●  Prop 3 would make it harder, if not impossible, for law enforcement, fire departments, code enforcers and other state and local officials to protect us. For example:

• A mayor could not order houses of worship not to open in an area that’s flooded, has downed power lines or is under a shelter-in-place order due to a hazardous chemical release.
• A police officer could not stop a service to move worshipers to a safer place or cordon off the area to keep worshipers away if a mass shooter was nearby.
• A building inspector could not shut down a house of worship for failing to fix faulty wiring that makes the building unsafe for occupancy.

●  Our nation promises everyone the freedom to believe as they wish, but our laws cannot grant religious exemptions when they put public health and safety at risk. 

● Prop 3 would exempt houses of worship from public health and safety orders, but COVID-19, disasters and crime don’t exempt them. Not only could their members be imperiled, but they may be perceived as contributing to problems should they become super-spreader events or endanger first responders.

● Prop 3 is unnecessary. Its Senate author acknowledged during debate that it confirms rights that are already in the Texas Constitution, and federal and state laws already protect the right of houses of worship to hold religious services.

● A broad coalition of national faith groups from a variety of religious backgrounds released a statement opposing measures like Prop 3, emphasizing that blanket exemptions from emergency orders threaten harm to public health and safety.

● Multi-denominational groups of Texas faith leaders agree that religious freedom does not include a right to harm or endanger others, and their commitment to the health and well-being of their communities takes precedence over returning to their houses of worship.

● The US Supreme Court has made clear that governments can impose limitations on worship that are neutral and generally applicable—meaning that the law doesn't target religious institutions but treats religious and comparable secular activities the same.

What Elected Officials Are Saying

"Whether it’s our police or firefighters, code enforcement or other experts, they should have the ability to deem an area unsafe based on a published set of codes and due to the effects of a disaster or other set of overwhelming circumstances. ... There’s an expectation in the community that we’ve done our duty and if certain facilities are exempt from that, then the users of those facilities do not know whether they’re up to standard or not."

Lee Kleinman, Dallas City Council Member testifying before Texas House State Affairs Committee, 3-25-21

"The First Amendment to the US Constitution has guaranteed religious freedom in this country for 230 years. The language of the proposed amendment . . . would make the protection of those religious rights more difficult. 

For example, the phrase 'a religious organization established to support and serve the propagation of a sincerely held religious belief' leaves open the question of who will determine if a religious belief is 'sincerely held.' Does one organization have more sincere beliefs than another? 

Under the proposed language, fire and police departments along with other emergency responders would not be able to evacuate or lock down a religious service to protect the lives and property of the attendees.

If Texas needs a constitutional amendment to protect the religious rights of its citizens, we need less ambiguous language that will stand the test of time." 

Russell Herron, Mayor, Hilshire Village

What Legal Scholars Are Saying

"The idea behind this amendment is not at all crazy. But it is absolute, and that goes way too far. It would entirely disable the state in the face of potential grave emergencies, like Covid at its peak or even much worse."

Douglas Laycock. Professor of Law Emeritus at University of Texas, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law at University of Virginia Law School and one of the nation's leading authorities on religious liberty. 10-2-21

“If people don't think through the consequences at all, I suspect most church-going people will vote in favor of it. … The new statutory and constitutional language would remove any flexibility for government to close churches even if it did have a compelling interest, even if we faced a pandemic far deadlier than COVID.”

Steven T. Collis, University of Texas law professor and director of its Law & Religion Clinic. Houston Chronicle, 10-18-21.

"Bans on all mass gatherings, including religious ones, are perfectly constitutional in the midst of a pandemic. The Supreme Court once noted that 'The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community...to communicable disease.' That sentiment still holds true today. Our constitutional rights are precious, but none of them are absolute – especially if exercising them endangers others."

Caroline Mala Corbin, Professor of Law and Dean’s Distinguished Scholar at the University of Miami School of Law. “Religious Liberty in a Pandemic: Constitutional Challenges to Mass Gathering Bans.” Canopy Forum, 10-2-20

What Others Are Saying



The editorial boards of the Austin American-Statesman, Fort Worth Star-Telegram Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News recommend voting against Prop 3.

"The (US Supreme) court has never gone so far as saying that no state interests can ever justify limiting religious services in public. Some dangers are just too large, and restrictions sufficiently reasonable, for such a blanket approach to make sense. Many faith leaders agree, and spoke out last spring against the legislation. We understand the desire to gather as a faith community, especially in challenging times — but houses of faith are connected to the global neighborhood of humanity. Proposition 3 allows churches to disregard public health and ties the hands of officials trying to keep people safe. Texans should reject it this fall." Houston Chronicle

"Texans of good conscience should reject Prop 3. ...Of course we cherish religious freedom. But Prop 3 goes too far, exempting houses of worship from ANY public safety measures that may be imposed in a health emergency." Austin American Statesman.

"While we recognize and value the importance of faith in the lives of many people — including members of this Editorial Board — we recommend voting against Proposition 3. Restrictions on religious services at the pandemic’s onset were not restrictions on practicing one’s faith but rather restrictions to protect public health. State and local governments should have that discretion since large church gatherings helped spread COVID-19." San Antonio Express-News

A poll last year found that 79% of U.S. adults said houses of worship should be required to follow the same rules about social distancing and large gatherings as other organizations or businesses in their local area.