Efforts to strip courts of jurisdiction over case types, such as taxation and school funding, are nothing new. See, for example, Kansas’ SCR 1613 which would prohibit the judicial branch from directing the legislative branch make any appropriation of money or to redirect the expenditure of funds.
2010 however is perhaps the first time a state legislature has tried to stop the use of karma by the courts (although it is not clear any courts are presently using it). Arizona’s HB 2379 and SB 1026 prohibits courts from implementing, referring or incorporating or using “a tenet of any body of religious sectarian law” and specifically includes sharia law, canon law, halacha, and karma. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law are declared void and such usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Moreover, the bills are not just targetting Arizona’s state courts; the same legislation declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction and requires any court that construes the statutes must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary.
A similar bill in Oklahoma, HJR 1056, would amend that state’s constitution to prohibit the courts from “look[ing] to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider Sharia Law…” That bill was approved by the House Rules Committee on February 4.
Washington State’s proposed public financing system for their Supreme Court elections advances out of its first House Committee, over a year after introduction. HB 1738 of 2009 had its first hearing in March 2009 and lay in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs until February 2010 when it finally passed and sent on to House Ways & Means. Its Senate counterpart, SB 5912, had a similar resuscitation, finally making it out of its Committee on Government Operations & Elections February 4. According to the Spokesman-Review’s blog, the state’s Lieutenant Governor has ruled, as President of the Senate, the additional $3 charge for filing fees is a tax. Under Washington law, taxes need a two-thirds majority of both chambers, while fees require a simple majority.
New Mexico – 2/18
Maryland HB 417 (Constitutional Amendment) Requires judges of the Orphans’ Courts in the city of Baltimore only be attorneys.
Maryland SB 398 Provides that the date for trial of a criminal matter in the circuit court shall be set by the county administrative judge or a designee of the judge. Authorizes a county administrative judge to delegate to any judge, committee of judges, or officer or employee of the Judicial Branch of State government any of the administrative responsibilities, duties, and functions of the county administrative judge.
New Hampshire HB 1343 Declares, in part, that any “Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America.” Specifies acts which would cause “nullification” and that in the event such an act takes place, “all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually.”
Readers may recall a post several weeks ago that looked at the possibility that Virginia would lose its Judicial Council. According to the Virginia Lawyer’s blog, the bill to do just that advanced out of subcommittee earlier this week and is now on its way to the full House Courts of Justice committee.
The third New Hampshire bill of address (HA 3) this year focuses on Marital Master Philip Cross. While details are not provided as to specific case number or names in the bill of address, the charges appear to duplicate most of those found in the bill of address Judge Lucinda Sadler but do not involve the “Amanda” case for which Sadler and Marital Master Michael Garner face the prospect of being removed from their respective offices.
It remains to be seen among all three of these bills of address if a committee will be convened to examine the matter. According to the bill status reports from the NH legislature’s website, all three must be voted out of committee and onto the floor by February 18.
Yesterday’s post on the effort to legislatively remove form office a New Hampshire marital master was only half the story. To recap, marital master Michael garner recommend a girl be removed at the father’s request from his ex-wife’s homeschooling practices for the girl and put into public school. It was Judge Lucinda Sadler that signed off on that recommendation. For her role in the homeschooling order, Judge Sadler is the target of HA 2 of 2010 seeking her removal via a bill of address to the Governor. Sadler is also cited for her role in signing off on the orders of another marital master in a many as 6 child support and custody cases in addition to the one previously noted.
Three separate efforts to remove New Hampshire judges and judicial officers via bills of address are currently pending in that state. A bill of address requires only a simple majority of both the House and Senate and need not specify any “bribery, corruption, malpractice or maladministration, in office” as in the case of an impeachment. “The governor with consent of the council may remove any commissioned officer for reasonable cause upon the address of both houses of the legislature,..”
The first such effort (HA 1) is against marital master Michael Garner. Garner, according to the bill of address, “recommended to the presiding justice an order removing a child from an educational setting on the basis of religious prejudice.” The case surrounds a divorce case and a child, identified only as “Amanda,” who was being home schooled by her mother, while her father wanted the child placed in public school. According to media reports, Garner evaluated the home schooling situation. On July 13, 2009, he issued his recommendation, stating “The Court is extremely reluctant to impose on parents a decision about a child’s education” but ultimately deciding, based on the testimony of the parents and a Guardian Ad Litem, that it was in “Amanda’s best interests to attend public school.” The story made national headlines and was, as of November 2009, on appeal to that state’s Supreme Court.