Whereas, the Court explained that a pattern of Galloway “[a]bsent prayers that over time denigrate, proselytize, or betray an impermissible government purpose, a challenge based solely on the content of a prayer will not likely establish a constitutional and violation”; Whereas, the General Assembly passed Act 241 of 2008 before the United States Supreme Court issued and now wishes to Galloway amend the act to incorporate and Galloway’s holding; Whereas, this act signifies the General that Assembly’s belief deliberate public bodies in this State may adopt policies that will permit public invocations in a constitutionally permissible fashion. This act does not signify the General in the limits Assembly’s belief of constitutional law, nor preempt the deliberative public body from exercising a constitutional right to permit public invocations pursuant to a policy other than that set forth in this act. Now, therefore, Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina: SECTION 1. This act may be cited as the “South Carolina Public Prayer and Invocation Act”. SECTION 2. Section 6-1-160 of the 1976 Code is amended to read: (A) For purposes of this section: “Section 61160. (1) means an a prayer or invocation ‘Public invocation’ delivered in a method provided pursuant to subsection (B) to open the public meeting of a deliberative public body. In order to comply with applicable constitutional law, a public invocation must not: (i) be exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other faith or belief; or (ii) coerce participation by observers of the invocation. (2) public means includes, but is not ‘Deliberative body’ limited to, a state board or commission,; the governing body of a county or municipal government,; a school district, board; a branch or division of a county or municipal government, or; and a special purpose or public service district. (B) A deliberative public body, by ordinance, resolution, or written policy statement, may adopt a policy to permit a public
Whereas, the Galloway Court explained that “[a]bsent a pattern of prayers that over time denigrate, proselytize, or betray an impermissible government purpose, a challenge based solely on the content of a prayer will not likely establish a constitutional violation”; and Whereas, the General Assembly passed Act 241 of 2008 before the United States Supreme Court issued Galloway and now wishes to amend the act to incorporate Galloway’s holding; and Whereas, this act signifies the General Assembly’s belief that deliberate public bodies in this State may adopt policies that will permit public invocations in a constitutionally permissible fashion. This act does not signify the General Assembly’s belief in the limits of constitutional law, nor preempt the deliberative public body from exercising a constitutional right to permit public invocations pursuant to a policy other than that set forth in this act. Now, therefore, Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina: SECTION 1. This act may be cited as the “South Carolina Public Prayer and Invocation Act”. SECTION 2. Section 6-1-160 of the 1976 Code is amended to read: “Section 61160. (A) For purposes of this section: (1) ‘Public invocation’ means an a prayer or invocation delivered in a method provided pursuant to subsection (B) to open the public meeting of a deliberative public body. In order to comply with applicable constitutional law, a public invocation must not: (i) be exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other faith or belief; or (ii) coerce participation by observers of the invocation. (2) ‘Deliberative public body’ means includes, but is not limited to, a state board or commission,; the governing body of a county or municipal government,; a school district, board; a branch or division of a county or municipal government, or; and a special purpose or public service district. (B) A deliberative public body, by ordinance, resolution, or written policy statement, may adopt a policy to permit a public
233_20160524.docx