Posts Tagged ‘Maine’

2011 Northeast bail/pretrial release legislation

August 15th, 2011

Law

Maine HB 1029 Adds a new provision addressing the preconviction limitations on a bail commissioner’s authority. Adds a provision requiring that in the preconviction context a bail commissioner specify a court date within 8 weeks of the date of the bail order when that bail order uses one or more release conditions not automatically included in every bail order for pretrial release. Requires that the court and not a bail commissioner set preconviction bail for a crime if: the condition of release alleged to be violated relates to new criminal conduct for a Class C or above crime or specified Class D and Class E crimes. Clarifies that a law enforcement officer may make a warrantless arrest related to anticipated bail revocation or violations of bail conditions.

Maine HB 774 Specifies that persons arrested for juvenile crimes, as well as persons under 18 years of age who are arrested for crimes outside of the Maine Juvenile Code, are not eligible for bail.

Maine HB 951 Allows a court to permit the use of medical marijuana while imposing conditions of a criminal sentence, bail, probation, continuance or other dispositional order.

Maine HB 961 Provides the Chief Judge of the District Court may adopt rules requiring a bail commissioner to appear and set bail regardless of whether the defendant is indigent and unable to pay the bail commissioner’s fee and may also adopt rules governing the manner in which a bail commissioner is paid in the event an indigent person is released on bail and is unable to pay the bail commissioner’s fee.

New Hampshire SB 63 Amends the criteria for the list of bail bondsmen provided to the courts. Provides that a defendant released pending trial who fails to appear within 45 days of the date required shall forfeit all designated property held by the court to secure such defendant’s appearance.

New York AB 7388 & New York SB 3947 Adds a further, more streamlined, way to determine the value of real property used in a secured bail bond.

Introduced with committee and/or floor approval

New York AB 8158 & New York SB 5734 Provides the legal definition and requirements for charitable bail organizations organized for the purpose of posting cash bail for poor persons.

New York SB 1414 Requires the court, when determining recognizance or bail in cases of domestic violence, to consider certain enumerated factors which could lead to intimidation or injury by the principal to the victim or witness.

New York SB 259 Allows the court to consider whether the individual is a danger to the alleged victim, members of the community, or themselves when setting bail.

Introduced with committee rejection

Maine HB 312 Allows as a condition of bail that all firearms in the possession of the person arrested be relinquished to a law enforcement officer and that the person refrain from possessing a firearm or other specified dangerous weapons until further order of a court. Upon request of the defendant, such a bail condition must be heard by the court as expeditiously as possible.

New Hampshire HB 428 Establishes a procedure for cases in which a court recommends that a defendant participate in a pretrial supervision program at a county correctional facility. Amends the term “peace officer” to read “law enforcement officer” in the statute on default or breach of conditions of bail or recognizances.

New Hampshire HB 473 Imposes a $50 administrative fee on any defendant who fails to make payment of the bail commissioner’s fee within 30 days and requires that a hearing be held prior to the waiver of a fee.

New Hampshire HB 644 Disallows bail for persons in custody until their lawful presence can be verified.

Introduced with other or no activity

Connecticut HB 6171 Provides any bond set by a court as a condition of release for a person charged with a family violence offense shall be paid in full and a promissory note shall not be accepted as an assurance.

Maine HB 388 Establishes as a condition of bail for a person charged with violating a protection from abuse order that the person submit to supervision by an electronic tracking device with specific features.

Massachusetts HB 2155 (by request bill) relative to improving the bail review process

Massachusetts HB 2161 (by request bill) permit the setting of both cash bail and pretrial conditions in domestic violence matters

Massachusetts HB 2242 (by request bill) require only judges/justices to conduct bail hearings on certain arrested persons with multiple pending felony charges

Massachusetts HB 2243 (by request bill) restricting the issuance of bail for persons arrested as a result of a trial default warrant

Massachusetts HB 2828 (by request bill) increases bail fees

Massachusetts SB 706 (by request bill) relative to probation surrender and bail revocation

Massachusetts SB 791 (by request bill) legislation relative to pre-trial detention

Massachusetts SB 812 (by request bill) eliminate presumed personal recognizance for certain defendants

Massachusetts SB 813 (by request bill) relative to failing to appear in court after release on bail

Massachusetts SB 843 (by request bill) relative to conditions of release for persons admitted to bail

Massachusetts SB 845 (by request bill) relative to conditions of release for persons admitted to bail

Massachusetts SB 863 (by request bill) permit the setting of both cash bail and pretrial conditions in domestic violence matters

Massachusetts SB 899 (by request bill) legislation relative to improving the bail review and rendition process

Massachusetts SB 900 (by request bill) relative to bail review

New York AB 2216 & New York SB 829 Requires court review of domestic violence bail applications

New York AB 251 Directs the court to consider certain factors when determining the issuance of an order for recognizance or bail where a principal is charged with a crime against a family or household member, in matters where the court has discretion; and directs the court to consider the danger of intimidation or injury by the principal to a witness.

New York AB 2904 Denies bail for persons charged with driving while intoxicated in certain instances resulting in the death of another person.

New York AB 2976 Allows a superior court to order bail or recognizance for a defendant who has been convicted of a class A-II felony if the defendant is providing, or has agreed to provide material assistance

New York AB 3608 Directs courts to exonerate bail and order recognizance when no grand jury action has occurred for 45 days from arraignment, unless the people show good cause otherwise.

New York AB 4559 & New York SB 4799 Defines the crimes that would lead a defendant to be categorized as a “person who must be committed to the custody of the sheriff” and as such would not be eligible for release on recognizance or bail except in line with certain mitigating circumstances

New York AB 5013 Provides that where a criminal action is pending in a local criminal court or a superior court, the district attorney upon motion, may seek an order from the Appellate Division of the Department in which the action is pending to fix bail whenever he determines the amount of bail as fixed is inadequate or disproportionate.

New York AB 6705 Authorizes and directs courts to deny orders of recognizance or bail where the defendant poses a risk of danger to the community.

New York SB 2872 Requires the commissioner of insurance to conduct a study to identify problems and concerns regarding the bail bond business and to present his or her findings to the legislature.

New York SB 2930 Requires the incarceration of a defendant, pending a bail revocation hearing, upon filing of a statement alleging the intimidation of a victim or witness while such defendant was at liberty on bail; requires revocation hearing within 72 hours.

Pennsylvania HB 618 & Pennsylvania SB 510 Provides there shall be no right to bail pending appeal or sentencing for a defendant convicted of an sexual offense listed under section 9795.1 (relating to registration) if the victim of the offense was under 18 years of age at the time of its commission.

Pennsylvania SB 44 Establishes Bail Bond Enforcement Agent Act. Provides no person shall represent himself as or act in the capacity of a bail bond enforcement agent unless the person has met the requirements of the act.

Rhode Island HB 6155 & Rhode Island SB 1005 Would require the court and the attorney general to take additional steps in order to forfeit a bail bondsman surety and gives the bail bondsman additional rights regarding the posting and terminating of bail.

2 comments »

Posted in Other, Special Edition

Tags: Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: ABA House of Delegates opposes “blanket prohibitions”, state legislatures out of session

August 8th, 2011

This post has been updated. Click here.

Earlier today, the American Bar Association House of Delegates approved Resolution 113A:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association opposes federal or state laws imposing blanket prohibitions on consideration or use by courts or arbitral tribunals of foreign or international law.

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association opposes federal or state laws imposing blanket prohibitions on consideration or use by courts or arbitral tribunals of the entire body of law or doctrine of a particular religion.

Clearly geared towards efforts to ban court use of sharia/international law, the resolution comes at a time when the state legislatures are out of session and silent. Since the July update, no legislative activity has occurred, although the Michigan bill remains technically pending (the legislature sits year-round).

Full roster of 49 bills introduced in 2011 in 22 states and their statuses after the jump.

3 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Florida Georgia Indiana Iowa Kansas Maine Michigan Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Mexico North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina South Dakota Texas West Virginia Wyoming

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Michigan becomes 22nd state to consider, Texas House tries again to get Senate to adopt

July 5th, 2011

This post has been updated. Click here.

With Alabama, Iowa, and North Carolina all set to adjourn in June, it looked as if there would not be any additional sharia/international law bans introduced or debated in 2011. However, in mid-June Michigan introduced a bill (HB 4769) co-sponsored by 42 of 63 Michigan House Republicans that copied much of the language from the versions introduced in Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, South Dakota, and West Virginia, in particular the use of the term “informal tribunals” or “informal administrative body” in all of these versions, something that does not appear in the others.

Meanwhile, Texas in its special session reintroduced one of theirs from the regular session. I went into the details of the legislative machinations in May in Texas in my last update. In sum, the ban was limited to family law/Family Code cases by a House committee (HB 911), was added onto the “losers pays” tort reform bill at the last minute on the House floor (Amendment #6 to HB 274), and stripped out by a Senate committee.

June proved to be a repeat of May’s efforts. The original HB 79A, a bill for the implementation of the judiciary budget, did not include the ban. Instead, it was again floor amended in (Amendment #12), over the objections of a least one member of the House who attempted to have the amendment ruled not germane to the bill. The amendment was ruled germane and adopted on a 105-29-2 vote. Once again, a Senate committee (this time the Jurisprudence Committee) stripped the provision out and the bill was sent to the governor without the ban on June 29.

Full roster of 49 bills introduced in 2011 in 22 states and their statuses after the jump.

2 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Maine State of the Judiciary: “the nuts and bolts of delivering justice”

June 29th, 2011

The National Center for State Courts has an archive of 2011, 2010, and previous years State of the Judiciary addresses located here.

Chief Justice Leigh I. Saufley gave the Maine State of the Judiciary on March 24. The Chief Justice’s speech was given to a Joint Convention of the House and Senate, with the state’s governor present, making Maine one of at least five states where all three branches were present for the state of the judiciary (the five where the Governor was identified by name were Alabama, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming).

On March 24, the Senate adopted Senate Order 13

Ordered, that a message be sent to the House of Representatives proposing a Convention of the two branches of the Legislature be held at 11:00 this morning in the Hall of the House for the purpose of extending to the Honorable Leigh Ingalls Saufley, Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, the Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, and members of the Judiciary, an invitation to attend and request the Chief Justice make such communication as pleases her.

Highlights of the the Chief Justice’s speech (full text here) included:

We are all charged with remembering that the very first purpose of Maine’s Constitution is “to establish justice.” The collegial and collaborative efforts of Maine’s separate branches of government have made all the difference in our capacity to establish justice during these last many hard economic years, and your attention to your constituents’ justice-related needs means that scarce resources are used for the very best value we can obtain.

INTRODUCTION

I must begin my presentation by reminding us all that the Maine Judicial Branch has been substantially underfunded for decades…But the fact remains that there are too few positions—far fewer positions as compared to other states—to complete the work before us. However, I am not going to dwell on these challenges today. Nor am I going to spend time today talking about some of the recent and most uplifting aspects of the delivery of justice, such as the improvements in Juvenile Justice, or the new evidence-based practices in criminal law that hold promise for reducing community risk and recidivism through focused interventions, such as mental health courts, drug courts, and improved monitoring capacities. Instead, I am going to take advantage of this 10th Anniversary of my presentations to you to talk about the nuts and bolts of delivering justice.

CONTEXT

In 1976, the 107th Maine Legislature took steps to create an administratively efficient court structure. In what was a visionary move, the Legislature consolidated all three components of the state court systems under one single administration, reducing duplication of staff and improving flexibility in the use of judicial resources. It is important to understand that many states have not yet completed that step, leaving State, County, and sometimes even municipal governments to pay for the overlapping costs of the courts.

A DECADE AGO

So, ten years ago when I first spoke to you from this podium, I set out several goals designed to take advantage of the efficient administrative structure of our State Courts, to consolidate further, and to make the system more responsive to the public’s changing needs. Among those goals were the following: First: Secure the Courts. At that time, we had no system of entry screening whatsoever. Second: Take advantage of the single administrative system to balance and improve the allocation of judicial resources to assure that priority cases, including those involving children, violence, and sexual assault were reached quickly and resolved more promptly. Third: Consistent with efforts to consolidate and streamline, address the aging and expensive infrastructure of Maine’s courthouses. Fourth: Make better use of technology to reduce staffing needs, improve record keeping, and provide much more prompt public service.

A DECADE OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS

In the last ten years, we have accomplished many of those goals. First, regarding security, we have worked consistently, some of you might say stubbornly, to improve safety in our courthouses, and with your help, we have made substantial progress. Second, regarding resource allocations, in 2003, the Judicial Resource Team, led by Justice Levy, created an entirely new approach to case management and scheduling…In the last several years, we have built on those lessons by further reengineering specific dockets. Third, over the last ten years we set about to streamline the court’s infrastructure. Our use of technology has also expanded substantially. Although we do not yet have electronic filing, which is one of our ultimate goals, we have achieved several major steps forward.

CURRENT STATUS

Looking back over these last ten years, we have worked hard to keep our eye on our goals and move forward, notwithstanding the resource limitations. Unfortunately, the challenges of understaffing have taken their toll on the public. The bottom line is that the limited number of staff and judges simply cannot do all of the work that is generated.

THE NEXT DECADE

As we move ahead, in addition to continued progress in security, technology, and consolidations, we will be focusing on several substantive areas that require attention.

Business Litigation One of our goals must be to provide better public service for our business communities. There are three areas that need help: Complex Claims…Small Claims… And third, we must simplify and reduce the costs for those civil cases that are too big to be filed as small claims, and not large enough to qualify for the complex Business and Consumer Docket.

Access to Justice One last cautionary note for the decade to come. We must all work to improve the availability of legal services for vulnerable Maine people who cannot afford an attorney when they are confronted with urgent legal problems including those involving their children, their homes, or, in the face of domestic violence, their very lives.

VISION

And so, as we prepare for progress, we must keep our eye on the very specific vision of justice we have set out for Maine. I’m going to take the last few minutes to describe some of our most important goals for the decade ahead.

First, our court facilities will be physically accessible to everyone and will be safe from dangerous weapons.

All cases will be heard promptly, because every case type is a priority for the people involved.

Support for access to justice will be strong and deep.

Jury trials will be readily accessible.

Finally, electronic information systems will substantially improve public service.

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP

First, support the Governor’s budget for the Judicial Branch.

Second, come to our courthouses, watch justice in action, and give us your Feedback.

And finally, if you find extra money, send it on to us. We promise to make the very best use of every dollar you find.

No comments »

Posted in State of the Judiciary

Tags: Maine

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: 38 of 47 bills died or rejected this session; only 1 enacted into law

June 3rd, 2011

This post has been updated. Click here.

With most state legislatures going out of session, May proved to relatively inactive for bills seeking to ban court use of sharia/international law. In the May update (located here) there were 44 bills in 21 states. In June, the number of bills climbed to 47 in 21 states. As of today, the status of the 47 breaks down as follows:

38 died due to adjournment or had been rejected by their respective legislatures.

1 was signed into law (Arizona’s HB 2064 on April 12).

8 remain at least theoretically active: 4 in Alabama; 3 in Iowa; 1 in North Carolina.

Texas was the focus of much of the May activity. On May 9, the text of the House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence ban (HB 911) approved in April was floor-amended (Amendment #6) into the so-called “loser pays” tort reform bill (HB 274). This version, as amended in committee, was much more limited than others and specified it applied in matters “arising under the Family Code” only and then only if “the application of that [foreign] law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution or a statute of this state.” Amendment 6 was approved by a 112-31 vote in the House, but was removed by the Senate State Affairs committee and failed to be enacted when the final version of HB 274 was signed into law May 30.

Meanwhile, on (May 10) the House Select Committee on State Sovereignty advanced a broader version (HB 1240) of a sharia/international law ban

“foreign or international law or doctrine” means a law, rule, legal code, or principle of a jurisdiction outside the legal traditions of the states and territories of the United States, including international laws, that do not have a binding effect on this state or the United States…A court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not base a ruling or decision on: (1) a foreign or international law or doctrine; or (2) a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.

HB 1240 proceeded to the House Calendars committee, where it died when the legislature adjourned.

Full roster of bills introduced in 2011 and their status after the jump.

2 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Florida Georgia Indiana Iowa Kansas Maine Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Mexico North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina South Dakota Texas West Virginia Wyoming

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Law in Arizona, bills advance in Missouri and Texas, failing in most states

May 3rd, 2011

This post has been updated. Click here.

In the April update (located here) there were 44 bills in 21 states seek to ban court use of sharia/international law. There have been no new bills, but almost all existing ones have either died or failed to advance in the last several weeks. As of today, the status of the 44 break down as follows:

20 died due to adjournment or had been rejected by their respective legislatures.

11 failed to make it out of committee in their originating house before the legislature’s internal deadline.

1 failed to make it out of committee in the second house before the legislature’s internal deadline (Oklahoma HB 1552).

1 was signed into law (Arizona’s HB 2064 on April 12).

11 remain at least theoretically active.

Of the active, only three moved in the last month.

Texas: One of the House bills was approved in committee, but with a massive shift in wording. HB 911 was originally a broad-based ban on the use of foreign law “if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.” As amended, however, the ban applies only “on a matter arising under the Family Code.” As amended, the bill passed the House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence on April 18.
Missouri: The House approved one of its versions (HB 708). The Senate committee scrapped the House bill in favor of its own (SB 308).

Both use the same definition of “foreign law”

As used in this section, “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.

Both use nearly identical wording for what is banned (differences in bold).

House: 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.

Senate: 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.

The big difference appears to be in the provisions related to contracts. The Senate version waives the ban on the use of “foreign law” where the clause is “capable of segregation” from the rest of the contract.

Minor differences include a provision in the House version that declares “The general assembly fully recognizes the right to contract freely under the laws of this state, and also recognizes that this right may be reasonably and rationally circumscribed in accordance with the state’s interest to protect and promote rights and privileges granted under the constitutions of this state and the United States.” Moreover, the House version would amend Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 1 (Laws in Force and Construction of Statutes) while the Senate version adds to Chapter 506 (Commencement of Actions and General Provisions).

Full roster of bills introduced in 2011 and their status after the jump.

3 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

“Birther bills” and their potential impact on state judicial candidates

April 15th, 2011

Last night, the Arizona Legislature gave final approval of a bill (HB 2177) that would require presidential candidates to prove they are natural born U.S. citizens (most likely through “long form” birth certificates) before their names can appear on the state’s ballot. At least 13 other states are considering or have considered and rejected such proposals this year. Several of these efforts, and related bills, would and could impact judicial candidates should they ultimately be adopted in 2011 or 2012.

Kansas HB 2224 would require candidates for state office to provide the Office of the Secretary of State a certified copy of the candidate’s birth certificate and the candidate’s drivers license or other government-issued identification. For judicial candidates, the birth certificate requirement would apply only if they are in a partisan election. For those courts (Supreme, Court of Appeals, and 17 of the state’s 31 District Court districts, and Municipal Courts) which use a merit selection system, candidates would not be required to produce the birth certificate.

Oklahoma SB 540 would allow any registered voter to challenge the U.S. citizenship of any candidate. The candidate would be required to produce documents supporting their citizenship, one of which may be a birth certificate.

Oklahoma SB 91 requires each candidate required to file a Declaration of Candidacy for any federal, state, county, municipal or judicial office, or for the nomination of a recognized political party, in any general, primary, or special election shall, at the time of filing the Declaration of Candidacy, provide proof of identity and eligibility to hold the office sought to the election board at which the Declaration was filed. Given that Oklahoma appellate judges must be at least 30 years of age this could possibly mean the production of a birth certificate (the bill lists other ways/documents to provide identity & eligibility).

While Oklahoma SB 91 may require a birth certificate for judicial candidates, Alabama SB 401 explicitly requires it.

Any person who seeks election and/or seeks ballot access for any election to any public office that has an age requirement for election to that office shall provide a certified copy of his or her birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth when the person qualifies for election to that office.

While there appears to be no minimum for Alabama appellate and most trial judges, there is a maximum of 70 (Amendment 328, Section 6.16). Could “age requirement” be construed to mean proof the judicial candidate has not reached the magic number of 70? The exception to the no-minimum-age-requirement is Alabama Municipal Court judges, who as I noted in a recent blog post do have a minimum (18).

Finally, Maine’s HB 27 would have the effect of requiring the state’s Probate Court judges provide birth certificates. The state’s other judges (Supreme, District, Superior) are all nominated by the state’s Governor and confirmed by the Senate and therefore not considered electoral candidates.

2 comments »

Posted in Qualification & Terms

Tags: Alabama Arizona Kansas Maine Oklahoma

Bans on court use of sharia/international law advance in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma

April 11th, 2011

Welcome New York Times readers!

This post has been updated. Click here.

In the March update (located here) there were 42 bills introduced in 2011 in 20 states seeking to ban court use of sharia/international law. That number is now up to 44 bills in 21 states.

Arizona’s “new” bill was really a strike-all amendment to a completely unrelated bill HB 2064. The resulting bill was approved April 7 and is currently sitting on Governor Jan Brewer’s desk.
North Carolina HB 640 was introduced April 5 and is currently pending in the House Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee C.

In addition to Arizona, bills in 6 other states advanced out of their committees or chambers, including Alabama SB 61 and SB 62, Alaska HB 88, Florida SB 1294, Kansas HB 2087, Missouri HB 708, and Oklahoma HB 1552. Additionally, hearings were conducted in Texas and Missouri. All 2011 activity is in bold below the fold.

6 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Judicial Retirement Plans/Pensions 2011: Northeastern States

April 4th, 2011

Maine HB 425 Establishes an option for new employees hired on or after July 1, 2012 to become members of the Judicial Retirement Program. Provides current members may make a onetime, irrevocable election to remain as members.

Massachusetts HB 2431 Provides survivors of judges who die “in the performance of his/her duties” are to receive maximum retirement benefits as if judge were fully vested, etc. Defines “in the performance of his/her duties” as including judicial assignments in any courthouse or other venue, such as hospitals or jails, used to conduct judicial business; to Emergency Judicial Response System assignments; to approved voluntary or assigned education programs or other assignment within the scope of his/her employment as a judge or justice.

Massachusetts HB 2965 Modifies retirement earnings and benefits of certain senior justices.

Massachusetts HB 2978 Provides for judges who reach mandatory retirement age shall receive automatic inflation adjustments to annual pensions.

New Hampshire HB 299 Allows the annual contribution for unfunded accrued liability of the judicial retirement plan to be calculated over a 30-year period or the maximum period allowed, whichever is less.

New Hampshire HB 492 Establishes a deferred retirement option in the judicial retirement plan. Modifies benefits related to service of certain judges of probate retiring because of permanent disability.

New Jersey AB 3796 & SB 2705 Increases employee contribution rates in Judicial Retirement System (JRS) to 8.5% of salary (up from 3%). Provides additional 5.5% not being used to reduce the statutorily required employer normal contribution. Provides increases to be implemented in a manner to conform to State Constitution prohibition against the reduction in the compensation of a judge during the judge’s term of appointment.

New Jersey SB 2696 Restructures Judicial Retirement System (JRS) and other Retirement Systems. Changes contribution rate to JRS and authorizes JRS board to make future changes.

Rhode Island HB 5840 Eliminates the cost-of-living retirement adjustments for all judges, teachers, and state employees and their surviving spouses or domestic partners who are hired on or after the effective date of act.

No comments »

Posted in Salary & Budget, Special Edition

Tags: Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey Rhode Island

Mid-session update: 42 bills in 20 states seek to ban court use of sharia/international law (with list and links)

March 15th, 2011

Welcome ABA Journal readers! This post has been updated, here.

We are about half way through the 2011 state legislative season and so far there have been 42 bills in 2011 to ban or otherwise restrict court references or use to sharia/international law.

Prior 2011 posts on the subject can be found here, here, and here.

Below is an update on the current (as of 3/14/11) status of such efforts. Hearings coming up this week include Alaska HB 88, Missouri HB 708, Missouri SB 308, and Nebraska LB 647.

Interestingly, some of the most recently filed bills (Iowa HB 489 filed March 2; Maine HB 811 filed March 15; West Virginia HB 3220 filed February 21) now provide that foreign law cannot be the “primary factor which a court…shall consider”.

2 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas Florida Georgia Indiana Iowa Kansas Maine Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Mexico Oklahoma South Carolina South Dakota Texas West Virginia Wyoming