If you scan the right sources, the headlines have been full of such stories lately:

* The Kentucky legislature “overwhelmingly” overrode the governor’s veto of HB 279, the Kentucky religious freedom restoration act;

* Indiana’s Supreme Court unanimously upheld the state’s school-choice program, which provides state-funded scholarships that families can use to send their children to religious as well as secular private schools;

* On March 26, Oklahoma’s Attorney General and twelve other attorneys general wrote to the federal Dept. of Health and Human Services arguing for a broad exemption from the contraceptives mandate, claiming that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires the federal government to “provide a meaningful exception” to the mandate for religious organizations and for business owners with a conscientious objection to the mandate.

* Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has signed a bill that protects the freedom of religious and political student organizations on public university campuses to require their leaders to be committed to the respective organizations’ creeds.

* Both the Kansas House and Senate have now overwhelmingly approved the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.

And on the negative side:

* A Washington state bill proposes to require all insurance plans to cover elective abortions, just as they are now required to cover maternity care (it does contains a religious exemption-but of uncertain value).

* S.B. 323 in California, the Youth Equality Act “would remove a state tax-exemption status for Boy Scouts of America and other nonprofit youth groups that exclude members and leaders based on sexual orientation”–although its future, even in deep blue California is uncertain, at least for now.

Why so much religious freedom action at the state level? It is partly due to the US Supreme Court. In its Employment Division v. Smith of 1990, the Supreme Court severely undermined the First Amendment’s protection for the freedom of religious exercise, leaving it up to legislatures to create specific protections for religion when general laws are adopted.

In 1993, President Clinton and an almost unanimous Congress restored the pre-Smith protections for religious exercise by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act–but in 1997, in City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court ruled that RFRA applies only to the federal government, not to states. That decision put the burden on state legislatures if religious exercise is to be protected at the state level.

States can protect religious exercise by adopting their own state versions of RFRA-as a dozen or so states have done, with others on the way (see above). States can also act by adding protective language, e.g., a religious exemption, to specific bills that otherwise would wrongly limit religious exercise by organizations or persons (see examples above).

The other–related–reason for so much religious freedom action at the state level? Notwithstanding the constantly expanding federal government, many areas of law that touch on the religious freedom of persons and organizations are the primary or joint responsibility of state (and local) governments: family law, marriage definition, schooling, adoption and foster care, definition of nonprofit organizations, employment law, licensing of professionals and service organizations, public accommodation rules (nondiscrimination in lodging, doctor’s offices, restaurants, clubs, etc.), and much more. States legislate widely–and if their rules do not take special care to protect religious exercise, multiplying conflicts with religious freedom are the result.

Two initiatives of note:

The American Religious Freedom Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center is promoting the organization of religious freedom caucuses in state legislatures-caucuses that are bi-partisan, multi-faith, multi-ethnic, and dedicated to religious freedom for all. (Thanks to the Project’s Tim Shultz for helping me understand these state policy trends.)

The Congressional Prayer Caucus is promoting state-level prayer caucuses that work to promote religious freedom at the state level, not only for the public expression of religion but also for the exercise of religion in society and not just within the walls of churches.