Posts Tagged ‘Missouri’

« Older Entries

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Killed in Alabama, legislatively approved in Kansas, withdrawn in New Jersey, sent to study committee in New Hampshire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May 10: New Jersey’s AB 919, which the author had previously noted would be withdrawn, was formally removed from the legislature.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» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Killed in Alabama, legislatively approved in Kansas, withdrawn in New Jersey, sent to study committee in New Hampshire

4 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Missouri House approves changes to merit selection system for appellate judges, will probably appear on November 2012 ballot

May 10th, 2012

The Missouri House earlier today approved on a 84-71 vote SJR 51. As previously noted, the constitutional amendment would:

  • Increase the number of individuals that the Appellate Judicial Commission nominates for vacancies in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals from three to four
  • Replace the Supreme Court member who currently serves as commission chair with additional person chosen by Governor
  • Allows Supreme Court to appoint a former Supreme Court or Court of Appeals judge to serve as a nonvoting member of the commission if the former judge has not been removed for cause or failed to be retained in a retention election
  • Provides members appointed by the Governor no longer must be non-bar members
  • Provides appointed members will serve terms of four years, staggered so that a Governor will appoint two when taking office and two during the middle of his or her term.

The proposal now goes to the voters in November 2012 unless the governor puts it on earlier ballot.

1 comment »

Posted in Selection

Tags:

Missouri activity: changes to merit selection pass House committee, bill prohibiting state courts from enforcing Affordable Care Act up for hearing

May 8th, 2012

Yesterday, the Missouri House Special Standing Committee on Judicial Reform approved SJR 51. As previously noted, this constitutional amendment would:

  • Increase the number of individuals that the Appellate Judicial Commission nominates for vacancies in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals from three to four
  • Replace the Supreme Court member who currently serves as commission chair with additional person chosen by Governor
  • Allows Supreme Court to appoint a former Supreme Court or Court of Appeals judge to serve as a nonvoting member of the commission if the former judge has not been removed for cause or failed to be retained in a retention election
  • Provides members appointed by the Governor no longer must be non-bar members
  • Provides appointed members will serve terms of four years, staggered so that a Governor will appoint two when taking office and two during the middle of his or her term.

That bill is now before the House Rules Committee, which next meets today (May 8th) at 4 PM.

The other piece of activity of note is HB 1534. This bill would prohibit judges and other public officers/employees from enforcing federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It further declares any U.S. government employee who attempts to enforce law is guilty of class A misdemeanor. It was approved by the full House April 19 and is set for a hearing before the Senate General Laws Committee on tomorrow May 9.

2 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Selection

Tags:

Missouri’s Senate looks to change merit selection, rejected amendments would have changed supreme court power over judicial resources

April 30th, 2012

Last week it was Tennessee debating merit selection. This week the focus is on Missouri.

SJR 51, as introduced, would have changed the structure of the judicial nominating commissions, allowing the Governor to appoint all members with the advice and consent of the Senate. The governor would have been barred, however, from appointing commissioners who were members of the bar, judiciary, or spouses of members of the bar or judiciary.

The Senate Judiciary Committee rewrote most of the bill. The SCS (Senate Committee Substitute) shifts control of selection to appellate judicial nominating commission to governor. First, it revokes effective January 15, 2013 the terms of office for all current members of the appellate judicial commission.

Thereafter, the composition would change as follows:

Current

  • 1 Supreme Court Judge, chosen by court
  • 3 attorneys, chosen by bar, one per court of appeals district
  • 3 non-attorneys, chosen by governor, one per court of appeals district

 Proposed

  • 1 non-voting retired appellate judge (who did NOT lose a retention election or been removed from office for cause), chose by Supreme Court
  • 4 voting individuals, chosen by governor, one per court of appeals district, plus one statewide (may or may not be attorney); their terms would be staggered so an incoming governor would be able to replace 2 immediately and the other 2 half-way through his or her term
  • 3 voting attorneys, chosen by bar, one per court of appeals district

Moreover, it increases from 3 to 4 the number of names to be submitted to the governor to fill a vacancy.

Perhaps even more interesting that the SCS itself were the proposed floor amendments. All failed, and all can found in the Senate Journal from pages 847-850, here.

Amendment 1 would have required the 4 individuals chosen by the Governor to the appellate nominating commission be subject to Senate confirmation.

Amendment 2 would have changed the state’s Supreme Court power over the allocation of judicial resources. Currently, the state constitution allows the legislature to set court of appeals and other districts. Amendment 2 specified the number of judicial positions must be set by law and that any supreme court order to create a number greater than set by statute was “null and void”. It would have specified that the Supreme Court could make permanent transfers of judicial positions from circuit to circuit (the constitution already specifies the power  of the Supreme Court to make temporary transfers) but that every circuit was required to have at least 1 circuit judge and every county at least 1 associate circuit judges.

Amendment 3 would have made the date on which the existing judicial commissions were emptied 2016 rather than 2015.

Amendment 4 would have cut the commission down from 7 + 1 non-voting to 6 + 1 non-voting by eliminating the governor’s state-at-large pick. The effect would have been for the governor to have 3 seats and the bar 3.

Amendment 5 would have required the commission members release all communications regarding the commission’s work.

Each voting member of the appellate judicial commission shall keep a record of all oral, written and electronic communications relating to the official business of the commission received while a member of such commission from any person not a member of the  commission. Such records shall include the name, address, employer and date of such communication. All such records shall be a public record.

With all 5 amendments having failed, the bill met with initial approval by the full Senate and could be taken up at any time.

No comments »

Posted in Selection

Tags:

Missouri looks to compel state judges use original intent interpretation of federal constitution, nullify federal laws & court decisions

April 16th, 2012

Just a day after the Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court published an op-ed arguing in favor of a “living constitution”, Missouri’s Senate may be voting to explicitly enshrine in that state’s constitution a rejection of the concept.

SJR 45 is a lengthy amendment that would, among other things:

  • Prohibits the Missouri legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government from recognizing, enforcing, or acting in furtherance of any federal action that exceeds the powers delegated to the federal government.
  • Provides the state’s courts shall not recognize, enforce, or act in furtherance of any federal actions that:
    • restrict the right to bear arms
    • legalize or fund abortions, or the destruction of any embryo from the zygote stage
    • require the sale or trade of carbon credits or impose a tax on the release of carbon emissions
    • involve certain health care issues
    • mandate the recognition of same sex marriage or civil unions
    • increase the punishment for a crime based on perpetrator’s thoughts or designate a crime as a hate crime
    • interpret the establishment clause as creating a wall of separation between church and state
    • restrict the right of parents or guardians to home school or enroll their children in a private or parochial school or restrict school curriculum.
  • Requires state courts interpret the U.S. Constitution based on its language and the original intent of the signers of the Constitution. Amendments to the U.S. Constitution shall be interpreted based on their language and the intent of the congressional sponsor and co-sponsors of the amendment.
  • “Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”, or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government.”
  • Declares that Missouri citizens have standing to enforce the provisions of the amendment in state court.
  • Provides enforcement of the amendment applies to:
    • federal actions taken after the amendment is approved by the voters
    • federal actions specified in the amendment
    • any federal action, regardless of when it occurred, that the general assembly or the Missouri Supreme Court determines to exceed the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.

This is the third year in a row such a bill has been introduced.

In 2010, HJR 88 was approved by the Missouri House and made it to the Senate floor before dying due to adjournment.

In 2011, HJR 26 made it out of committee and died on the House floor, while the similar SJR 15 met a similar fate on the Senate side.

The 2012 version was approved by the Senate General Laws Committee 4/3/12 and may be voted on as early as today (April 16).

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction

Tags:

Merit selection: comprehensive state-by-state review of efforts to modify or end existing systems

April 10th, 2012

The debate over merit selection systems has reached a head in the last several years, with strenuous efforts at play to create merit selection systems in states which lack them coupled with vigorous efforts in other states that have merit selection to heavily modify or end their systems.

Over the next two days I’m going to look at both aspects of merit selection. Today I’ll be examining 2012 efforts to modify or end existing merit selection systems as created by constitutional provision or statute. Several states use “merit selection” entirely as the result of governors’ creating nomination panels; because these don’t involve the legislature I will not focus on them. All information as to which states have what is from the American Judicature Society’s 2011 report “Judicial Merit Selection: Current Status” located here.

Tomorrow (April 11) I will examine efforts to implement statutory and/or constitutional merit selection systems in states that do not currently have them.

Alabama – Circuit Court in select counties [interim only]: No activity

Alaska – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Court: No activity

Arizona – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Superior Court in larger counties: A 2011 bill (SCR 1001) revising numerous provisions of the merit selection system (commission composition, number of names submitted, etc.) plus increasing judicial terms will be on the 2012 ballot. A 2012 effort to simply end the merit selection system and replace with partisan elections (SCR 1034 / SB 1371) was rejected in committee.

Colorado – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court: No activity

Connecticut – Supreme Court, Appellate Court, Superior Court: No activity

Florida – Supreme Court, District Court of Appeal; Circuit [interim only]: A 2011 bill (HJR 7111) requiring Supreme Court nominees chosen by the governor be subject to Senate confirmation will be on the 2012 ballot. Several attempts to change the composition of the nominating commissions and allowing a governor to fire a majority of the commissioners at will (vs. staggered terms) failed at the last minute (HB 971 / SB 1570).

Hawaii – Supreme Court, Intermediate Appellate Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, District Court: Constitutional amendments HB 2343 and SB 2209 would require judicial selection commissions to provide more public disclosure of their proceedings, specifically information about those whose names are considered to fill vacancies. The Senate version appears now to be the primary bill, having been approved by the full Senate and the House Judiciary Committee. Another constitutional amendment, SB 2205, would lower the number of names submitted to fill vacancies: for Supreme, Intermediate Appellate & Circuit: from 4-6 to specifically 3. For District: from not less than 6 to specifically 3.

Idaho – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court [interim only]: No activity

Indiana – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Tax Court, Superior and other trial courts in select counties: Proposals to substantially revised (SJR 13) or simply end (SJR 14) merit selection failed to advance.

Iowa – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court: Several bills introduced in 2011 to either alter or end merit selection were carried over into the 2012 session (see database for full list). None advanced.

Kansas – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court at district’s discretion : The prime focus was in ending merit selection for the Court of Appeals; because it is a statutorily created court the change would only require a change in statute rather than a constitutional amendment. While meeting with House approval in 2011 (HB 2101) the Senate failed to take up the bill. Undaunted, the House began attaching it to unrelated pieces of legislation (SB 83) and seeking to end the commission on judicial performance which makes recommendations for or against retention of judges (HB 2396).

Kentucky – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Court; District Court [interim only]: No activity

Maine – Supreme Judicial Court and Superior Court: No activity

Minnesota – District Court [interim only]: No activity

Missouri – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Circuit Courts in select counties: The state synonymous with merit selection saw efforts to outright end merit selection fail to advance (HJR 77, SJR 41, SJR 42). Efforts to modify the system were and are active. SJR 51 would allow the governor to appoint all nominating commission members subject to senate confirmation and a prohibition of members of the bar, judiciary, or their spouses from serving. HJR 44 increases the names given to the governor to chose from 3 to 5 and allows the governor to reject the first 5 person panel, ask for a second, and then select from the 10. It also alters the composition of the nominating commissions and, like the Florida provisions attempted to do, allows the governor to fire commissioners appointed by prior governors. HJR 44 was approved by the House Special Standing Committee on Judicial Reform 3/21/12 and is currently in the House Rules Committee.

Montana – Supreme Court and District Court [interim only]-: Legislature not in session.

Nebraska – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court, County Court: No activity

Nevada – Supreme Court and District Court [interim only]: Legislature not in session.

New Mexico – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court, Metropolitan Court: SB 24, which was approved by the Senate but not the House, would have created a special fund to help pay for the judicial nominating commissions associated with the state’s merit selection system. Funds were to have come from gifts, donations, etc. plus $50,000 a year from the legislature itself as an automatic, recurring appropriation.

New York – Court of Appeals (court of last resort in state): A single bill introduced in 2011 (AB 309) would have required the nominating commission submit all qualified names to governor. It has failed to advance.

North Dakota – Supreme Court and District Court: Legislature out of session

Oklahoma – Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, Court of Civil Appeals, District Court [interim only]: 2011 carry over bills SJR 36 would have ended merit selection for the appellate courts, allowing the governor to appoint anyone qualified subject to senate confirmation while SB 621 would have required nominees chosen via the state’s merit selection system be subject to senate confirmation. Neither have advanced in 2012. Other carry over bills from 2011 to end merit (HJR 1008 & HJR 1009 for appellate courts; SB 543 to fill interim vacancies in District Courts) went nowhere.

Rhode Island – Supreme Court, Superior Court, Family Court, District Court : No activity Update 4/11/12: HB 8043 filed just days ago extends until 2013 an existing law allowing any individual whose name was publicly submitted to the governor by the judicial nominating commission to be eligible for subsequent nomination by the governor.

South Dakota – Supreme Court, Circuit Court [Interim only]: No activity

Tennessee – Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, Court of Appeals, Trial Courts [interim only]: Tennessee has seen literally dozens of bills introduced in 2011 and carried over, plus new bills in 2012, dealing with the state’s merit selection system which is due to “sunset” and expire soon.

Put merit selection explicitly in constitution:

HJR 753 Adds legislative confirmation of nominees

HJR 830

SJR 183

SJR 710 Adds legislative confirmation of nominees

Extend merit to June 30, 2013:

HB 3575 / SB 3321

HB 2356 / SB 2346

HB 2537 / SB 2345

Extend merit to June 30, 2014:

HB 3451 (nominating commission only)

End merit:

HB 173 / SB 127

HB 231 / SB 281

HB 958 / SB 699

HB 3615 / SB 3714

SJR 475

SJR 635

Modify:

HB 1017 / SB 82 Retains merit selection, but makes judicial nomination commission recommendations advisory; allows governor to ignore recommendations.

HB 1702 / SB 646 Requires judges selected via merit selection system receive 75% yes in retention election.

HB 3452 / SB 2794 Retains merit selection, but alters nomination process and adds confirmation.

HB 3691 / SB 3652 Requires House and Senate speakers appoint all nine members of the judicial evaluation commission since the judicial council no longer exists.

Utah – Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Court, Juvenile Court: No activity

Vermont – Supreme Court, Superior Court, District Court: No activity

West Virginia – Supreme Court of Appeals, Circuit Court, Family Court [interim only]: No activity

Wyoming – Supreme Court, District Court, Circuit Court: No activity

 

3 comments »

Posted in Selection, Special Edition

Tags:

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

2 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

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

3 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

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

5 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

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

2 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags: