Gavel to Gavel » Special Edition http://gaveltogavel.us/site A review of state legislation affecting the courts. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:32:23 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Bans on court use of sharia/international law: 33 bills in 20 states to start 2012; review of all efforts since 2010 http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2012/01/30/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-33-bills-in-20-states-to-start-2012-review-of-all-efforts-since-2010/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2012/01/30/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-33-bills-in-20-states-to-start-2012-review-of-all-efforts-since-2010/#comments Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:00:23 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=3973 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.
]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2012/01/30/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-33-bills-in-20-states-to-start-2012-review-of-all-efforts-since-2010/feed/ 3 2011 Year in Review: Alterations of/to state supreme courts http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/30/2011-year-in-review-alterations-ofto-state-supreme-courts/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/30/2011-year-in-review-alterations-ofto-state-supreme-courts/#comments Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:00:32 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=3791 Whether called court packing or court reform, the idea of “adjusting” the membership or structure of a state court of last resort in order to register legislative displeasure is nothing particularly new. Over the last 5 years, at least 5 such efforts have been made to either remove justices from the existing court or add enough justices to alter certain prior decisions (a review of such efforts can be found here). 2011 however is unique in the extent to which such efforts moved from hypothetical to on the ground realities and, as I noted last week, 2012 already has at least 1 bill filed.

Florida’s HJR 7111 is the most obvious on this score. The plan, as introduced by the Republican House Speaker, would have split the existing 7 member Florida Supreme Court into two panels of 5, one for civil and the other criminal. All Democratically-appointed sitting justices would be transferred to the criminal panel and the Republican-appointed justices (plus new appointees by the Republican governor) to the civil panel. While the proposal was approved on party line votes in the House, Senate Republicans removed any reference to splitting the supreme court before sending it back to the House. A last ditch effort by the Speaker for a “study” of splitting the supreme court splitting idea was line-item vetoed by the state’s GOP governor.

Montana’s HB 245 took a different tack; rather than expanding the state’s supreme court to achieve certain decisions this proposal would have shrunk the court from 7 to  5 (under Montana’s constitition the legislature may make such a reduction with a simple statute; no constitutional amendment required as in Florida). The sponsor was abundantly clear of his reasoning for the reduction:

All of us want tort reform, well maybe not all of us.  I surely want it and a lot of folks I talk to want it. So how do we get tort reform? I would suggest that if we took the Supreme Court from 7 down to 5, they have a higher workload, guess who becomes our ally in tort reform? The Supreme Court.

The effort died in committee, with all 6 House Judiciary Committee Democrats voting against and the committee Republicans splitting 8-6 in favor.

]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/30/2011-year-in-review-alterations-ofto-state-supreme-courts/feed/ 0 2011 Year in Review: Merit selection is dead (long live merit selection) http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/29/2011-year-in-review-merit-selection-is-dead-long-live-merit-selection/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/29/2011-year-in-review-merit-selection-is-dead-long-live-merit-selection/#comments Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:00:26 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=3787 Judicial selection in general has been a bone of contention both for the Federal and state legislatures recently and no particular method of selection has been the subject of more scrutiny than merit selection. Yet while there have been several pushes to change substantially, or outright end, various merit selection systems there has been a substantial push in other states to adopt just such a judicial selection methodology.

End

Kansas’ HB 2101 initially replaced merit selection for the state’s Court of Appeals with a true federal system of executive appointment, Senate confirmation, and life time tenure. However, a provision of the state’s constitution prohibited life time terms and thus the version approved by the House removed the life tenure provision.

Oklahoma’s Senate also approved a plan (SJR 36) to simply end it and allow the governor to appoint any qualified person with senate confirmation.  Although the proposal flew through the Senate, it went nowhere in the House.

Finally, Tennessee is facing the possibility of legislative ending of their merit selection system by default. The existing system starts to sunset in 2012 and the legislature has to reauthorize the system.

Expand

Indiana’s HB 1266, a huge new law that reshaped much of the state’s judiciary statutes, included a provision to expand merit selection to the four judges of the Lake Superior Court, County Division.

Although Indiana’s was the only successful expansion, several efforts were made, some of which may bear fruit in the 2012 cycle.

Tweak/Modify

Arizona had several efforts made to alter its merit selection system. SCR 1040 would have (among other things) ended retention elections and replaced with Senate confirmation/reconfirmation. SCR 1045 would have removed the requirement that attorney members are nominated to the Governor by the Arizona State Bar as part of the Commission appointment process. Both passed the Senate but failed in the House. What did ultimately meet with House approval and will appear on the 2012 ballot is SCR 1001:

  • Qualifications & Terms- Increases to 8 years the term of office for Supreme, Court of Appeals, and Superior Court judges starting in 2013. Increases the judicial retirement age from 70 to 75 years old.
  • Appellate and Trial Court Commissions- Removes the requirement that attorney members be nominated by the Board of Governors of the Arizona State Bar. Establishes that four attorney members are appointed by the Governor and one member be appointed by the President of the State Bar. Requires, upon an attorney member vacancy, the Arizona bar to solicit, review and forward to the Governor all applications and recommendations for appointment. Increases the time period attorney members must be admitted to practice from 5 to 10 years. Specifies that attorney members must be in good standing with the state bar, have no formal disciplinary complaints and have never been formally sanctioned as a result of disciplinary action. Requires the Commissions to submit at least eight nominees, rather than three, to the Governor to fill a vacancy in the office of a justice or judge of the Supreme Court, Appellate Court or superior court. Permits the Commissions to reject an applicant and submit less than eight nominees, unless the applicant receives a two-thirds vote. Requires the Commissions to nominate any applicant who receives a majority vote. Requires, if more than one vacancy exists in the same court at the same time, the Commissions to submit the names of at least six persons nominated to fill each vacancy and prohibits the submission of the name of the same person for more than one vacancy. Permits the Governor to make an appointment from any of the nominees presented for any of the vacancies in that court, if more than one vacancy exists in the same court at the same time.
  • Supreme Court- Must make available through its website, every written opinion or order that is issued by a judge of a court of record that resolves a contested matter of law and that is not sealed or confidential. Must transmit a copy of the judicial performance review of each justice and judge who is up for retention to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least 60 days before the regular primary election.
  • Legislature- Permits a joint legislative committee consisting of the Senate and House Judiciary committees to meet and take testimony on the justices and judges who are up for retention at least 60 days prior to the general election.

Florida‘s HJR 7111, while initially introduced in order to split the state’s supreme court, was heavily amended. the version appearing on ballot in 2012 would require Senate confirmation of Supreme Court appointments, allow the legislature to reject Supreme Court rules by a majority vote, and give legislators access to judicial misconduct investigations. The proposal must be approved by 60% of voters.

Iowa‘s HB 242 was a relative minor revision approved by that state’s House. The bill would have required the governor appoint at least one district Judicial Nominating Commission member from each county unless there are fewer counties than commissioners. Given that the commissions are five member panels, and only Judicial District 7 is a 5-county district, this has the effect of prohibiting any district nominating commission from having more than two members from the same county.

In addition to trying to end its merit selection system (see above), Oklahoma SB 621 would have changed the merit selection system. Although it would not directly impact merit selection commissions or retention elections, the constitutional amendment would have required any judicial appointment be confirmed by a majority of the Senate. Although the proposal flew through the Senate, it went nowhere in the House.

Rhode Island’s HB 6242 / SB 686 makes any individual whose name was publicly submitted to the governor by the judicial nominating commission, eligible for subsequent nomination by the governor until June 30, 2012. This is an extension of a prior law that allowed for extended eligibility that was about to sunset.

Utah SB 212 allows the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission to vote in a closed meeting on whether or not to recommend that the voters retain a judge. It removes litigants from the judicial performance evaluation survey and reduces the number of categories to be included in the performance evaluation survey.

]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/29/2011-year-in-review-merit-selection-is-dead-long-live-merit-selection/feed/ 1 Top 10 most viewed 2011 Gavel to Gavel blog posts http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/28/top-10-most-viewed-2011-gavel-to-gavel-blog-posts/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/28/top-10-most-viewed-2011-gavel-to-gavel-blog-posts/#comments Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:00:55 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=3793 While I’ve been picking what I think are the top 5 Gavel to Gavel stories of 2011, I give you the “reader’s choice” awards if you will: the Top 10 most viewed posts (in order):

  1. AZ: Effort to ban court use of sharia law, canon law, halacha, and karma (under threat of impeachment) reintroduced (2/4/11)
  2. Ohio Issue 1: Supreme Court Commissions? Courts of Conciliation? Thank (or blame) New York… (10/28/11)
  3. An examination of 2011 sharia law & international law bans before state legislatures (1/27/11)
  4. Bans on court use of sharia/international law advance in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma (4/11/11)
  5. Bans on court use of sharia/international law: ABA House of Delegates opposes “blanket prohibitions”, state legislatures out of session (8/8/11)
  6. Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Michigan becomes 22nd state to consider, Texas House tries again to get Senate to adopt (7/5/11)
  7. Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Pennsylvania bill introduced (11/28/11)
  8. Mid-session update: 42 bills in 20 states seek to ban court use of sharia/international law (with list and links) (3/15/11)
  9. Citing Heller, Illinois legislators consider explicitly permitting judges to carry concealed firearms into courthouses (2/25/11)
  10. If Minnesota has a government shutdown, courts may be told to stay out of the conflict this time (5/23/11)
]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/28/top-10-most-viewed-2011-gavel-to-gavel-blog-posts/feed/ 0 2011 Year in Review: Increasing mandatory retirement ages for judges http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/28/2011-year-in-review-increasing-mandatory-retirement-ages-for-judges/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/28/2011-year-in-review-increasing-mandatory-retirement-ages-for-judges/#comments Wed, 28 Dec 2011 14:00:45 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=3781 An aging population is forcing legislators to re-examine the logic behind mandatory retirement ages for judges. In 2011, several states stood out on this score, lead chiefly by Ohio. There, voters were given the chance to increase the mandatory retirement age from the end of the term the judge turns 70 to the end of the term in which the judge turns 75 (prior posts here, here, and here). While the proposal lost, as I noted at the time the voting data seemed to suggest not so much a rejection of the age increase as an instance of the measure swept up in a “vote no on everything” fervor on that particular balloting day.

Meanwhile, Arizona moved to put an increase on its ballot in 2012. This provision was added at the last minute as a “sweetener” (along with extended terms) to a larger bill that would make large scale changes to the way the state’s judiciary is selected/elected/appointed.

A more focused effort was New York’s SB 5827, which would extend retirement, but only for the state’s top court, from the end of the year a judge turns 70 to end the calendar years the judge turns 80. The measure requires re-adoption by 2013-2014 legislature before submission to public vote.

Finally Indiana HB 1266 repealed or otherwise removed all provisions that establish a mandatory retirement age for superior court and county court judges.

Other bills that advanced in 2011 included:
  • Missouri HB 111 Increases from 75 to 78 mandatory retirement age for municipal judges. Approved by House, defeated in Senate.
  • Virginia HB 1497 / SB 1066 Increases from 70 to 73 mandatory retirement age for municipal judges. Approved by Senate, defeated in House

 

]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/28/2011-year-in-review-increasing-mandatory-retirement-ages-for-judges/feed/ 0 2011 Year in Review: Banning courts from using sharia law/international law http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/27/2011-year-in-review-banning-courts-from-using-sharia-lawinternational-law/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/27/2011-year-in-review-banning-courts-from-using-sharia-lawinternational-law/#comments Tue, 27 Dec 2011 17:39:10 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=3770 For 2012 legislation, click here.

Perhaps no single issue drew more attention to Gavel to Gavel this year than coverage of the efforts to ban courts from using  sharia law and/or international law. Since the 2010 adoption of a sharia/international law ban by Oklahoma voters, the issue has become particularly active. However, that effort was struck down by Federal courts only a day or two after the election (Awad v. Ziriax). That may explain why all told, only one such bill was enacted in 2011, a watered down version (the original banned not only sharia law, but canon law, halacha and karma) in Arizona:

12-3101. Definition of foreign law
In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, “foreign law” means 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.

12-3102. Application
A. This chapter applies only to actual violations of the constitutional rights of a person or actual conflict with the laws of this state caused by the application of the foreign law.
B. This chapter does not apply to a corporation, partnership or other form of business association.

12-3103. Prohibited enforcement of foreign law
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.

If some version of the 2010 Oklahoma constitutional amendment is upheld by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, expect to see several such laws in 2011. Even if the 10th Circuit ultimately finds against the Oklahoma version, some other iteration, one that like Arizona does not specify sharia by name, will almost certainly be on enacted or on various state ballots next year.

2011 bills below.

 

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
]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/27/2011-year-in-review-banning-courts-from-using-sharia-lawinternational-law/feed/ 1 2011 Year in Review: Record number of impeachment attempts against judges for their decisions http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/27/2011-year-in-review-record-number-of-impeachment-attempts-against-judges-for-their-decisions/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/27/2011-year-in-review-record-number-of-impeachment-attempts-against-judges-for-their-decisions/#comments Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:07:36 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=3759 Greetings International Business Tribune readers!

2011 saw more efforts to impeach or otherwise legislatively remove state judges from office than at any point in recent history, indeed perhaps in all of U.S. history. 14 bills in 7 states sought the impeachment of numerous judges, including the entire Superior Court of New Hampshire. In all but two instances (Bass-LeSure in Oklahoma & Berry in Pennsylvania), the sole accusation was that the judge(s) in question issued opinions that displeased members of the legislature. One such effort against Missouri Circuit Court Judge John A. Ross appeared timed to derail the judge’s confirmation to a seat on a Federal court.

This is in addition to the numerous efforts to codify anticipatory impeachment threats through statutes that specifically warn any future judge that renders an opinion striking down the statute itself or rendering certain opinions saying X has committed an impeachable offense.

Many of these efforts will be carried over into the 2012 session and every indication is that additional impeachment attempts based on judicial opinions will be forthcoming in the new legislative year.

 

State Bill Form of removal Target Reason for removal request Status
Iowa HR 47 Impeachment Supreme Court Justice Brent Appel Same sex marriage decision Varnum v. Brien Maybe carried over in 2012
Iowa HR 48 Impeachment Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady Same sex marriage decision Varnum v. Brien Maybe carried over in 2012
Iowa HR 49 Impeachment Supreme Court Justice Daryl Hecht Same sex marriage decision Varnum v. Brien Maybe carried over in 2012
Iowa HR 50 Impeachment Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins Same sex marriage decision Varnum v. Brien Maybe carried over in 2012
Massachusetts HB 2172 Bill of address Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland Goodrow v. Lane Bryant, Inc., 432 Mass. 165 (2000), and Wiedmann v. Bradford Group, Inc., 444 Mass. 698 (2005) relative to the private right of action provisions of the state’s wage and hour laws. Pending
Massachusetts HB 2172 Bill of address Supreme Judicial Court Justice Francis X. Spina Goodrow v. Lane Bryant, Inc., 432 Mass. 165 (2000), and Wiedmann v. Bradford Group, Inc., 444 Mass. 698 (2005) relative to the private right of action provisions of the state’s wage and hour laws. Pending
Massachusetts HB 2172 Bill of address Supreme Judicial Court Justice Judith A. Cowin Goodrow v. Lane Bryant, Inc., 432 Mass. 165 (2000), and Wiedmann v. Bradford Group, Inc., 444 Mass. 698 (2005) relative to the private right of action provisions of the state’s wage and hour laws. Pending
Massachusetts HB 2172 Bill of address Supreme Judicial Court Justice Robert J. Cordy Goodrow v. Lane Bryant, Inc., 432 Mass. 165 (2000), and Wiedmann v. Bradford Group, Inc., 444 Mass. 698 (2005) relative to the private right of action provisions of the state’s wage and hour laws. Pending
Missouri HR 3102 Impeachment Circuit Court Judge John A. Ross Decisions in Buchek v. Washington Dead (Judge Ross confirmed to Federal bench)
New Hampshire HR 7 Impeachment Marital Master Phillip Cross Decisions in custody/divorce cases Investigation approved by House
New Hampshire HR 7 Impeachment “any justice of the New Hampshire superior court” Decisions in custody/divorce cases Investigation approved by House
New Jersey SR 105 Impeachment Supreme Court Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto Refusal to vote in some cases Request for resignation or impeachment approved by Senate
Oklahoma HR 1001 Request for removal by judicial disciplinary commission District Judge Thomas Bartheld Failure to reject negotiated plea bargain in child sex abuse case Maybe carried over in 2012
Oklahoma HR 1005 Impeachment request to Congress U.S. District Court Judge Vickie Miles-LaGrange “Abuse of authority” for issuing an injunction against state’s sharia law ban Maybe carried over in 2012
Oklahoma HR 1006 Request for removal by judicial disciplinary commission District Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure 36 felony counts, including four counts of perjury and 32 counts of fraudulent claim Maybe carried over in 2012
Oklahoma HR 1024 Request for removal by judicial disciplinary commission District Judge Tom Lucas Denial of blanket recusal motion by DA Maybe carried over in 2012
Pennsylvania HR 124 Impeachment Court of Common Pleas Judge Willis W. Berry, Jr. Use of his office and judicial secretary for a decade to “assist him in the day-to-day operations concerning his properties.” Carried over in 2012
]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/27/2011-year-in-review-record-number-of-impeachment-attempts-against-judges-for-their-decisions/feed/ 1 2011 Year in Review: Top 5 Stories http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/27/2011-year-in-review-top-5-stories/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/27/2011-year-in-review-top-5-stories/#comments Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:50:11 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=3756 With the year winding down, it seems appropriate to review the top 5 stories covered by Gavel to Gavel in 2011. Over the course of the next week the 5 will each receive their own post, but for now, here’s the list:

  1. Record number of impeachment attempts against judges for their decisions
  2. Banning courts from using sharia law/international law
  3. Increasing mandatory retirement ages for judges
  4. Merit selection is dead (long live merit selection)
  5. Alterations of/to state supreme courts
]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/12/27/2011-year-in-review-top-5-stories/feed/ 0 Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Pennsylvania bill introduced http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/11/28/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-pennsylvania-bill-introduced/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/11/28/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-pennsylvania-bill-introduced/#comments Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:57:08 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=3588 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
]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/11/28/bans-on-court-use-of-shariainternational-law-pennsylvania-bill-introduced/feed/ 4 2011 Western court interpreters legislation http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/11/10/2011-western-court-interpreters-legislation/ http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/11/10/2011-western-court-interpreters-legislation/#comments Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:00:41 +0000 Bill Raftery http://gaveltogavel.us/site/?p=3407 Law

California AB 1403 Adds court interpreter fees to those costs that may be recovered, when the court has authorized a court interpreter for an indigent person, in certain civil actions. Signed into law by Governor.

Hawaii HB 298 / SB 997 Exempts court interpreters who appear at the request of the court from parking violations for expired meters.

Montana HB 65 Provides that in criminal matters when a interpreter is appointed, the interpreter’s fee must be paid by the office of court administrator in accordance with judicial branch policy (currently paid out of the county general fund).

Approved by one chamber

California AB 618 AS AMENDED: Provides that a person who is unable to understand English, and who is charged with a crime, has the right to a competent interpreter provided by the court to provide exclusive and ongoing interpretation services throughout any criminal proceeding as required by law. This includes a right not to share an interpreter with a witness. The person charged with the crime is also entitled to a separate interpreter not to be shared with a codefendant during any trial proceeding, including jury instructions, and in any proceeding, as required by law, at which witnesses are called and testimony is taken. Any rights pursuant to this provision may be waived as provided by this section. Provides that a person who is charged with a crime has a right to a determination by the court of the competence of an interpreter at any time during a proceeding if on the basis of the interpreter’s provision of interpreter services during a criminal proceeding, the court determines there is good cause to question whether the continued use of the interpreter in the proceeding may prejudice the rights of the person charged with the crime such that it would not be in the interest of justice or efficiency for the interpreter to continue. Specifies that notwithstanding any other provision of this article, a non-interpreter staff person of the court, or any person employed by the sheriff, probation department, prosecutor, jail or corrections department of the prosecuting city or county shall not provide interpreter services during a proceeding under this section. This subdivision shall not be construed to negate or modify the circumstances under which a court has the authority to appoint a noncertified interpreter. Establishes that the foregoing rights may only be waived expressly by the person charged if the waiver is affirmatively shown to be intelligent and voluntary. Placed on Appropriations Suspense file (i.e. postponed) by Senate Appropriations Committee 8/15/11.

Died in committee

California AB 973 ORIGINAL: Requires any change in court services, including “A reduction in the availability of court interpreters”, be subject to public notice and a public hearing. AMENDED: Removes specific references to court interpreters. Requires trial courts give public input into proposed budgets in general.

California AB 1809 Authorizes a bilingual judge, notwithstanding any other law, to provide an unofficial translation of preliminary court procedures that do not bear on any substantive right of a party when a court interpreter is not immediately available.

California AB 810 Authorizes the clerk of the court to employ as many foreign language interpreters as may be necessary to interpret cases in the superior court, and to translate documents as specified. Requires the clerk of the court to assign interpreters when needed to interpret in criminal and juvenile delinquency cases in the superior court, and in civil cases if an assignment can be made without causing the court to be unable to perform its obligations in criminal proceedings. Deletes the authorization for the collection of a fee, and would state that these provisions are declarative of existing law.

Nevada AB 153 Prohibits record of an arrest of a person to deny, refuse to renew, suspend or revoke a court interpreter certification or similar licenses/permits.

 

]]> http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2011/11/10/2011-western-court-interpreters-legislation/feed/ 0