Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Activity in Missouri, Kansas tries to tie to Citizens United

April 9th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

This post has been updated, click here.

The last several weeks in the examination bans on court use of sharia/international law have seen two notable pieces of activity.

The first was in Kansas. As noted in the last update SB 79, as originally introduced, had nothing to do with international law or sharia. The House changed the bill entirely, substituting the language of HB 2087 for the original bill. When brought to the full House, a further amendment was offered to, in effect, declare the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United void.

Except as expressly provided by law, no corporation shall be deemed to hold the same rights and privileges possessed by natural persons.

That amendment failed 46-74. The House substitute language was approved March 28 and sent to a House/Senate conference committee.

The second piece of activity was in Missouri. There, HB 1512 (the “Civil Liberties Defense Act”) was approved by full House on March 27. A similar Senate bill was approved in committee in February and could be taken up for a Senate floor vote as early as tomorrow (April 10).

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Activity in Missouri, Kansas tries to tie to Citizens United

Issue 6:14 is (late, but) out

April 9th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Issue 6:14 is here.

  • Changes to small claims limits move in Arizona and Minnesota
  • Judicial salary increases advance in ID & MS
  • Delaware’s Senate wants to study opening juvenile proceedings
  • Bills to protect judges and court staff approved in Georgia and Illinois

Week ahead: 11 judicial selection bills in TN scheduled for hearings/votes; judicial discipline bills in MO, OK, NH

April 9th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Legislatures Going Out of Session

Kentucky 4/12

Floor/Committee Activity of Note

April 9

Oklahoma House Judiciary Committee

SB 1222 Authorizes creation of veterans treatment courts in all judicial districts. Approved by full Senate 3/13/12.

SB 1953 Requires any judicial officer report to the Council on Judicial Complaints any conduct that the officer believes may be a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Approved by full Senate 3/14/12.

Tennessee Senate

SB 3652 Requires House and Senate speakers appoint all nine members of the judicial evaluation commission since the judicial council no longer exists. Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 3/20/12.

SB 3654 Allows members of the judicial nominating commission to serve successive terms. Allows solicitor general and employees of the attorney general to serve on the commission. Allows members to participate in meetings by telephone if three or fewer applicants. Allows members continuance in court hearings if commission meeting scheduled. Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 3/20/12.

April 10

Tennessee Senate Judiciary Committee

SB 2794 Requires the rating of each applicant to fill an appellate court vacancy as highly qualified, qualified or not qualified. Authorizes the governor to appoint applicants who are rated as either highly qualified or qualified. Provides if governor selects someone listed only as qualified, must be confirmed by joint vote of the general assembly. Provides if judicial selection commission fails to provide list of names to governor within 60 days, governor may select any duly licensed attorney subject to confirmation by joint vote of the general assembly.

SJR 635 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides for election of judges/justices of appellate courts from districts drawn by general assembly (currently drawn from three “grand districts”).

Tennessee Senate Finance, Ways & Means Committee

SJR 183 (Constitutional Amendment) Unequivocally authorizes the general assembly, by statute, to establish a system of merit-based appointments with retention elections for appellate court judges. Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 4/26/11. Carried over into 2012 session.

SJR 710 (Constitutional Amendment) Constitutionally enshrines a system for selection of each appellate court judge by means of merit-based gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation and, thereafter, contingent upon a satisfactory job performance evaluation, retention election by the voters of the state. Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 4/3/12.

April 11

Alabama Senate Judiciary Committee

HB 99 Makes it a crime to act, without authority, as a judge, magistrate, hearing officer, juror, clerk of court, or any other official with the authority to adjudicate the rights or interests of another, or to sign a document in this capacity as if authorized by state law. Approved by full House 3/20/12.

Hawaii Judiciary and Labor Committee

SCR 161 Urges judiciary ensure that the Access to Justice Commissions task force on adjunct providers of legal services includes at least as many non-lawyers as lawyers.

New Hampshire Senate

HB 344 Changes procedures for judicial performance evaluations. Expands evaluation to include “other nonjudicial branch officers as established by court rule”. Requires judges that fail to achieve satisfactory evaluation have follow-up evaluation 18 months later. Requires all reports prepared on judicial performance identify judges individually. Approved by full House 1/4/12. Recommended for approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 3/27/12.

HB 1384 Establishes that the statute of limitations for any complaint against a judge filed with the judicial conduct committee is 2 years from the conclusion of the trial or appeal during which the act which is the subject of the complaint occurred. Approved by full House 2/1/12. Recommended for rejection by Senate Judiciary Committee 4/5/12.

Tennessee House Finance, Ways & Means Committee, General Subcommittee

HJR 753 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides all appellate judges are to be initially selected via merit-based gubernatorial appointment from a panel of qualified candidates submitted by a nominating commission. Subjects selections to legislative confirmation. Provides that, contingent upon a satisfactory job performance evaluation, judges are subject to retention election. Provides all appellate judges be at least thirty-five years of age and a resident of the state for the five-year period immediately preceding appointment. Sets terms of office at eight years. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 3/20/12.

HJR 830 (Constitutional Amendment) Unequivocally authorizes the general assembly, by statute, to establish a system of merit-based appointments with retention elections for appellate court judges. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/3/12.

Tennessee House Judiciary Committee

HB 173 Requires election of all judges, including appellate and supreme court judges. Approved by House Judiciary Committee, General Subcommittee 4/20/11. Carried over from 2011 session.

HB 3691 Requires House and Senate speakers appoint all nine members of the judicial evaluation commission since the judicial council no longer exists. Approved by House Judiciary Committee, General Subcommittee 4/4/12.

April 12

HJR 82 (Constitutional Amendment) Alters composition of the judicial Commission on Retirement, Removal, and Discipline. Adds one non-attorney and subtracts one attorney. Replaces seat for circuit court judge with supreme court justice.

HB 3282 Allows members of the judicial nominating commission to serve successive terms. Allows solicitor general and employees of the attorney general to serve on the commission. Allows members to participate in meetings by telephone if three or fewer applicants. Allows members continuance in court hearings if commission meeting scheduled. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 3/27/12.

April 13

Tennessee Senate Judiciary Committee advances yet another judicial selection plan on another 5-2-2 vote; House committee may vote on similar plan today

April 4th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

The Tennessee Senate Judiciary Committee has advanced a fourth judicial selection plan with yesterday’s passage of SJR 710 as amended.

Last week saw the Judiciary Committee approve with amendments SJR 475, creating a quasi-federal judicial selection system. (SB 127 and SJR 183, other judicial selection bills, were advanced in last year’s session and remain active).

SJR 710, like SJR 475 creates a quasi-federal system and uses almost identical language.

Each judge of the Supreme Court or any intermediate appellate court shall be initially selected via merit-based gubernatorial appointment from a panel of qualified candidates submitted by a nominating commission; shall be legislatively confirmed; and, thereafter, contingent upon a satisfactory job performance evaluation, shall be subject to retention election by the qualified voters of the state. The Legislature shall prescribe such rules as may be necessary to implement sections two and three of this article. Each such judge shall be at least thirty-five years of age and shall have been a resident of the state for the five-year period immediately preceding appointment. The term of service shall be eight years.

According to the author (the amendment is not online yet) the committee approved amendment makes SJR 475 different from SJR 710 in two ways

  1. SJR 475 gives the legislature 60 days to confirm a judicial nominee, otherwise the individual is automatically confirmed
  2. SJR 475 provides the judge seeking to remain in office is subject to retention election only (vs. SJR 710 which would require reappointment by the governor, reconfirmation by the legislature, and retention election).

The video from the hearing indicates the bill advanced on a 5-2-2 vote.

Meanwhile, a similar judicial selection plan is on the agenda today for the Tennessee House Finance, Ways & Means Committee, General Subcommittee.

HJR 753 uses the same wording as the pre-amended SJR 710 and was approved by House Judiciary Committee 3/20/12.

 

Constitutional amendment approved by Hawaii House would let CJ call retired judges back into temporary service

April 3rd, 2012 by Bill Raftery

I’ve mentioned previously that Hawaii is considering increasing its mandatory retirement age from 70 to 80. A related effort, SB 650 which is set for a hearing today, would allow the state’s chief justice to call retired judges and justices back into service after retirement.

SB 650 would amend the state’s constitution to add the following to the judicial selection portion of Article VI.

The chief justice may appoint judges who have retired upon attaining the age of seventy years as emeritus judges, permitting the appointed judges to serve as temporary judges in courts no higher than the court level they reached prior to retirement and for terms not to exceed three months per each appointment.

The Judicial branch has submitted testimony in favor of the proposition, arguing “the knowledge and experience of such judges are recognized as valuable resources not only as judicial mentors but also to help provide fair and timely disposition of cases.”, with a suggestion that the language read “emeritus judges and justices” rather than just “judges”. The state’s public defender came out against an earlier version of the bill, which would have let the judges emeritus come back as “judicial mentors“, language that was amended out of the bill.

SB 650 was approved by the full Senate March 6 and by the House Judiciary committee March 13. It is set for a hearing before the House Finance committee later today (April 3).

Louisiana: Constitutional amendment up for committee debate would require courts use “strict scrutiny” when it comes to firearms cases

April 2nd, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Those familiar with U.S. Supreme Court decisions will find the phrase “strict scrutiny” familiar. In short, strict scrutiny requires the court to examine any law or governmental act and determine

  • it meets a compelling governmental interest
  • it is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest, and
  • it is the least restrictive means for achieving that interest

The concept and language is one derived and devised by the courts: a review of existing state statutes and constitutions finds the phrase seems to appear in only 3 places*:

  • Florida Stat. § 163.3215 (Regarding land use, “The standard of review applied by the special master in determining whether a proposed development order is consistent with the comprehensive plan shall be strict scrutiny in accordance with Florida law.”)
  • Louisiana R.S. 12:130.1 (Regarding shareholder’s rights, “Any transaction that is executed during the safeguard period which involves the assets of a safeguarded entity shall be subject to judicial review under the standard of strict scrutiny.”)
  • New Hampshire RSA 676:4 (“Jurisdiction of the courts to review procedural aspects of planning board decisions and actions shall be limited to consideration of compliance with applicable provisions of the constitution, statutes and regulations. The procedural requirements specified in this section are intended to provide fair and reasonable treatment for all parties and persons. The planning board’s procedures shall not be subjected to strict scrutiny for technical compliance.”)

*Update 4/2/12 5:56 – While “strict scrutiny” appears only in 3 statutes, a reader notes that the concept exists in various state laws. My point with the above was to note the lack of usage of the phrase. I’ve bolded to make my point clearer.

Louisiana may, however, add a fourth reference to strict scrutiny if its voters approve SB 303, a constitutional amendment which would modify the state’s version of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The provision currently reads:

§11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

SB 303 would change it to:

§11. Right to Acquire, Keep, Possess, Transport, Carry, Transfer, and Bear Arms

Section 11. The right of each citizen to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed, and any restriction shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

The amendment is set for a hearing tomorrow (April 3) before Louisiana Senate’s Judiciary C Committee.

Tennessee House committee rejects plan to make it easier for judges to carry guns in courtrooms

April 2nd, 2012 by Bill Raftery

2011 saw a slew of bills introduced and enacted to make it easier for people in general, and judges in particular, to carry firearms into courthouses and courtrooms. Tennessee, for example, enacted HB 2039 / SB 1775 which authorized judges to carry firearms into a courtroom. However, under the law, the judge must :

  1. have a handgun carry permit
  2. successfully completes 16 hours of POST court security training
  3. successfully completes eight hours of POST firearm training on an annual basis
  4. be vested with judicial powers and in the actual discharge of those official duties as a judge

The fourth provision was aimed at limiting a judge’s ability to carry to his/her own courtroom.

Dissatisfied with the restrictions, HB 3222 / SB 2942 was introduced. It would effectively eliminate the training requirements (i.e. elements 2 and 3 listed above) from the existing law, allowing any judge with only a carry permit to being a firearm into his or her courtroom.

The matter was heard before the Tennessee House Judiciary Committee’s General Sub-committee on March 21. The plan was ultimately rejected on a 2-4 vote with one member voting present. The video below was from that hearing.

With recall in the air in Wisconsin, Alabama considers letting public recall judges

March 30th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

While many eyes are focused on the gubernatorial recall election in Wisconsin, Alabama’s legislature has been contending with expanding its own limited recall provisions to include not only that state’s governor, but its judges as well.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a majority of states allow for some form of recall but at least some explicitly exempt judicial officers. Alaska’s constitution, for example, reads in operative part (bolding added):

All elected public officials in the State, except judicial officers, are subject to recall by the voters of the State or political subdivision from which elected. Procedures and grounds for recall shall be prescribed by the legislature.

Presently Alabama’s recall is limited to municipal commissioners and mayors. There have been numerous bills in the last 4 years introduced in Alabama that would permit some sort of recall election for officials. Of them

Only one, HB 204 of 2012 exempts judges from recall.

 

  • HB 393 of 2009, which required no specific grounds, died in committee with no activity.
  • SB 491 and SB 495, both of 2011, required the petitioners allege 1) malfeasance or nonfeasance, 2) lack of physical or mental fitness, 3) incompetence, or 4) violation of an oath of office. Both bills died in committee with no activity.
  • Of the 2012 bills, the House version (HB 311) requires no grounds be specified while the Senate versions (SB 17  and SB 19) have the same 4 criteria as their 2011 versions. 

SB 17 was approved on a 5-1 vote by Senate Committee on Constitution, Campaign Finance, Ethics, and Elections 3/22/12.

 

Week ahead: hearings on merit selection in MO, TN; MD considers judicial retirement; OK may reject judicial salary increase

March 30th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Legislatures Going Out of Session

NONE

Floor/Committee Activity of Note

April 2

Missouri Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee

SJR 51 Changes judicial nominating commissions. Allows the Governor to appoint all members to these commissions with the advice and consent of the Senate. Prohibits Governor from appointing members of the bar, judiciary, or spouses of members of the bar or judiciary.

Oklahoma House Judiciary Committee

SB 1196 Increases small claims jurisdiction from $6,000 to $10,000. Approved by full Senate 3/14/12.

SB 1222 Authorizes creation of veterans treatment courts in all judicial districts.Approved by full Senate 3/13/12.

April 3

Tennessee Senate Judiciary Committee

SJR 710 (Constitutional Amendment) Constitutionally enshrines a system for selection of each appellate court judge by means of merit-based gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation and, thereafter, contingent upon a satisfactory job performance evaluation, retention election by the voters of the state.

April 4

Maryland House Judiciary Committee

SB 616 ORIGINAL: (Constitutional Amendment) Increases from 70 to 72 the mandatory retirement age for judges. Requires that judges serving after age 70 must be certified as fit by states court of last resort (Court of Appeals). AS AMENDED: Establishes Commission to Study the Retirement of Judges. Approved as amended by full Senate 3/22/12.

Oklahoma Senate Rules Committee

HJR 1093 Rejects 6% increase in the compensation for members of the State Judiciary as approved by the Board on Judicial Compensation on September 20, 2011. Approved by full House 2/22/12.

Tennessee House Finance, Ways & Means Committee, General Subcommittee

HJR 753 (Constitutional Amendment) Provides all appellate judges are to be initially selected via merit-based gubernatorial appointment from a panel of qualified candidates submitted by a nominating commission. Subjects selections to legislative confirmation. Provides that, contingent upon a satisfactory job performance evaluation, judges are subject to retention election. Provides all appellate judges be at least thirty-five years of age and a resident of the state for the five-year period immediately preceding appointment. Sets terms of office at eight years. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 3/20/12.

April 5

April 6

Issue 6:13 is out

March 30th, 2012 by Bill Raftery

Issue 6:13 is here.

  • Kansas’ House moves to limit courts’ jurisdiction
  • Bill before GA governor would require all municipal judges receive same training
  • New Hampshire House votes to remove supreme court’s rule making power, unilaterally declare existing rule void
  • Changes to merit selection advance in Hawaii, Missouri, and Tennessee
  • Alabama’s House and Senate pass bills to contend with false liens on judges