Accueil / Genève / Act on the Secularism of the State (LLE)
Acceptée Genève Société, famille et égalité 10 février 2019

Act on the Secularism of the State (LLE)

On 10 February 2019, the Geneva electorate accepted, with 55.1 % yes, the Act on the Secularism of the State (LLE), after a tense campaign. Turnout reached 43.83 %. The law had been adopted by the Grand Council in April…

Oui — 55.1% Non — 44.9%
Participation : 43.83% · Conseil d'État, PLR, PDC, MCG, majorité du Grand Conseil (Oui) — Les Verts, milieux religieux, associations de défense des libertés religieuses (Non)
L'enjeu de l'époque

On 10 February 2019, the Geneva electorate accepted, with 55.1 % yes, the Act on the Secularism of the State (LLE), after a tense campaign. Turnout reached 43.83 %. The law had been adopted by the Grand Council in April 2018, on the government's proposal, before being challenged by referendum.

The text gives effect to article 3 of the 2012 Geneva Constitution, which enshrines the secularism of the state. It notably bans the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols by public agents and by elected members of legislative bodies (Grand Council, municipal councils) when they sit or represent the state, and regulates religious gatherings in public space.

Seven years on, the LLE has had an eventful legal journey: first the cantonal courts, then the Federal Court trimmed several of its most contested provisions.

Methodological note: This fact sheet treats the vote factually and impartially. The verdicts concern only the verification of campaign arguments — not a judgement on the vote itself.
▲ Overall result
Yes: 55.1 %
No: 44.9 %
Turnout: 43.83 %
▼ Vote map
A divisive societal law, accepted by a clear but not overwhelming majority, in a canton with a long secular tradition (separation of church and state in 1907).

Actors and figures

▲ Yes camp
Cantonal government (sponsor of the bill)
FDP, PDC and MCG
Majority of the Grand Council
Advocates of "French-style" secularism
▼ No camp
The Greens and part of the left
Religious circles (including the evangelical network)
Associations defending religious freedoms
Conversely, hardline secularists found the law too timid
Note — the lineage with the 2012 Constitution: The LLE did not appear from nowhere: it stems directly from article 3 of the Geneva Constitution accepted in 2012, which writes state secularism into law. It was also the Constitutional Chamber — created by that same Constitution — that carried out the first review of the law in 2019. Two Geneva votes, seven years apart, one and the same legal chain. (For context: Geneva separated church and state back in 1907.)

Arguments and verdicts — 7 years on

▲ Arguments FOR
A law that clarifies and gives substance to state secularism and eases its relations with religions.
« Give the authorities a clear definition of the principle of secularism. »
— Geneva government, 2018-2019
✓ Confirmed
The law came into force, with an implementing regulation. It now frames relations between the state and religious communities and gave the canton a reference legal framework, praised as far as Québec as a model of secularism "by law".
Source: ge.ch; LLE implementing regulation
Guarantee the religious neutrality of public agents in the exercise of their duties.
~ Partly confirmed
The principle was confirmed by the Federal Court for public agents in contact with the public, but with interpretive nuances. The intended neutrality was partly validated, partly circumscribed by the judges.
Source: ATF 148 I 160, 23.12.2021
▼ Arguments AGAINST
The law is freedom-curtailing and restricts religious freedom beyond what is necessary, at the risk of stigmatising.
« A disproportionate infringement of freedom of conscience and belief. »
— The Greens and religious circles, 2019 campaign
~ Partly confirmed
The warning was partly borne out in court: the Constitutional Chamber (2019) and then the Federal Court (2021) struck down the ban on religious symbols for elected members of legislative bodies as disproportionate. The judges sided with the opponents on this specific point, while confirming the bulk of the law.
Source: ATF 148 I 160; Constitutional Chamber GE 2019
The law is legally fragile and will end up in court.
✓ Confirmed
Prediction confirmed: the LLE was the subject of numerous appeals (a Muslim association, the evangelical network, parties), decided by the Constitutional Chamber in 2019 and then by the Federal Court on 23 December 2021, which reshaped several provisions.
Source: ATF 148 I 160 (2C_1079/2019)

Factual assessment · 2026

2
Confirmed
2
Partial
0
Disproven
0
N/A
The Federal Court trims the law without striking it down
ATF 148 I 160, 23.12.2021
~
The Second Public Law Chamber largely upheld the LLE but maintained the lifting of the ban on religious symbols for elected members of legislative bodies and clarified the interpretation of restrictions on public agents and on religious gatherings in public space.
Source: Federal Court, 2C_1079/2019
A law that came into force and is applied
Geneva, from 2019
Despite the appeals, the LLE remained in force in its structure, with its implementing regulation. It is the concrete implementation of article 3 of the 2012 Constitution.
Source: ge.ch, LLE (RS A 2 75)
A much-discussed Swiss precedent
Assessment 2019-2026
The first cantonal law of its kind, the LLE fuelled national and international debate on "French-style" secularism in Switzerland and serves as a recurring point of comparison.
Source: AfterVote observation; media coverage
Analyse éditoriale
Conclusion

Seven years on, the factual verdict is that of a compromise that held — but at the cost of adjustments. The supporters secured the essentials: a law in force, a clear framework, a canton that embraces secularism "by law". On that ground, their bet was validated.

The opponents, for their part, were not wrong to flag the text's legal fragility. The courts partly sided with them by lifting the ban on religious symbols for elected members of legislative bodies. But the heart of the law — the neutrality of public agents — held firm. Their case of disproportionate infringement was half won, half lost.

One lesson remains: in Geneva, secularism cannot be decreed in one stroke. Voted in 2019, corrected in 2021, it shows how a societal law advances through successive adjustments between lawmaker and judge — each shaving off the corners the other had left too sharp.