Posts Tagged ‘Missouri’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Proposed legislative changes to court security funding, practices

February 14th, 2012

With legislation recently introduced in the U.S. Senate to provide federal assistance to state court security, several state legislatures are grappling with the same subject, in particular who should provide court security and how should it be paid for? Bills introduced already in 2012 include:

Hawaii HB 493 Transfers responsibility for judiciary security personnel from department of public safety to newly created office of the sheriff within the department of the attorney general. Carried over from 2011 session.

Minnesota HB 1607 Permits State Patrol to provide security and protection to Supreme Court justices for a limited period and within the limits of existing resources, in response to a credible threat on the individual’s life or safety. Carried over from 2011 session.

Minnesota HB 2000 Authorizes county boards to set and impose court security fees in civil and criminal matters for court security equipment and personnel. In House Judiciary Policy and Finance Committee.

Minnesota SB 1283 Permits State Patrol to provide security and protection to Supreme Court justices for a limited period and within the limits of existing resources, in response to a credible threat on the individual’s life or safety. Carried over from 2011 session.

Missouri HB 1416 For St. Louis County Courthouse only, exempts any licensed attorney from court security screening measures. In House (no committee).

New Jersey SB 264 Provides that while each county must provide “suitable courtrooms”, it is the county governing body that shall have final authority to determine expenditures for “suitably” securing courtrooms. In Senate Judiciary Committee.

New Jersey SB 652 Creates Court Security Enhancement Fund financed by increase of $5 to most court fees, assessments and penalties, to provide a continuous source of funding to assist counties and municipalities in providing and maintaining safe and secure court facilities. In Senate Judiciary Committee.

New York AB 3385 Provides a $5 fee to cover security costs in justice courts. Carried over from 2011 session.

New York AB 7325 Allows for a justice court to use money collected through a $10 surcharge to provide for additional security equipment and personnel. Carried over from 2011 session.

New York SB 5177 Allows for a justice court to use money collected through a $10 surcharge to provide for additional security equipment and personnel. Carried over from 2011 session.

Oklahoma SB 626 Repeals requirement that counties provide the courts attendants, fuel, lights and stationery, electricity, water, other utilities, toilet facilities and janitorial service, suitable and sufficient for the transaction of court business in such facilities. Provides county shall not be responsible for providing security, telephone, and utility service for the county courthouse or any annex thereto without an agreement with the Administrative Director of the Courts providing that the county will be reimbursed from the court fund for such services. Carried over from 2011 session.

Oregon HB 4163 Changes title of “court security officer” to “judicial security marshal” and “court security personnel” to “judicial security personnel.” Requires Department of Public Safety Standards and Training to certify individual members of judicial security personnel upon request of Security and Emergency Preparedness Office of Judicial Department, at office’s expense. In House Judiciary Committee.

Tennessee HB 1801 Clarifies that deputy sheriffs assigned to courthouse security are not required to be certified by the state’s peace officer standards and training commission but are not required to be. Carried over from 2011 session.

Tennessee SB 1755 Clarifies that deputy sheriffs assigned to courthouse security are not required to be certified by the state’s peace officer standards and training commission but are not required to be. Carried over from 2011 session.

Virginia HB 683 Increases from $10 to $15 the maximum sum that may be assessed as part of the costs in each criminal or traffic case in district or circuit court in which the defendant is convicted of a violation of any statute or ordinance, to be used to pay for courthouse and courtroom security. Tabled in House Courts of Justice, Civil Subcommittee 1/18/12.

No comments »

Posted in Other

Tags:

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.

11 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: 33 bills in 20 states to start 2012; review of all efforts since 2010

January 30th, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.

2012 marks the third year in a row to see major legislative efforts to ban state courts from using sharia or international law. A recap:

2010

Write up of all 2010 efforts here

2010 saw three efforts make their way out of their respective legislatures. The Oklahoma constitutional amendment would never take force, having been struck down by a federal district court, a determination upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in January 2012.

  • Louisiana HB 785 & SB 460: “Foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.
  • Oklahoma HJR 1056 (Constitutional Amendment): Prohibits the courts to “look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider Sharia Law or international law.” Requires courts adhere only to the U.S. & Oklahoma Constitutions, federal and state law and regulations, and where necessary the laws and regulations of another state.
  • Tennessee HB 3768 & SB 3740: Defines “law, legal code, or legal system” means a law, legal code, or legal system used or applied in any jurisdiction outside of Tennessee, including any foreign state, jurisdiction, country or territory of the United States…Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, and subject to provisions of superseding federal treaties, any otherwise enforceable contract which incorporates any substantive or procedural law, legal code or legal system of another state, foreign jurisdiction or foreign country that would violate rights and privileges granted under the United States or Tennessee Constitution is declared to be against public policy of this state and is unenforceable in this state.

2011

Write up of all 2011 efforts here

Despite having far more bills introduced in 2011 than in 2010, there was only one such piece of legislation enacted

  • Arizona HB 2064 Defines “foreign law” as “any law, rule or legal code or system other than the constitution, laws and ratified treaties of the united states and the territories of the united states, or the constitution and laws of this state….a court, arbitrator, administrative agency or other adjudicative, mediation or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the united states or conflict with the laws of the united states or of this state.”

2012

15 sharia/international law bans were carried over from the 2011 session. Combined with 18 newly introduced bills this puts the issue front and center for the 2012 sessions. Already there has been activity, with the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee giving its approval to a ban.

Full roster of 33 bills introduced in 2012 in 20 states and their statuses after the jump.

8 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Missouri courts may be prohibited from enforcing federal law, court orders; may be required to use only “originalist” interpretations

January 17th, 2012

The U.S. Constitution provides in Article VI

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Known commonly as the supremacy clause, it is unique in that it specifically mentions state courts, or more specifically the judges thereof, by title. Missouri’s legislature, however, is on the verge of adopting a state constitutional amendment that would direct its state judges to disregard numerous federal laws.

Initially introduced in 2011 as HJR 26 and SJR 15 and approved by their respective committees, the proposal has been reintroduced as SJR 45 of 2012. If approved by Missouri voters, the amendment would:

  • Prohibit the Missouri judicial branch from recognizing, enforcing, or acting in furtherance of any federal action that exceeds the powers delegated to the federal government.
  • Prohibit Missouri courts from recognizing, enforcing, or acting 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 Missouri courts interpret the U.S. Constitution based on its language and the original intent of the signers of the Constitution. Further provides 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
  • Grants standing to Missouri citizens to sue in state court to enforce the provisions of the amendment and that enforcement of the amendment applies to federal actions taken after the amendment is approved by the voters, federal actions specified in the amendment, and any federal action, regardless of when it occurred, that the Missouri Supreme Court determines to exceed the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction

Tags:

Prefiled bills in Georgia and Missouri look to change races for judgeships and clerks of court into nonpartisan contests

December 16th, 2011

2011 saw an influx of bills to move judicial and clerk of court races from partisan to nonpartisan, with arguments advanced both for and against the proposition. 2012 is already looking to pick up exactly where those debates left off.

Under Georgia’s HB 682 of 2012, elections for Clerks of the Superior Court, District Attorneys, and similar county-level officers would become nonpartisan. Similar bills have all died in committee in the last several years (HB 88 and HB 130  of 2009; SB 464 of 2010).

Missouri’s efforts at transitioning its judicial elections to nonpartisan have fared better. Although famous for the use and creation of merit selection (often called the “Missouri plan”), not every county in the Show Me State actually uses the merit selection for Circuit Court judgeships. SB 525 of 2012 would require all such races not already covered by the merit selection system to be nonpartisan, as well as prohibiting the judges from certain partisan activities. The bill is identical to SB 225 of 2011 which was approved by the Senate Financial and Government Organization and Elections Committee in February 2011.

No comments »

Posted in Selection

Tags:

With increased interest in drug testing welfare recipients, several states consider drug testing judges

December 2nd, 2011

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 states in 2011 entertained proposals for drug testing applicants for welfare and food stamps. Arizona, Florida, and Missouri enacted such proposals, and at least one Presidential candidate has entertained the idea.

The last time the issue came up in the mid to late 1990s, several attempts were made to impose the same conditions on not only the legislators enacting such laws, but on judges as well.

In 1997, the same year Louisiana mandated drug testing for certain adult recipients of public assistance (HB 2435), the state enacted a process for random drug testing of all “elected officials” (HB 646). The elected officials plan was struck down in 1998 by the Federal courts when Justice of the Peace Phillip O’Neill and other elected officials challenged the law. (O’Neill v. Louisiana., E.D. La. 1998, 61 F.Supp.2d 485, affirmed 197 F.3d 1169, cert. denied 120 S.Ct. 2740, 530 U.S. 1274, 147 L.Ed.2d 2005).

Undaunted, in 2006 an amendment to the Louisiana constitution (SB 274 of 2006) and bill (SB 361) were introduced that specifically targeted state judges for drug testing and that repeated almost verbatim the text of the law struck down by the federal courts, most particularly in the legislative declaration portion of the bills.

The legislature declares the interest of the state in ensuring that those who are elected to serve in public office as judges in any trial or appellate court within this state are persons who have a respect for the laws they are sworn to uphold and are persons of integrity, sound judgment, reliability, and seriousness of purpose. The legislature finds that judges are in a critical position to protect the citizens of the state of Louisiana from the numerous illegal activities associated with illegal drugs, and to ensure access to courts and other constitutional rights. The legislature finds that the use of illegal drugs by judges will put the citizens of the state of Louisiana in danger because judges who use illegal drugs cannot provide the state and its citizens with fair and impartial trials. The legislature finds that the use of illegal drugs which may impair the physical or mental ability of a judge to function effectively in all aspects of his duties cannot be condoned, and therefore the state has a compelling interest in establishing a requirement that all judges demonstrate that they do not use illegal drugs, without the necessity of showing any measure of individualized suspicion.

Interestingly, when Louisiana tried again in 2010 for a voluntary drug testing (and psychological evaluation) program for elected officials (HB 1352) it was focused only on statewide elected officials in the executive branch listed in Art. IV, Sec. 3 of the state constitution and legislators.

Several similar bills, either targeting judges in particular or sweeping them in as “elected officials”, have been introduced in state legislatures. Many seek to avoid the Fourth Amendment problems found by the O’Neill court by making the programs voluntary. Most recently South Carolina’s Senate in 2008 approved a voluntary plan for testing that state’s judges, however the bill died in the House Judiciary Committee and was apparently never reintroduced.

2011

Ohio HB 343 Mandatory drug testing for Supreme Court Justices, members of the General Assembly, the board of directors of JobsOhio, and recipients of Troubled Asset Relief Program money. Carried over into 2012 session.

Oklahoma SB 538 Mandatory drug testing for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipients and all “state elected officials”. Those declining must submit to substance abuse program. Carried over into 2012 session.

Puerto Rico PC 3215 Requires all individuals nominated for a judicial office submit a hair sample for drug testing (previously discussed here). Carried over into 2012 session.

2009

Oregon HB 2635 Mandatory drug testing for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Judges and other elected officials specified by title. Died in committee.

2008

South Carolina SB 1070 Voluntary for any “popularly elected office or an office elected by the General Assembly”. (In South Carolina, judges are elected by the General Assembly). Approved by full Senate. Died in House.

2007

New Mexico SB 36 Voluntary drug testing for all “elected officials”. Died in committee.

Oregon HB 2306 Mandatory drug testing for Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Judges and other elected officials specified by title. Died in committee.

2006

Missouri HB 1646 Mandatory drug testing for “all state elected officials”. Died in committee.

Louisiana SB 274 (Constitutional Amendment) Requires judiciary commission develop and implement a program of random drug testing for elected judges. Died in committee.

Louisiana SB 361 Requires judiciary commission develop and implement a program of random drug testing for elected judges. Died in committee.

2005

New Mexico SB 20 Voluntary drug testing for all “elected officials”. Died in committee.

2 comments »

Posted in Other

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Pennsylvania bill introduced

November 28th, 2011

Welcome New York Times readers!

Welcome Post-Gazette readers!

Since the last update of this list in October, one piece of legislation has been introduced.  Pennsylvania’s HB 2029 bans court references to any “foreign legal code or system” if doing so would impair constitutional rights.

Full roster of 2010 bills are available. 2011 and 2012 bills after the jump. » Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Pennsylvania bill introduced

5 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Ohio Issue 1: What other states tried to increase or remove their judicial retirement ages and how did they do?

October 27th, 2011

Ohio voters will head to the polls November 8 to decide the fate of Issue 1, marking the sixth time in 20 years the question of judicial retirement has been on the ballot (Hawaii 2006; Louisiana 1995 & 2003; Pennsylvania 2001; Texas 2007; Vermont 2002), with 4 victories to 2 defeats.

Four legislatures have adopted statutes to alter retirement (Indiana 2011; Kansas 2003 & 2010; North Carolina 1992; Vermont 2003). Moreover, Arizona has advanced a proposed change for the 2012 ballot while New York voters will probably address the issue in 2014. This marks a trend over the last several year in particular of state legislatures confronting judges living longer and the question of whether there should be any limits on service at all.

State by state breakdown below the fold.

» Read more: Ohio Issue 1: What other states tried to increase or remove their judicial retirement ages and how did they do?

1 comment »

Posted in Qualification & Terms, Special Edition

Tags:

State-by-State 2011 Legislative Year in Review: Missouri

October 10th, 2011

New laws or resolutions affecting the courts enacted or adopted by the Missouri legislature in 2011 include the following:

SB 59 Increases small claims from $3,000 to $5,000.

 

No comments »

Posted in Year in Review

Tags:

Tennessee: Constitutional showdown over recusal statutes?

October 3rd, 2011

Greetings TBA Today readers!

According to this post from Gavel Grab, the Tennessee legislature is considering a legislative enactment regarding judicial recusal. For prior blog posts on events in Tennessee, click here and here. For a review of all recent efforts to make changes to Codes of Judicial Conduct, see Issue 5:31.

The Gavel Grab post cites this Knoxville News Sentinel article, as follows:

Legislators are eyeing repeal of the state law that allows keeping the admonishments wayward judges receive secret and imposing stricter rules concerning when judges must bow out of a case when accused of a conflict of interest.

…

Changing the rules for recusal of a judge, which are now established by the state Supreme Court, also is criticized on policy grounds. But it could also be a violation of the state constitution, according to Chris Craft, presiding judge of the Court of the Judiciary (COJ).

As I noted in my article “’The Legislature Must Save the Court From Itself?’: Recusal, Separation of Powers, and the Post-Caperton World” in the Drake Law Review, it is not unheard of for legislatures to try and impose by law recusal standards for state courts. Moreover, it is also not unheard of for the same courts to strike down the laws as a violation of the state constitution. I suggested four possible outcomes: Cooperation, Co-option, Comity, and Conflict.

Missouri had a similar instance in the late 1990s which was decidedly in the Conflict category. There, the legislature tried to expand a 1978 recusal statute (Mo. Ann. Stat. 105.464).

The expansion was struck down by the state’s Supreme Court on the grounds that its “‘general superintending control over all courts and tribunals’” and power to “‘establish rules relating to the practice, procedure, and pleading for all courts,’” rendered the expansion a “violat[ion of] constitutional principles concerning separation of legislative and judicial functions.”  (Weinstock v. Holden, 995 S.W.2d 408, 410–11 (Mo. 1999) (per curiam)).

A few weeks after Weinstock was handed down, the legislature adopted a repeal of the expansion, but kept in place the original 1978 statute that imposed criminal sanctions for judges who heard cases in which they were related to a party.

So, will Tennessee end up in Cooperation, Co-option, Comity, or Conflict? We’ll see when the legislature comes back on January 10 or even earlier if a bill is filed before session starts.

No comments »

Posted in Other, Rule Making Authority

Tags: