Gavel to Gavel » Other

Idaho may strip Supreme Court Justices of power to authorize arrest warrants by telegraph

Bill Raftery — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:14:27 +0000

With e-ticking, e-filing, and e-everything becoming commonplace it courts, it sometimes takes some time to adjust statutes to the new realities. That appears to be the case in Idaho, where current statute provides for warrants of arrest to served by telegraph:

A justice of the Supreme Court or probate judge may, by an indorsement under his hand upon a warrant of arrest, authorize the service thereof by telegraph, and thereafter a telegraphic copy of such warrant may be sent by telegraph to one or more peace officers, and such copy is as effectual in the hands of any officer, and he must proceed in the same manner under it as though he held an original warrant issued by the magistrate making the indorsement.

Probate courts in the state were eliminated decades ago, making the provision even more anachronistic.

Under SB 1272, the statute would be changed to read as follows:

A warrant of arrest may be sent by telegraph telecommunication process or facsimile process to one (1) or more peace officers and a copy of a warrant sent in such manner is as effectual in the hands of any officer, and he must proceed in the same manner under it as though he held an original warrant.

The bill is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: 33 bills in 20 states to start 2012; review of all efforts since 2010

Bill Raftery — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:00:23 +0000

2012 marks the third year in a row to see major legislative efforts to ban state courts from using sharia or international law. A recap:

2010

Write up of all 2010 efforts here

2010 saw three efforts make their way out of their respective legislatures. The Oklahoma constitutional amendment would never take force, having been struck down by a federal district court, a determination upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in January 2012.

Louisiana HB 785 & SB 460: “Foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.
Oklahoma HJR 1056 (Constitutional Amendment): Prohibits the courts to “look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider Sharia Law or international law.” Requires courts adhere only to the U.S. & Oklahoma Constitutions, federal and state law and regulations, and where necessary the laws and regulations of another state.
Tennessee HB 3768 & SB 3740: Defines “law, legal code, or legal system” means a law, legal code, or legal system used or applied in any jurisdiction outside of Tennessee, including any foreign state, jurisdiction, country or territory of the United States…Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, and subject to provisions of superseding federal treaties, any otherwise enforceable contract which incorporates any substantive or procedural law, legal code or legal system of another state, foreign jurisdiction or foreign country that would violate rights and privileges granted under the United States or Tennessee Constitution is declared to be against public policy of this state and is unenforceable in this state.

2011

Write up of all 2011 efforts here

Despite having far more bills introduced in 2011 than in 2010, there was only one such piece of legislation enacted

Arizona HB 2064 Defines “foreign law” as “any law, rule or legal code or system other than the constitution, laws and ratified treaties of the united states and the territories of the united states, or the constitution and laws of this state….a court, arbitrator, administrative agency or other adjudicative, mediation or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the united states or conflict with the laws of the united states or of this state.”

2012

15 sharia/international law bans were carried over from the 2011 session. Combined with 18 newly introduced bills this puts the issue front and center for the 2012 sessions. Already there has been activity, with the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee giving its approval to a ban.

Full roster of 33 bills introduced in 2012 in 20 states and their statuses after the jump.

Bill	Provisions	Status
Alaska HB 88	Prohibits a court, arbitrator, mediator, administrative agency, or enforcement authority from applying a foreign law if application of the foreign law would violate an individual’s right guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the United States Constitution.	Approved by House State Affairs Committee 3/17/11. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Carried over from 2011 session.
Alabama SB 33 (Constitutional Amendment)	Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Alabama SB 40 (Constitutional Amendment)	Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In Senate Judiciary Committee.
Alabama SB 84 (Constitutional Amendment)	Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Florida HB 1209	Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.”	In House Judiciary Committee, Civil Justice Subcommittee.
Florida SB 1360	Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.”	Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 1/25/12.
Georgia HB 45	Provides “the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In House Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session.
Georgia HB 242	Declares “‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil. Carried over from 2011 session.
Georgia SB 51	Provides that no court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States	In Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session.
Indiana HB 1166	Provides that a court may not apply, enforce, or grant comity, res judicata, claim preclusion, or issue preclusion to a foreign law, ruling, or judgment if doing so would violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement: (1) that provides for the choice of foreign laws in its interpretation; or (2) that provides for the choice of venue or forum; and that would result in a violation of a fundamental liberty, right, or privilege guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana is void and unenforceable. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. Provides that a court may not require or authorize any court to: (1) adjudicate or prohibit a religious organization from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters; or (2) determine or interpret the doctrine of a religious organization.	In House Committee on Judiciary.
Indiana SB 36	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified, unless the contract explicitly states that it will be enforced in accordance with foreign law. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Indiana SB 90	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement between natural persons calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Iowa HB 489	Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including but not limited to international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code, or system against a person in this state is whether the decision rendered violated any right of the person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the Constitution of the United States, or any statute enacted or decision issued under the constitution of the state of Iowa or the United States.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Iowa HB 575	Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.”	In House State Government Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Iowa HJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides the state courts “when exercising judicial power, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the United States Code, federal regulations, established common law, the Iowa Code, the Iowa administrative code, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not use the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including but not limited to cases of first impression.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Kansas HB 2087	Defines “foreign law,” “legal code” or “system” means any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides “Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions.”	Approved by full House 3/30/11. In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session.
Michigan HB 4769	Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In House Committee on Judiciary.
Michigan SB 701	Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In Senate Committee on Government Operations.
Nebraska LB 647	Declares a court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decisions the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Nebraska.	In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Indiana HB 1166	Provides that a court may not apply, enforce, or grant comity, res judicata, claim preclusion, or issue preclusion to a foreign law, ruling, or judgment if doing so would violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement: (1) that provides for the choice of foreign laws in its interpretation; or (2) that provides for the choice of venue or forum; and that would result in a violation of a fundamental liberty, right, or privilege guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana is void and unenforceable. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. Provides that a court may not require or authorize any court to: (1) adjudicate or prohibit a religious organization from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters; or (2) determine or interpret the doctrine of a religious organization.	In House Committee on Judiciary.
Indiana SB 36	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified, unless the contract explicitly states that it will be enforced in accordance with foreign law. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Indiana SB 90	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement between natural persons calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Missouri HB 1512	Provides court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Missouri constitutions, including, but not limited to, due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.	In House (no committee).
Missouri SB 676	Mandates that any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling shall be unenforceable if based on a foreign law that does not grant the parties the same rights as the parties have under the United States and Missouri constitutions.	In Senate (no committee).
New Hampshire HB 1422	Declares that no New Hampshire court shall enforce foreign law or a state law enforcing foreign law if such enforcement violates an individual’s or corporation’s rights under the New Hampshire constitution or the United States Constitution.	In House Committee on Judiciary.
North Carolina HB 640	Declares “it to be the public policy of this State to protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a right of a natural person guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution or the United States Constitution. The public policies expressed in this section shall apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of a constitutional right resulting from the application of the foreign law.”	In House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C. Carried over from 2011 session.
New Jersey AB 919	Provides that a foreign law may only be recognized by a court in New Jersey if it does not violate any right guaranteed by the Constitution of this State or of the United States of America.	In Assembly Judiciary Committee.
New Mexico SJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “The courts provided for in this article, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States constitution, the constitution of New Mexico, statutes of the United States and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, established common law, New Mexico statutes and state regulations adopted pursuant thereto and, if necessary, the law of another state of the United States, provided that the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not consider or apply a rule of comity to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, international law, laws promulgated by foreign governments or national laws of foreign countries if the consideration or application of the foreign precepts or laws would violate the public policy of the state of New Mexico or reduce or impair the rights of any resident of the state of New Mexico existing under New Mexico statutes or common law governing child custody, rights of married persons, property rights, protection from domestic violence or any criminal law. The courts shall not consider or apply Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	In Senate Rules Committee.
Oklahoma HB 1552	Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, rule, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions.	Approved by full House 3/17/11. In Senate Rules Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Pennsylvania HB 2029	Provides a tribunal shall not consider a foreign legal code or system which does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania.	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Carolina HB 3490	Provides “As used in this section, the term “foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Carolina SB 444	Provides “As used in this section, the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories….A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Dakota SB 136	Provides any ruling or decision that makes use of international or foreign law is void and unenforceable if the court bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the constitutions of the United States and South Dakota, including due process of law, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically provided by the constitution of this state. Foreign law, legal code, or system is any foreign law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Specifies the term foreign law does not include any tribal laws of the Native American tribes in the state.	In Senate Judiciary Committee.
Virginia HB 631	Provides that court decisions and contracts and other agreements will be void as violative of the public policy of the Commonwealth where such decisions or contracts are based on foreign law, i.e., law applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States, where the application of such foreign law would violate a person’s rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Virginia.	In House Committee for Courts of Justice.
Virginia HB 825	Prohibits any Virginia court or administrative agency from applying the law of any jurisdiction outside of the United States and its territories unless the application is required by the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any federal or state law.	In House Committee for Courts of Justice.
West Virginia HB 3220	Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code or system against a natural person in this state is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of West Virginia or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those Constitutions.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.

Now Tennessee considers drug testing judges

Bill Raftery — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:01:49 +0000

I noted several weeks ago the press by some elected officials to drug test welfare recipients is leading other legislators to want to drug test elected officials (including judges). Now Tennessee is considering such a proposal but, rather than citing to drug testing welfare recipients, is citing the state’s drug-free workplace laws.

Under Section 1 of HB 2432 as introduced, the speakers of the House and Senate would be required to create a drug-testing regime for members of the General Assembly “consistent with the provisions for a drug free workplace under title 50, chapter 9″ and specifically cites Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-9-106(a)(1), which authorizes private employers to conduct drug tests.

Section 2 of the bill goes on to require the Tennessee Ethics Commission “develop and implement a system for drug testing all persons who are elected to public office”, again citing 50-9-106(a)(1).

Because judges in Tennessee are “elected to public office” (through partisan or non-partisan election at the trial and a merit selection/retention election system at the appellate level) they would appear to be covered under Section 2 as “elected to public office.” Section 3, however, confusingly does not specifically require the Supreme Court administer such a program, but the court is “urged” to do so.

The Tennessee supreme court is urged to develop and implement a system for drug testing all persons who are elected to judicial office. The system should provide for the testing of elected public officials in a manner consistent with the provisions for a drug free workplace under title 50, chapter 9. The expenses of the system may be paid from applicable accounts of the judiciary for official purposes.

Wisconsin legislator seeks to remove supreme court justice by bill of address for failure to recuse in cases

Bill Raftery — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:49:09 +0000

2011 was record setting for the number of attempts made to impeach or otherwise remove state judges and 2012 looks to be starting off on the same footing.

According to this morning’s Wisconsin Law Journal, a state lawmaker is circulating a petition seeking to remove Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman “because he presided over cases involving a law firm that had represented him without charging legal fees.”

A statement released by the representative on her Facebook page states that rather than impeachment (which would require a finding of “corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors”) the removal method will be a bill of address. The state’s constitution is silent as to what the criteria for such a removal, however the statement alleges Gableman violated state law, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Supreme Court rules.

Any justice or judge may be removed from office by address of both houses of the legislature, if two-thirds of all the members elected to each house concur therein, but no removal shall be made by virtue of this section unless the justice or judge complained of is served with a copy of the charges, as the ground of address, and has had an opportunity of being heard. On the question of removal, the ayes and noes shall be entered on the journals.

A bill of address is numerically harder than impeachment: while both require 2/3rds of the Senate, impeachment requires only a simple majority in the House, while a bill of address requires 2/3rds.

This would be the second legislative attempt to remove a judge for failure to recuse in two years. Oklahoma’s HR 1024 of 2011 would have asked the state’s judicial disciplinary commission to remove District Judge Tom Lucas for his refusal to recuse from all criminal cases after a request he do so filed by the county District Attorney.

Jury nullification bills: active in 2011, moving in 2012?

Bill Raftery — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:26:15 +0000

The issue of jury nullification has come back up into the news lately, but it has been peculating in state legislatures for the last several years. New Hampshire nearly passed a law in 2011 and may yet do so in 2012 that would have required judges instruct jurors about the power to nullify.

2012

Iowa HB 542 Establishes the right of the jury to be absolute and not to be limited by the rules of civil or criminal procedure, the juror’s oath, a court order, or a procedure or practice of the court. Permits party to present evidence relating to the merit, intent, constitutionality, or applicability of the law in a case; the motive, moral perspective, or circumstances of the defendant; the degree and direction of guilt or actual harm done in the case; and the punishment or sanction which may be applied to the losing party in the case. Carried over from 2011 session.

Iowa SB 318 Establishes the right of the jury to be absolute and not to be limited by the rules of civil or criminal procedure, the juror’s oath, a court order, or a procedure or practice of the court. Permits party to present evidence relating to the merit, intent, constitutionality, or applicability of the law in a case; the motive, moral perspective, or circumstances of the defendant; the degree and direction of guilt or actual harm done in the case; and the punishment or sanction which may be applied to the losing party in the case. Carried over from 2011 session.

New Hampshire HB 146 AS AMENDED: Provides in all court proceedings the court shall instruct the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy. Provides the court shall permit the defendant or counsel for the defendant to explain this right to the jury. Approved on voice vote by full House 3/15/11. Rejected by Senate Judiciary Committee on tie (2-2) vote 5/26/11. Rejected by full Senate 8-12 on 6/1/11. Re-referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over into 2012 session.

Tennessee HB 1831 Requires, in any criminal jury trial, the trial judge to inform jurors with the following statement, verbatim “In Tennessee and throughout America, jurors possess the responsibility and fundamental right to judge the facts and the law in any court. Jurors are empowered to decide if a law is just, moral, and constitutional. Additionally, jurors are empowered to decide if that law has been violated. A verdict of ‘Guilty’ condemns the defendant, and a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ absolves the defendant of any wrongdoing. The juror’s conscience dictates the exercise of this power.” Carried over into 2012 session.

2011

Iowa HB 542 (see above) Carried over into 2012 session.

Iowa SB 318 (see above) Carried over into 2012 session.

Montana HB 332 Provides parties have the right to argue to the jurors that a law is unconstitutional, is unconstitutional as applied, or should be nullified for any other reason. Provides upon request by a party, the court in any jury trial shall inform the jurors that the jurors may judge both the facts and the law in the case. Provides denial of the instruction is reversible error. Tabled by House Judiciary Committee 18-2 on 2/21/11.

New Hampshire HB 146 (see above) Carried over into 2012 session.

Tennessee HB 1831 (see above) Carried over into 2012 session.

2010

New Hampshire HB 1347 Provides that in all criminal proceedings the court shall instruct the jury of its inherent right to judge the law as well as the facts and to nullify any and all actions they find to be unjust. Provides the court is also mandated to permit the defendant or counsel for the defendant to explain this right of jury nullification to the jury. Rejected by House Judiciary Committee 13-7 on 2/2/10. Rejected by full House 234-113 on 2/17/11.

2009

Alaska HB 140 Provides a defendant has the right to inform the jury of the jury’s power to judge the just application of the law and to vote on the verdict according to conscience. Further provides failure to allow the defendant to inform the jury of the jury’s power is grounds for a mistrial. Died in House Judiciary Committee.

With increased interest in drug testing welfare recipients, several states consider drug testing judges

Bill Raftery — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 19:15:46 +0000

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states in 2011 entertained proposals for drug testing applicants for welfare and food stamps. Arizona, Florida, and Missouri enacted such proposals, and at least one Presidential candidate has entertained the idea.

The last time the issue came up in the mid to late 1990s, several attempts were made to impose the same conditions on not only the legislators enacting such laws, but on judges as well.

In 1997, the same year Louisiana mandated drug testing for certain adult recipients of public assistance (HB 2435), the state enacted a process for random drug testing of all “elected officials” (HB 646). The elected officials plan was struck down in 1998 by the Federal courts when Justice of the Peace Phillip O’Neill and other elected officials challenged the law. (O’Neill v. Louisiana., E.D. La. 1998, 61 F.Supp.2d 485, affirmed 197 F.3d 1169, cert. denied 120 S.Ct. 2740, 530 U.S. 1274, 147 L.Ed.2d 2005).

Undaunted, in 2006 an amendment to the Louisiana constitution (SB 274 of 2006) and bill (SB 361) were introduced that specifically targeted state judges for drug testing and that repeated almost verbatim the text of the law struck down by the federal courts, most particularly in the legislative declaration portion of the bills.

The legislature declares the interest of the state in ensuring that those who are elected to serve in public office as judges in any trial or appellate court within this state are persons who have a respect for the laws they are sworn to uphold and are persons of integrity, sound judgment, reliability, and seriousness of purpose. The legislature finds that judges are in a critical position to protect the citizens of the state of Louisiana from the numerous illegal activities associated with illegal drugs, and to ensure access to courts and other constitutional rights. The legislature finds that the use of illegal drugs by judges will put the citizens of the state of Louisiana in danger because judges who use illegal drugs cannot provide the state and its citizens with fair and impartial trials. The legislature finds that the use of illegal drugs which may impair the physical or mental ability of a judge to function effectively in all aspects of his duties cannot be condoned, and therefore the state has a compelling interest in establishing a requirement that all judges demonstrate that they do not use illegal drugs, without the necessity of showing any measure of individualized suspicion.

Interestingly, when Louisiana tried again in 2010 for a voluntary drug testing (and psychological evaluation) program for elected officials (HB 1352) it was focused only on statewide elected officials in the executive branch listed in Art. IV, Sec. 3 of the state constitution and legislators.

Several similar bills, either targeting judges in particular or sweeping them in as “elected officials”, have been introduced in state legislatures. Many seek to avoid the Fourth Amendment problems found by the O’Neill court by making the programs voluntary. Most recently South Carolina’s Senate in 2008 approved a voluntary plan for testing that state’s judges, however the bill died in the House Judiciary Committee and was apparently never reintroduced.

2011

Ohio HB 343 Mandatory drug testing for Supreme Court Justices, members of the General Assembly, the board of directors of JobsOhio, and recipients of Troubled Asset Relief Program money. Carried over into 2012 session.

Oklahoma SB 538 Mandatory drug testing for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipients and all “state elected officials”. Those declining must submit to substance abuse program. Carried over into 2012 session.

Puerto Rico PC 3215 Requires all individuals nominated for a judicial office submit a hair sample for drug testing (previously discussed here). Carried over into 2012 session.

2009

Oregon HB 2635 Mandatory drug testing for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Judges and other elected officials specified by title. Died in committee.

2008

South Carolina SB 1070 Voluntary for any “popularly elected office or an office elected by the General Assembly”. (In South Carolina, judges are elected by the General Assembly). Approved by full Senate. Died in House.

2007

New Mexico SB 36 Voluntary drug testing for all “elected officials”. Died in committee.

Oregon HB 2306 Mandatory drug testing for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Judges and other elected officials specified by title. Died in committee.

2006

Missouri HB 1646 Mandatory drug testing for “all state elected officials”. Died in committee.

Louisiana SB 274 (Constitutional Amendment) Requires judiciary commission develop and implement a program of random drug testing for elected judges. Died in committee.

Louisiana SB 361 Requires judiciary commission develop and implement a program of random drug testing for elected judges. Died in committee.

2005

New Mexico SB 20 Voluntary drug testing for all “elected officials”. Died in committee.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Pennsylvania bill introduced

Bill Raftery — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:57:08 +0000

Welcome New York Times readers!

Welcome Post-Gazette readers!

Since the last update of this list in October, one piece of legislation has been introduced. Pennsylvania’s HB 2029 bans court references to any “foreign legal code or system” if doing so would impair constitutional rights.

Full roster of 2010 bills are available. 2011 and 2012 bills after the jump.

2012

Bill	Provisions	Status
Alabama SB 33 (Constitutional Amendment)	Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Prefiled. In House Committee on Judiciary.

2011

Bill	Provisions	Status	Carryover in 2012?
Alabama HB 597 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “the courts…when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Alabama HB 607 (Constitutional Amendment)	Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Alabama SB 61 (Constitutional Amendment)	Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.	No
Alabama SB 62 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides Alabama courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.	No
Alaska HB 88	Prohibits a court, arbitrator, mediator, administrative agency, or enforcement authority from applying a foreign law if application of the foreign law would violate an individual’s right guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the United States Constitution.	Approved by House State Affairs Committee 3/17/11. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Died in House Finance Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Arizona HB 2064	Defines “foreign law” as “any law, rule or legal code or system other than the constitution, laws and ratified treaties of the united states and the territories of the united states, or the constitution and laws of this state….a court, arbitrator, administrative agency or other adjudicative, mediation or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the united states or conflict with the laws of the united states or of this state.”	Signed into law by governor 4/12/11.	No
Arizona HB 2582	Enacts the “Arizona Foreign Decisions Act” Declares the acceptance of Arizona into the Union was a “compact”. Declares “Congress has no authority to preempt state regulation of state courts.” 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, but exempts decisions based on Anglo-American legal tradition, laws or case law from Great Britain prior enactment of the statute, or the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, “and the principles on which the United States was founded.” Prohibits use of any case law or statute from a non-U.S. jurisdiction or “foreign body”, including the United Nations. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law declared void and usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. Requires any court that construes this statute must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary.	Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/17/11. Died in House Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Arizona HCR 2033 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides state’s courts shall not consider, enforce or otherwise incorporate into any decision on the merits the legal precepts of other nations or cultures that run counter to the laws of this state unless expressly ratified by bicameralism and presentment in the state legislature or duly ratified as a treaty by the Senate of the United States. Provides state courts shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of this state, The United States Code, federal regulations adopted pursuant to the United States code, established common law, the laws of this state and rules adopted pursuant to the laws of this state and, if necessary, the laws of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not incorporate directly or by reference international law or the precepts of nations or cultures.	Died in House when legislature adjourned.	No
Arizona SCR 1010 (Constitutional Amendment)	Requires courts, when making judicial decisions, to uphold and adhere to the laws of the U.S. Constitution, Arizona Constitution, U.S. Code, Federal regulations, established common law, Arizona laws and rules and if necessary, the laws of another state within the U.S. provided the laws in the other state do not include international law. Prohibits Arizona courts from considering international law or legal precepts of other nations or cultures when making judicial decisions.	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Arkansas SJR 10 (Constitutional Amendment)	(Placeholder bill) Declares “The purpose of this Senate Joint Resolution is to amend the Arkansas Constitution concerning the application of foreign laws, legal codes, or systems for the purpose of protecting rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution.”	Died in Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs when legislature adjourned.	No
Arkansas SB 97	Prohibits any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Florida HB 1273	Defines term “foreign law, legal code, or system”; specifies public policy of this state in applying choice of foreign law, legal code, or system. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void.	Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11.	No
Florida SB 1294	Specifies the public policy of this state in applying the choice of a foreign law, legal code, or system under certain circumstances. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void.	Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11.	No
Georgia HB 45	Provides “the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Georgia HB 242	Declares “‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Georgia SB 51	Provides that no court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States	Died in Senate Committee on the Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Indiana HB 1078	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States constitution.	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Indiana SB 298	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States constitution.	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Indiana SB 520	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States constitution.	Approved by full Senate 2/17/11. Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Indiana SJR 16 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides a court may not enforce a law, rule, or legal code or system established and either used or applied in a jurisdiction outside the states of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the territories of the United States if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by this constitution or the Constitution of the United States.	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Iowa HB 489	Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including but not limited to international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code, or system against a person in this state is whether the decision rendered violated any right of the person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the Constitution of the United States, or any statute enacted or decision issued under the constitution of the state of Iowa or the United States.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Iowa HB 575	Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.”	Died in House State Government Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Iowa HJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides the state courts “when exercising judicial power, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the United States Code, federal regulations, established common law, the Iowa Code, the Iowa administrative code, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not use the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including but not limited to cases of first impression.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Kansas HB 2087	Defines “foreign law,” “legal code” or “system” means any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides “Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions.”	Approved by full House 3/30/11. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Maine HB 811	Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code or legal system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, that is applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals…The primary factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law must consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law, legal code or legal system against a natural person in this State is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this State guaranteed by the Constitution of Maine or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those constitutions.”	Rejected by Joint Committee on Judiciary 5/25/11.	No
Michigan HB 4769	Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In House Committee on Judiciary.	Probably
Michigan SB 701	Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In Senate Committee on Government Operations.	Probably
Mississippi HB 301	Prohibits courts from enforcing a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.	Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Mississippi HB 525	Provides “”Foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri HB 708	Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable if such court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the constitutions of this state and the United States.	Approved by full House 4/20/11. Died on House Informal Calendar when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri HB 768	Defines “foreign law” as “any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri HJR 31 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides state courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Missouri, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including but not limited to cases of first impression.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri SB 308	Defines “”foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Missouri constitutions.”	Approved by Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee 4/28/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.	No
Nebraska LB 647	Declares a court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decisions the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Nebraska.	Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
New Mexico SJR 18 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “The courts provided for in this article, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States constitution, the constitution of New Mexico, statutes of the United States and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, established common law, New Mexico statutes and state regulations adopted pursuant thereto and, if necessary, the law of another state of the United States, provided that the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not consider or apply a rule of comity to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, international law, laws promulgated by foreign governments or national laws of foreign countries if the consideration or application of the foreign precepts or laws would violate the public policy of the state of New Mexico or reduce or impair the rights of any resident of the state of New Mexico existing under New Mexico statutes or common law governing child custody, rights of married persons, property rights, protection from domestic violence or any criminal law. The courts shall not consider or apply Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
New Jersey AB 3496	Provides that a foreign law may only be recognized by a court in New Jersey if it does not violate any right guaranteed by the Constitution of this State or of the United States of America.	Carried over from 2011 session. In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over into 2011 session.	No
North Carolina HB 640	Declares “it to be the public policy of this State to protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a right of a natural person guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution or the United States Constitution. The public policies expressed in this section shall apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of a constitutional right resulting from the application of the foreign law.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C when legislature adjourned.	Possibly
Oklahoma HB 1552	Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, rule, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions.	Approved by full House 3/17/11. Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Pennsylvania HB 2029	Provides a tribunal shall not consider a foreign legal code or system which does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania.	In House Judiciary Committee	Yes
South Carolina HB 3490	Provides “As used in this section, the term “foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
South Carolina SB 444	Provides “As used in this section, the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories….A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
South Dakota HJR 1004 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides no South Dakota state court may apply international law, the law of any foreign nation, or any foreign religious or moral code with the force of law in the adjudication of any case under its jurisdiction.	Tabled by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/17/11.	No
South Dakota SB 201	Declares “foreign law, legal code, or system, means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota.”	Deferred to 41st legislative day (i.e. killed) by Senate Commerce and Energy Committee 2/16/11.	No
Texas HB 274	AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Approved as amended by full House 5/10/11. 4/18/11. Removed by Senate State Affairs Committee 5/23/11.	No
Texas HB 911	AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Approved as amended by House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence 4/18/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 999	Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 1240	Declares “”foreign or international law or doctrine” means a law, rule, legal code, or principle of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States, including international law, that is not codified or recognized by this state or the United States…A court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not base a ruling or decision on a foreign or international law or doctrine; or a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.”	Approved by House Select Committee on State Sovereignty 5/10/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 3027	Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”.	Died in House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HJR 57 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “A court of this state shall uphold the laws of the Constitution of the United States, this Constitution, federal laws, and laws of this state. A court of this state may not enforce, consider, or apply any religious or cultural law.”	Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 79A (Special Session)	AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Approved as amended by full House 6/22/11. Removed by Senate Jurisprudence Committee 6/27/11.	No
West Virginia HB 3220	Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code or system against a natural person in this state is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of West Virginia or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those Constitutions.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Possibly
Wyoming HJR 8 (Constitutional Amendment)	Prohibits court use of sharia law. Prohibits Wyoming courts from referencing law of other U.S. states if law of the other state does include sharia law. Requires Wyoming courts uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the constitution of the United States, the Wyoming constitution, the United States Code and federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, laws of this state, and established common law as specified by legislative enactment. Prohibits courts from considering the legal precepts of other nations or cultures including, without limitation, international law and Sharia law.	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	No

Special/Interim Judiciary Committee meetings in Illinois, North Carolina, Washington

Bill Raftery — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:36:00 +0000

This week promises to be busy for legislators as Special and Interim Sessions are being held in Illinois, North Carolina, and Washington.

The Illinois House’s Judiciary II – Criminal Law Committee meets December 1 to examine overcrowding in prisons.

In NC, the Senate Judiciary I committee meets today (November 28) to debate changes to the state’s No Discriminatory Purpose in Death Penalty Act that allow the introduction of certain statistical evidence to show discrimination in either pretrial or posttrial proceedings in capital cases.

Washington State’s Senate Judiciary Committee will consider draft legislation on “Protection of public policy” on November 29. On December 1 the same committee will consider bills on

Bail and pretrial release practices
Consular Notification
County Coroners

On December 2, it is the House Judiciary’s turn to meet. That committee will look at

Child Support Schedule Work Group Report and Recommendations
Uniform Collaborative Law Act
Legislation authorizing qui tam actions as part of a state Medicaid Fraud False Claims Act

New Hampshire proceedings to impeach judges for their decisions continues Nov. 29

Bill Raftery — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:23:49 +0000

The effort in New Hampshire to impeach a marital master, and potentially all the judges of the state’s Superior Court, for their decisions in family law cases is set to continue on November 29 (see here for all prior posts). According to the NH House calendar, a special subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee is set for a work session pursuant to HR 7, which directs the house judiciary committee to investigate whether grounds exist to impeach marital master Philip Cross and/or any justice of the New Hampshire superior court.

Florida Senate: Make non-efilers in courts pay a 3.5% surcharge?

Bill Raftery — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:18:15 +0000

Cross-posted to Court Technology Bulletin.

I mentioned last week that the Florida Senate was going to meet tomorrow (October 18) and that the agenda included an item entitled

Presentations on issues related to electronic filing of court documents

I came across a (possibly) related piece of legislation: SB 410 of 2012. The bill contains two provisions:

(1) A litigant who is required to electronically file a court or other legal document in a court of this state, in the Division of Administrative Hearings, or in the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims shall pay a surcharge in addition to any other cost incurred if the litigant files a paper document instead of electronically filing the document. The surcharge shall equal 3.5 percent of the cost of filing the document electronically.
(2) This section does not apply to a litigant who is indigent as determined by s. 27.52, Florida Statutes.

The obvious question is “who is required to electronically file a court or other legal document”? SB 170 of 2011, signed into law in June, requires prosecutors and public defenders to e-file documents with the clerk of court and report back on March 1, 2012 on the implementation of the program to the legislature (click here for prior posts). A 2009 statute (SB 1718) required the clerks of court to implement an electronic filing process by March 1, 2010.

Live coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee e-filing presentation can be found here.