one) passed than to get legislation
> with
> the same provisions passed? I think it is likely that the relative ease of
> passing
> legislation vs. passing a ballot measure will differ significantly from state
> to
> state, in particular between states that allow constitutional amendment by
> ballot initiative and those that do not, and between states that tend to be
> dominated by one party or the other and those that are not. And it is probably
> a lot easier to get 4% of the voters in North Dakota to sign on to a ballot
> initiative than it is to get 4% of the voters in California. In short, I
> don't think it
> makes sense to generalize here, and I understand your proposition below to be
> a generalization.
>
> Also, for what it's worth, I imagine it might take a "good deal of money" to
> get
> a particular law through a state legislature; the money flow is just less
> obvious.
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
> [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 4:47 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Religious exemptions in ND
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
