Posts Tagged ‘Georgia’

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Killed in Alabama, legislatively approved in Kansas, withdrawn in New Jersey, sent to study committee in New Hampshire

May 14th, 2012

With most legislatures now out of session, the last month saw little activity on legislation dealing with bans on court use of sharia/international law, but what there was was all in the last week:

May 7: Kansas’ House approves unanimously (120-0)  SB 79 as amended by the House, a statute to ban the use of foreign or international law.

May 8: New Hampshire’s Senate Judiciary Committee recommended referring that state’s version (HB 1422) to an interim summer study.

May 9: Alabama’s Senate voted to indefinitely postpone and effective kill proposed constitutional amendment SB 84.

May 10: New Jersey’s AB 919, which the author had previously noted would be withdrawn, was formally removed from the legislature.

May 11: Kansas’ Senate approved SB 79 on a 33-3 vote. Proponents went out of their way during the debate to note the word “sharia” was not included in the bill, however news reports indicate that sharia was the focus of the bill when introduced and was specifically mentioned during debate.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Killed in Alabama, legislatively approved in Kansas, withdrawn in New Jersey, sent to study committee in New Hampshire

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

April 9th, 2012

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

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Bills withdrawn in Minnesota and New Jersey, Kansas House attaches ban to unrelated bill

March 20th, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.

The last several weeks in the examination bans on court use of sharia/international law have seen something new: while such bans have been voted down in committee before for t he first time authors are starting to withdraw the bills outright.

Minnesota’s SB 2281 was withdrawn the day it was introduced. According to WCCO TV:

Before the bill was even introduced, the author, Republican Dave Thompson pulled it. “It was never my intent to introduce legislation that was being targeted to any one group,” said Thompson.

The second bill was New Jersey’s AB 919 (introduced in the 2010/2011 session as AB 3496). Introduced January 10 of this year, the bill was withdrawn last week. The NJ Assembly Republicans blog on March 13 quotes the bill’s author (GOP Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi):

In the climate of what has been transpiring in the Muslim community in New Jersey, they were concerned it would further, in their view, portray Muslims in a negative light. After sitting and listening to their concerns, I agreed to withdraw it.

The legislature’s website, however, does not yet show the bill has having been formally withdrawn. (No direct link to bill status page, follow this link and search for bill AB 919).

The other activity was in Kansas. SB 79, as originally introduced, had nothing to do with international law or sharia. Instead, it made a modification to an existing state program that helped courts recover fees/fines owed. That bill passed the Senate unanimously.

Yesterday (March 19) the House changed the bill entirely. The House substitute for SB 79 simply replicates the language of HB 2087, which the House had passed in 2011 and the Senate had declined to advance.

Readers may recognize this tactic on the part of the Kansas House. When the House approved bills to end merit selection for the state’s Court of Appeals, bills the Senate did not take up, the House started to add provisions to unrelated bills (see here, here, and here). The difference here is that rather than tacking on the new provision to the existing bill, this effort simply replaces the text of the bill entirely.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Bills withdrawn in Minnesota and New Jersey, Kansas House attaches ban to unrelated bill

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: South Dakota governor signs, dead in Florida, failing to advance in any other states

March 13th, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.
If February was the active month for legislative bans on court use of sharia/international law, March may turn out to be the quiet month.

Yesterday (March 12) South Dakota’s governor signed into law HB 1253 which reads “No court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code.”

The other activity, or lack thereof, was in Florida where that state’s multiple efforts failed to advance before that legislature adjourned. (Missouri’s Rules Committee passage was more procedural than substantive).

The possibility of any other state advancing such bans is diminishing; already many proposals have failed to meet internal legislative deadlines to advance out of their committees or chambers of origin (so-called “crossover” days).

Full roster of 39 40 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.

Update 3/13/12 10:40 a.m.: Minnesota SB 2281 added
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: South Dakota governor signs, dead in Florida, failing to advance in any other states

Is Georgia set to make some nonpartisan county judicial elections partisan?

March 12th, 2012

For the most part, Georgia’s judicial elections are nonpartisan affairs. Probate Courts and Magistrate Courts in some localities are notable exceptions which may be done away with if a bill passed by the Georgia Senate Committee on State and Local Governmental Operations becomes law.

SB 457 would end all nonpartisan elections in the state effective January 1, 2013. Only two exceptions are provided for:

  1. Judicial elections under Georgia Code 21-2-138 (State Court, Superior Court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court)
  2. Elections for county judicial offices (presumably Magistrates Court and Probate Court), local school board office, or consolidated government, if approved of by affected voters.

Under SB 457, if a jurisdiction wanted to continue with nonpartisan elections, the voters would have to approve of such a plan via a referendum on the November 2012 ballot worded “Shall the office of (Insert name of office) be elected in partisan elections?” Moreover, under the terms of the bill, each county judicial office would be voted upon separately.

The bill was approved by the Senate Committee on State and Local Governmental Operations February 29 and is on the Senate’s Second Reading calendar.

Legislation to protect the home addresses of judges in Florida, Georgia, Illinois

March 6th, 2012

An unfortunate reality for many judges is the prospect of irate, and possibly violent, litigants and others seeking to harm the judges and their families. Most states have prohibitions on the release of the judge’s home address in certain instances through Freedom of Information Act requests, but those determined to harm the judge may find other venues (such as requesting voter registration information which contains the address).

Three state legislatures are currently debating the subject in particular:

Florida HB 629 / SB 916 Expands confidentiality of home addresses to include former as well as current judges/justices. House version: Approved by full House 2/16/12. In Senate Criminal Justice Committee. Senate version: Approved by Senate Criminal Justice Committee 2/22/12. On Senate Special Order Calendar for 3/7/12.

Georgia HB 397 Repeals provision that prohibits release of records that reveal the home address of judges. Replaces with new provision prohibiting release of records that reveal the home address of “public employees”, including any officer or employee of any state, county, or municipal agency, department, or commission. Approved by full House 3/5/12.

Illinois HB 5877 Excludes personal information of a judicial officer covered by the Judicial Privacy Act from being included as a public record under the Freedom of Information Act, and from inspection or copying under the Act. Establishes procedure for the State Board of Elections to redact a judicial candidate’s home address from the candidate’s certificate of nomination or nomination papers, after conclusion of the Code’s objection period. Establishes procedure for the Secretary of State to redact a judicial candidate’s home address from the candidate’s declaration for retention. Provides that the Secretary of State may allow an applicant who is a judicial officer to provide an office or work address instead of a residence or mailing address on a driver’s license. In House Judiciary I – Civil Law Committee.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: On South Dakota governor’s desk; advancing in legislative committees in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, New Hampshire

March 2nd, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.

Like the two weeks before it, these last two weeks since my last update in this area have been particularly busy. Of note:

  • Three new bills introduced: Georgia SR 926 (Constitutional Amendment), Iowa SB 2158 (the Senate version of HB 575 introduced last year and still pending), and Mississippi HB 698. The Mississippi bill is interesting; despite the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decision in January 2012 that overturned a similar Oklahoma initiative because it cited sharia by name, HB 698 specifically cites to sharia as well in its definition of “foreign law” the use of which is prohibited in the state’s courts by the bill.
  • South Dakota’s heavily modified version (“No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.”) was approved by both chambers and is now on the desk of the state’s Governor.
  • Bans in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, and New Hampshire met with committee approval, while Florida HB 1209 was approved by the full House yesterday (March 1).

Full roster of 39 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: On South Dakota governor’s desk; advancing in legislative committees in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, New Hampshire

State legislatures grappling with filing of false liens on judges and court staff

February 20th, 2012

The 1990s saw a series of efforts by disgruntled litigants using so-called “common law courts” to file liens with county recorders on the property of judges and court staff. At the federal level, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 expanded penalties for retaliating against a federal judge or clerk/staff by false claim or slander of title (18 USC 1521).

In recent years, many of the same practices launched against state judges and court staff in the 90s have returned with new vigor. As a result, several state legislatures have sought to enact prohibitions on such practices or enhance their existing provisions.

Alabama HB 17 / SB 64 / SB 225 Creates crime of offering a false instrument for recording against a public servant. Allows a public servant to request to remove a false instrument that has been filed against the public servant to be removed to circuit court and be expedited.

Alabama HB 99 Creates several new crimes with respect to sham legal processes against public servants, including judges and court staff. Creates crimes of:

  • impersonating a state or local official or employee or a law enforcement officer in connection with sham legal process
  • falsely asserting authority of state law in connection with sham legal process
  • acting, 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
  • falsely asserting authority of law in an attempt to intimidate or hinder a state or local official or employee or a law enforcement officer in the discharge of official duties by means of threats, harassment, physical abuse, or the use of sham legal process.

Georgia HB 997 Provides for the new crime of false lien statements against public officers, including all judges, or public employees, including every person employed by the judicial branch. (Hearing 2/22/12)

Indiana SB 382 Makes it a Class D felony for a person to file a false lien or a false encumbrance against a public servant’s real or personal property.

Nebraska LB 982 Changes the powers of the Secretary of State regarding the removal of fraudulent (or believed to be fraudulent) financing statements. Allows those affected by a fraudulent statement to recover damages from the person responsible for the fraudulent statement. Expands definition of a fraudulent statement.

Pennsylvania SB 50 Creates crimes of simulated legal process, impersonating public official or legal tribunal, and hindering public official related to filing of false liens and similar items against judges and others.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Introduced in Mississippi and Kentucky, advancing in Florida & South Dakota, dying in Virginia

February 13th, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.

The two weeks since my last update in this area have been particularly busy. Of note:

  • Mississippi’s introduction of HB 2 and Kentucky’s HB 386 brings to 22 (versus 24 states in 2011) the number of states to have a bill banning the use of international law/sharia by state courts in 2012
  • South Dakota has heavily modified their bills and achieved committee approval with a single sentence statute: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.”
  • Virginia’s bans, while initially appearing to be advancing, were deferred into the 2013 legislative session.

Full roster of 36 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.

Georgia considers creating specific crime of threatening judges, clerks of court and their family

February 7th, 2012

Georgia’s legislature may create as a separate crime threats made to a judge, clerk of court, or others associated with the judicial process.

Under HB 541, “A person who knowingly and willfully harms, threatens to harm, or acts in a manner to intimidate a public official or participant in a judicial proceeding” if guilty of a felony. The definition of “public official or participant in a judicial proceeding” includes “a law enforcement officer, witness, judge, prosecutor, clerk of court, bailiff, juror, or his or her family member.”

In 2010 Georgia increased penalties for assaults and other crimes against a judge, attorney, clerk of court, deputy clerk of court, court reporter, court interpreter or probation officer.

HB 541 is being heard this morning (February 7) in a subcommittee of the House Judicial Non-Civil Committee.