Thanks, Howard. Arguably, context might be relevant in some circumstances. If a commission's responsibilities directly related to the treatment of religious organizations, that might justify the reservation of a seat for a member of a religious organization. If most of the buildings designated as historic landmarks by an historic landmark commission were houses of worship, for example, arguably that might justify reserving a seat on the commission for the member of a house of worship. But there might be more neutral ways to serve that goal -- such as reserving a seat for an owner of one of the kinds of property that are most often designated as landmarks.
I'm not sure of the purpose for reserving one seat on a police commission for a member of a religious group, but I doubt very much that it has anything to do with concerns about police relations with a particular faith. Indeed, the reservation only reserves the seat for a member of a religious organization. The city has the discretion to choose which religious organization's nominee is selected. That's one of the problems I see with the appointment reservation procedure. I think there may be a distinction between purely advisory commissions and those that exercise government power and between commissions that provide no compensation to their members and those that do. I'm less sure that the number of commissioners is relevant. Would there be a different constitutional analysis if two seats were reserved for members of religious organizations out of ten rather than one seat? (Although, of course, if all the seats were reserved for members of a religious organization, it would be an easy case.) I'm also not sure why the procedure for selecting other commissioners would be relevant? Alan ________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> on behalf of Friedman, Howard M. <howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 4:52 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: reserved seat for member of religious organization on police comission It seems to me that much depends on context. Where a community policing strategy makes it important for the police department to have ongoing relationships with particular religious groups (e.g. to overcome resistance to reporting co-religionists' actions to authorities), then I do not think there is a serious constitutional problem. A reasonable person would not see this as an endorsement of the religious group's beliefs. On the other hand, where the reservation of a seat is intended to assure that the dominant religious group in the community will be able to perpetuate its influence, that seems to me to be a different story. Also, what authority does the police commission have in this community? How many members does it have? How are the others chosen, and why? These all seem relevant. This triggers in my head the famous lines from Robert Cover's Nomos and Narrative-- "There is a difference between sleeping late on Sunday and refusing the sacraments, between having a snack and desecrating the fast of Yom Kippur, between banking a check and refusing to pay your income tax." Howard Friedman ________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Alan E Brownstein [aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu] Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 4:01 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: reserved seat for member of religious organization on police comission Anyone have any thoughts on the constitutionality of a rule that reserves one seat on a multi-member police commission for a member of a local religious organization (any religious organization would be acceptable) who is nominated by the organization. Some compensation is involved. Alan
_______________________________________________ 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.
