Posts Tagged ‘North Carolina’

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

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.

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

Special/Interim Judiciary Committee meetings in Illinois, North Carolina, Washington

November 28th, 2011

This week promises to be busy for legislators as Special and Interim Sessions are being held in Illinois, North Carolina, and Washington.

The Illinois House’s Judiciary II – Criminal Law Committee meets December 1 to examine overcrowding in prisons.

In NC, the Senate Judiciary I committee meets today (November 28) to debate changes to the state’s No Discriminatory Purpose in Death Penalty Act that allow the introduction of certain statistical evidence to show discrimination in either pretrial or posttrial proceedings in capital cases.

Washington State’s Senate Judiciary Committee will consider draft legislation on “Protection of public policy” on November 29.  On December 1 the same committee will consider bills on

  • Bail and pretrial release practices
  • Consular Notification
  • County Coroners

On December 2, it is the House Judiciary’s turn to meet. That committee will look at

  • Child Support Schedule Work Group Report and Recommendations
  • Uniform Collaborative Law Act
  • Legislation authorizing qui tam actions as part of a state Medicaid Fraud False Claims Act

2011 Southern court interpreters legislation

November 8th, 2011

Law

Georgia HB 24 Substantially revises, supersedes, and modernizes provisions relating to evidence. Modifies existing state laws with respect to foreign language in the courts. Provides Supreme Court to set rules and requirements for foreign language interpreters. Specifies Supreme Court may establish fees to be paid for certification.

Texas HB 2249 / SB 652 ORIGINAL: Extends licensed court interpreter advisory board until 2019. ENACTED: Extends licensed court interpreter advisory board until 2017.

Texas HB 2945 / SB 1233 Allows court in a county that borders Mexico or the Gulf of Mexico to appoint a language interpreter who is not a licensed court interpreter.

Approved by one chamber

Florida HB 7199 Creates Supreme Court of Civil Appeals and Supreme Court of Criminal Appeals as panels of the state’s Supreme Court. Assigns Supreme Court of Civil Appeals responsibility to set standards for court interpreters. Approved by full House. Killed in Senate committee.

Texas SB 286 Provides that, if after examining the proposed ward’s assets the court determines the proposed ward is unable to pay for costs allocated to the proposed ward under this section, the county is responsible for those costs, including an interpreter. Approved by full Senate. Died in House committee.

Died in committee

North Carolina SB 132 Provides if a party or witness in court does not speak or understand the English language, the cost of interpreting or translating services for the party or witness is payable from funds appropriated to the Judicial Department. Provides where individual is indigent, the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Office of Indigent Defense Services may enter into a memorandum of understanding for the payment of interpreting and translating services. Provides except in cases of indigence, Administrative Office of the Courts not obligated to bear the cost of interpreting or translating services for noncourt services and activities, such as discovery, trial, preparation, and attorney/client meetings.

Texas HB 331 Authorizes governing body of a municipality to create a municipal court equal justice and education fund, portions of which may be used for interpreter services. Requires certain defendants to pay court costs for deposit in the fund.

Texas HB 2250 Ends requirement licensed court interpreter advisory board be subject to sunset law.

Texas SB 220 ORIGINAL: Provides that, if after examining the proposed ward’s assets the court determines the proposed ward is unable to pay for costs allocated to the proposed ward under this section, the county is responsible for those costs, including an interpreter. AMENDED: Removal of reference to interpreters.

 

 

 

North Carolina special session meets November 7: is a return to partisan judicial elections in the offing? There’s history for changing judicial selection in special sessions.

November 3rd, 2011

I mentioned earlier this year (here and here) North Carolina’s ongoing consideration of changes to its nonpartisan judicial selection system. In short, a swift series of amendments to a bill to end public financing for judicial races in the state nearly turned into a repeal of nonpartisan judicial races and a return to partisan ones.

Last week, two pieces of activity in North Carolina’s legislature seemed to suggest an upcoming special session may see the return of the plan.

  • The Joint Legislative Elections Oversight Committee met October 26 discuss the possibility of changing back to partisan elections (h/t Gavel Grab)
  • On October 27, legislators told the Raleigh News Observer they had no idea why the November 7 special session had been called or what was on the agenda. The News Observer item cited a statement from the co-chair of the Joint Legislative Elections Oversight Committee that “the committee will need to approve a bill before 2012 to fix election laws.”

It may be that the plans to change judicial selection back to partisan races will wait until the 2012 session comes in, however as I noted in June, it was in a special session that North Carolina first shifted to nonpartisan judicial races for at least some positions (SB 41 1996 Second Special Session).

First Hawaii, now Ireland, next maybe New Jersey: Legislatures look to remove constitutional guarantees not to reduce judicial salaries

October 31st, 2011

One of the items on the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence against King George III was the linkage between his (dis)pleasure and judicial salaries

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

For this reason, among others, the U.S. Constitution assures federal judges are to “receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

Most (but not all) states have similar provisions in their constitutions. However, legislative efforts to overturn these clauses have been increasingly introduced as states cut budgets. Consider the following:

  • 79% of voters in Ireland last week approved a referendum to weaken their constitution’s protection of judicial salaries, allowing for laws to be passed reducing the pay of judges proportionately if the pay of public servants is being or has been reduced and that reduction is stated to be “in the public interest”.
  • New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s plan to change the pension contributions for that state’s judges was also struck down as running afoul of that state’s guarantee that judicial salaries “shall not be diminished” (see prior post here). The Governor has vowed to introduce a constitutional amendment to curtail or eliminate the provision protecting judicial salaries.
  • In 2006, Hawaii voters voted to end the state’s judicial compensation commission and replace it with a compensation commission that would set salaries for most state elected officials. A lesser known provision of the amendment also stripped the constitutional guarantee that judicial salaries “shall not be decreased during their respective terms of office, unless by general law applying to all salaried officers of the State”. In 2009, all judicial salaries were “reduced by five per cent from what the salary [was] as of June 30, 2009, and shall remain at that salary rate until June 30, 2011″ (HB 1536 of 2009). The June 30, 2011 deadline has since been extended to June 30, 2013 (HB 575 of 2011).

Details of the various recent constitutional amendments below the fold.
» Read more: First Hawaii, now Ireland, next maybe New Jersey: Legislatures look to remove constitutional guarantees not to reduce judicial salaries

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?

State-by-State 2011 Legislative Year in Review: North Carolina

October 21st, 2011

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

HB 927 Provides members of the Consolidated Judicial Retirement System prior to August 1, 2011 will continue to vest after completing five years of membership service. Provides future members will vest after completing ten years of membership service.

SB 131 Expands methods for collection of court fines, fees, costs, and restitution. Permits county in which collection assistance fee is collected to retain fee.

SB 580 Changes numerous provisions of law related to judiciary. Requires Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts’ annual report include the activities of each North Carolina Business Court site, including the number of new, closed, and pending cases, the average age of pending cases, and the annual expenditures for the prior fiscal year. Permits director to prescribe policies and procedures for the assignment and compensation of magistrates performing temporary duty outside their county of residence during an emergency. Permits director to issue photographic identification cards to appropriate Judicial Department employees and officials authorizing those employees and officials to travel to and from, enter, and work in court and court-related locations for the conduct or support of essential court operations in preparation for, during, or in the aftermath of emergency situations, including, but not limited to, catastrophic conditions. Permits director to prescribe policies and procedures and establish and operate systems for the exchange of criminal and civil information from and to the Judicial Department and local, State, and federal governments and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Permits director to transfer equipment and supply funds to the appropriate programs and between programs as the equipment priorities and supply consumptions occur during the operating year. Allows director to set transportation per-mile rates below those set by IRS.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: list of all bills since 2010, new 2011 Michigan bill, first 2012 bill prefiled

October 3rd, 2011

This post has been updated. Click here.

Since the last update of this list in August, two pieces of legislation have been introduced. Michigan’s SB 701 appears to be the Senate version of HB 4769, which has gone nowhere since its June introduction.

The other bill is Alabama SB 33 of 2012, a prefiled bill for the next session. SB 33 of 2012 is a constitutional amendment that looks more like HB 607 / SB 61 than HB 597 / SB 62 in that it does not specifically mention “sharia”.

It should be noted that at least some 2011 bills will make a return in 2012; roughly half of states allow bills to be “carried over” from one session to the next. Definitive answers as to which bills will return will be available as the legislatures come back into session in January.

Full roster of bills going back to 2010 after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: list of all bills since 2010, new 2011 Michigan bill, first 2012 bill prefiled

2011 South-Atlantic indigent defense legislation

September 13th, 2011

Law

Florida HB 7067 / SB 1016 / SB 7018 Re-creates Indigent Civil Defense Trust Fund within Justice Administrative Commission without modification. Repeals provisions that would have terminated the trust fund in 2012. (see also HB 7065 / SB 1014 / SB 7016)

Florida HB 443 / HB 7199 / SB 170 Requires that each public defender implement a system to electronically file court documents with the clerk of the court. Requires Florida Public Defender Association report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by a specified date on the progress made in implementing the electronic filing system.

Georgia HB 238 Reconstitutes and vacates all currently serving members of the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council. Provides for appointing new members. Alters powers and duties of the council and council director, council’s responsibility to set policy and standards, and the director’s responsibility to develop rules and regulations to efficiently administer the provisions of the law related to public defenders. Provides director to appoint circuit public defenders and requires two-thirds vote of council to remove the chairperson of the council or to overturn the director’s decision regarding the removal of a circuit public defender. Requires certain annual reports be prepared by the director, rather than the council, and a copy sent to the Supreme Court.  Changes provisions relating to the circuit public defender supervisory panel. Changes provisions relating to appointing attorneys in conflict of interest cases.

Maryland SB 515 Specifies that an individual whose assets and net annual income are less than 100% of the federal poverty guidelines may be determined eligible for services from the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) without an assessment. Clarifies that the District Court, a Circuit Court, and the Court of Special Appeals are prohibited from appointing an attorney through OPD to represent an indigent individual if (1) there is a conflict in legal representation in a matter involving multiple defendants and one of the defendants is being represented by or through OPD; or (2) OPD declines to provide representation to an indigent individual entitled to representation.

North Carolina HB 243 Provides fee charged by clerk for certificates under seal is waived for appointed attorneys representing indigent clients.

Virginia SB 902 Permits retired justices or judges to appear as counsel in cases in courts of the Commonwealth if (i) the retired justice or judge has been retired for at least two years and is not authorized for temporary recall by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, (ii) the retired justice or judge is appearing as counsel, pro bono, for an indigent person in a civil matter, (iii) such civil matter is assigned or referred to the retired justice or judge by a nonprofit legal aid program organized under the auspices of the Virginia State Bar, and (iv) the retired justice or judge is not an employee, officer, or board member of such nonprofit legal aid program.

Active/Carried over into 2012

Georgia HB 648 Implements HR 977 (Constitutional Amendment). Creates trust fund for indigent defense dollars collected by clerks. Provides and specifies certain fees and assessments are dedicated to funding legal services for indigent persons accused of crimes and delinquent acts. Provides such funds are to be remitted to the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council.

Georgia HB 977 (Constitutional Amendment) Creates trust fund for indigent defense dollars collected by clerks. Provides and specifies certain fees and assessments are dedicated to funding legal services for indigent persons accused of crimes and delinquent acts.

Approved by one chamber

West Virginia HB 3067 / SB 549 Increases certain civil filings fees currently collected by circuit courts, and impose a new docketing fee for unspecified civil appeals including family court appeals but not including Workers’ Comp cases or, presumably, actions in the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction, to be collected by the Court and paid, at its discretion, to either Legal Aid of West Virginia (LAWV) or into the Interest on Lawyer’s Trust Accounts (IOLTA) fund. Approved by full House, died in Senate Finance Committee.

West Virginia SB 568 Clarifies that an attorney from the public defender office shall be appointed by a judge in all cases where an attorney-at-law is required to be appointed for an eligible client. Approved by full Senate, died in House Judiciary Committee.

West Virginia SCR 79 Requests Joint Committee on Government and Finance study need for authorizing executive director of Public Defender Services control over public defender corporations. Approved by full Senate, died in House.

Died in committee

North Carolina SB 596 Expands state’s office of public defender system to every county in state. Realigns public defender districts accordingly.

Virginia HB 1570 / SB 908 Increases from $10 to $14 fee on most civil actions filed in trial courts to pay for free civil legal representation provided for the poor by a nonprofit legal aid program organized under the auspices of the Virginia State Bar. Changes from $9 to $13 the amount that, from such additional fee, is to be credited to the Virginia State Bar’s Legal Aid Services Fund.

West Virginia SB 482 Requires public defender corporations of all the judicial circuits to be centralized under the executive director of Public Defender Services and grants executive director rulemaking authority.