Gavel to Gavel » Pennsylvania

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

Bill Raftery — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:00:23 +0000

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.

Bill	Provisions	Status
Alaska HB 88	Prohibits a court, arbitrator, mediator, administrative agency, or enforcement authority from applying a foreign law if application of the foreign law would violate an individual’s right guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the United States Constitution.	Approved by House State Affairs Committee 3/17/11. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Carried over from 2011 session.
Alabama SB 33 (Constitutional Amendment)	Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Alabama SB 40 (Constitutional Amendment)	Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In Senate Judiciary Committee.
Alabama SB 84 (Constitutional Amendment)	Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Florida HB 1209	Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.”	In House Judiciary Committee, Civil Justice Subcommittee.
Florida SB 1360	Provides “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations or tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides the term does not include the common law and statute laws of England as described or any laws of the Native American tribes in the state. Declares “Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its ruling or decision in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the State Constitution or the United States Constitution.”	Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 1/25/12.
Georgia HB 45	Provides “the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal 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.”	In House Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session.
Georgia HB 242	Declares “‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, administrative agency, or other tribunal 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.”	In House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil. Carried over from 2011 session.
Georgia SB 51	Provides that no court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States	In Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session.
Indiana HB 1166	Provides that a court may not apply, enforce, or grant comity, res judicata, claim preclusion, or issue preclusion to a foreign law, ruling, or judgment if doing so would violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement: (1) that provides for the choice of foreign laws in its interpretation; or (2) that provides for the choice of venue or forum; and that would result in a violation of a fundamental liberty, right, or privilege guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana is void and unenforceable. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. Provides that a court may not require or authorize any court to: (1) adjudicate or prohibit a religious organization from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters; or (2) determine or interpret the doctrine of a religious organization.	In House Committee on Judiciary.
Indiana SB 36	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified, unless the contract explicitly states that it will be enforced in accordance with foreign law. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Indiana SB 90	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement between natural persons calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Iowa HB 489	Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system” as “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.” Provides “It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code, or system against a person in this state is whether the decision rendered violated any right of the person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the Constitution of the United States, or any statute enacted or decision issued under the constitution of the state of Iowa or the United States.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Iowa HB 575	Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.”	In House State Government Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Iowa HJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides the state courts “when exercising judicial power, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the United States Code, federal regulations, established common law, the Iowa Code, the Iowa administrative code, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not use the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including but not limited to cases of first impression.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Kansas HB 2087	Defines “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. Provides “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 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 Kansas constitutions.”	Approved by full House 3/30/11. In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Carried over from 2011 session.
Michigan HB 4769	Defines “foreign law,” as “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.” Provides “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.”	In House Committee on Judiciary.
Michigan SB 701	Defines “foreign law,” as “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.” Provides “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.”	In Senate Committee on Government Operations.
Nebraska LB 647	Declares a 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 on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decisions the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Nebraska.	In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Indiana HB 1166	Provides that a court may not apply, enforce, or grant comity, res judicata, claim preclusion, or issue preclusion to a foreign law, ruling, or judgment if doing so would violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement: (1) that provides for the choice of foreign laws in its interpretation; or (2) that provides for the choice of venue or forum; and that would result in a violation of a fundamental liberty, right, or privilege guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Indiana is void and unenforceable. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party. Provides that a court may not require or authorize any court to: (1) adjudicate or prohibit a religious organization from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters; or (2) determine or interpret the doctrine of a religious organization.	In House Committee on Judiciary.
Indiana SB 36	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified, unless the contract explicitly states that it will be enforced in accordance with foreign law. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Indiana SB 90	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States Constitution. Provides that a provision in a contract or agreement between natural persons calling for the application of foreign law is not enforceable and is void if the provision cannot be modified. Prohibits a court from granting certain motions to transfer a case to another jurisdiction if the transfer is likely to affect the constitutional rights of the nonmoving party.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Missouri HB 1512	Provides 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, including, but not limited to, due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.	In House (no committee).
Missouri SB 676	Mandates that any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling shall be unenforceable if based on a foreign law that does not grant the parties the same rights as the parties have under the United States and Missouri constitutions.	In Senate (no committee).
New Hampshire HB 1422	Declares that no New Hampshire court shall enforce foreign law or a state law enforcing foreign law if such enforcement violates an individual’s or corporation’s rights under the New Hampshire constitution or the United States Constitution.	In House Committee on Judiciary.
North Carolina HB 640	Declares “it to be the public policy of this State to protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a right of a natural person guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution or the United States Constitution. The public policies expressed in this section shall apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of a constitutional right resulting from the application of the foreign law.”	In House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C. Carried over from 2011 session.
New Jersey AB 919	Provides that a foreign law may only be recognized by a court in New Jersey if it does not violate any right guaranteed by the Constitution of this State or of the United States of America.	In Assembly Judiciary Committee.
New Mexico SJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “The courts provided for in this article, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States constitution, the constitution of New Mexico, statutes of the United States and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, established common law, New Mexico statutes and state regulations adopted pursuant thereto and, if necessary, the law of another state of the United States, provided that the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not consider or apply a rule of comity to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, international law, laws promulgated by foreign governments or national laws of foreign countries if the consideration or application of the foreign precepts or laws would violate the public policy of the state of New Mexico or reduce or impair the rights of any resident of the state of New Mexico existing under New Mexico statutes or common law governing child custody, rights of married persons, property rights, protection from domestic violence or any criminal law. The courts shall not consider or apply Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	In Senate Rules Committee.
Oklahoma HB 1552	Provides 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 law, rule, 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 Oklahoma Constitutions.	Approved by full House 3/17/11. In Senate Rules Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
Pennsylvania HB 2029	Provides a tribunal shall not consider a foreign legal code or system which does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania.	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Carolina HB 3490	Provides “As used in this section, the term “foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Carolina SB 444	Provides “As used in this section, the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories….A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	In Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.
South Dakota SB 136	Provides any ruling or decision that makes use of international or foreign law is void and unenforceable if the court bases its ruling or decision 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 constitutions of the United States and South Dakota, including due process of law, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically provided by the constitution of this state. Foreign law, legal code, or system is any foreign law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals. Specifies the term foreign law does not include any tribal laws of the Native American tribes in the state.	In Senate Judiciary Committee.
Virginia HB 631	Provides that court decisions and contracts and other agreements will be void as violative of the public policy of the Commonwealth where such decisions or contracts are based on foreign law, i.e., law applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States, where the application of such foreign law would violate a person’s rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Virginia.	In House Committee for Courts of Justice.
Virginia HB 825	Prohibits any Virginia court or administrative agency from applying the law of any jurisdiction outside of the United States and its territories unless the application is required by the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any federal or state law.	In House Committee for Courts of Justice.
West Virginia HB 3220	Provides “”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…It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code or system against a natural person in this state is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of West Virginia or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those Constitutions.”	In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over from 2011 session.

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

Bill Raftery — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:22:32 +0000

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

HB 15 Establishes searchable budget database-driven Internet website detailing certain information concerning taxpayer expenditures and investments by judicial and other agencies.

HB 38 Aligns the filing fees with the jurisdictional limits for the Philadelphia Municipal Court and the Magisterial District Judges. The Philadelphia Municipal Court’s upper limit for fees is raised from $10,000 to $12,000, and the upper limit for Magisterial District Judges’ fees is raised from $8,000 to $12,000.

HR 69 Proclaims May 2011 as “National Drug Treatment Court Month” in Pennsylvania.

HR 275 Recognizes May 2011 as “Drug Treatment Court Month” in Pennsylvania.

SB 834 Requires all “governing authorities”, including the Supreme Court for these purposes, to required fiscal security through bonding, blanket bonding and insuring of elected and appointed county officers and employees. Sets form, amount and payment of premiums for and the filing and recording of the required security and for the subsequent issuance of official commissions

Interim Judiciary Committees meeting in Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania this week; focus on human trafficking

Bill Raftery — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:21:18 +0000

With only a few weeks left before regular sessions start, interim committees are starting to wrap up their work and provide indications of what will be on the agendas for the 2012 sessions.

Pennsylvania’s House Judiciary Committee meets December 5 & 6 for votes on:

HB 235: posting of information relating to the National Human Trafficking Resource Center Hotline & duties on the Department of Labor and Industry, certain licensing authorities and prothonotaries
HB 1183: offenses of unlawful use of Internet and for unlawful use of computer scrub software
HB 1958: extensively revising provisions relating to registration of sexual offenders pursuant to Federal mandate
HB 1976: venue in personal injury actions against corporations and similar entities.
HB 2016: providing for the definition of “commercial sex”; further providing for trafficking of persons; and providing for the offense of selling or buying of minors into commercial sex and for action for coercion into prostitution.
SB 815: right to counsel in juvenile matters.
SB 817: use of restraints on children during court proceedings.

The Nebraska unicameral legislature’s Judiciary Committee meets December 5 for several interim studies, including

LR 243: human trafficking in Nebraska in connection with labor and sex trafficking.
LR 288: standing for foster parents in removal proceedings.
policies and procedures associated with immigrants who come in contact with law enforcement at Federal, state, and local levels.

In Florida, the House Judiciary Committee’s Criminal Justice Subcommittee will meet December 6 for presentations/workshops on:

juvenile justice reform initiatives
sexual offender statutes and the Federal Adam Walsh Act
mental health and veterans courts

The committee will also consider several bills:

HB 215: Video Voyeurism
HB 429: Robbery by Sudden Snatching
HB 4107: Water Hyacinths
HB 4109: Adulterated Syrup
HB 4111: Cotton or Leaf Tobacco
HB 4113: Levying War Against People of the State

The House Judiciary Committee’s Civil Justice Subcommittee will meet December 7 to consider several court specific bills:

HB 631: Repeals provisions relating to regular terms of Supreme Court & circuit courts; requiring judge to attend first day of each term of circuit court; requirement for judge to state reason for nonattendance, penalty for nonattendance of judge, adjournment of circuit court upon nonattendance of judge, calling all cases on docket at end of each term, regular terms of district courts of appeal, special terms of district courts of appeal, requirement that criminal trials be heard in term of court prior to civil cases, & requirement that persons in custody be arraigned & tried in term of court unless good cause is shown; conforms provisions. Allows Supreme Court to set terms of court for Supreme Court, district courts of appeal, & circuit courts. Provides that appellate courts may withdraw mandate within 120 days after its issuance.
HB 4125: Repeals provisions relating to selection of judges ad litem in circuit or county court.
HB 4133: Repeals provisions relating to district courts of appeal authority to make rules & regulations for their internal government.

Additional activity is set for other bills:

HB 319: Residential Properties
HB 385: Sovereign Immunity
HB 549: Alimony
HB 609: Wage Protection for Employees

Finally also meeting on December 7 is the Florida Senate Judiciary committee, which will debate:

SJR 312: Rescinding and Withdrawing House Joint Resolution 381 (2011) regarding Property Assessment/Homestead Exemption
SJR 314: Ad Valorem Taxation

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

Bill Raftery — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:57:08 +0000

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.

2012

Bill	Provisions	Status
Alabama SB 33 (Constitutional Amendment)	Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Prefiled. In House Committee on Judiciary.

2011

Bill	Provisions	Status	Carryover in 2012?
Alabama HB 597 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “the courts…when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Alabama HB 607 (Constitutional Amendment)	Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Alabama SB 61 (Constitutional Amendment)	Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.	No
Alabama SB 62 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides Alabama courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.	No
Alaska HB 88	Prohibits a court, arbitrator, mediator, administrative agency, or enforcement authority from applying a foreign law if application of the foreign law would violate an individual’s right guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the United States Constitution.	Approved by House State Affairs Committee 3/17/11. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Died in House Finance Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
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.”	Signed into law by governor 4/12/11.	No
Arizona HB 2582	Enacts the “Arizona Foreign Decisions Act” Declares the acceptance of Arizona into the Union was a “compact”. Declares “Congress has no authority to preempt state regulation of state courts.” Prohibits courts from implementing, referring or incorporating or using “a tenet of any body of religious sectarian law” and specifically includes sharia law, canon law, halacha and karma, but exempts decisions based on Anglo-American legal tradition, laws or case law from Great Britain prior enactment of the statute, or the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, “and the principles on which the United States was founded.” Prohibits use of any case law or statute from a non-U.S. jurisdiction or “foreign body”, including the United Nations. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law declared void and usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. Requires any court that construes this statute must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary.	Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/17/11. Died in House Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Arizona HCR 2033 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides state’s courts shall not consider, enforce or otherwise incorporate into any decision on the merits the legal precepts of other nations or cultures that run counter to the laws of this state unless expressly ratified by bicameralism and presentment in the state legislature or duly ratified as a treaty by the Senate of the United States. Provides state courts shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of this state, The United States Code, federal regulations adopted pursuant to the United States code, established common law, the laws of this state and rules adopted pursuant to the laws of this state and, if necessary, the laws of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not incorporate directly or by reference international law or the precepts of nations or cultures.	Died in House when legislature adjourned.	No
Arizona SCR 1010 (Constitutional Amendment)	Requires courts, when making judicial decisions, to uphold and adhere to the laws of the U.S. Constitution, Arizona Constitution, U.S. Code, Federal regulations, established common law, Arizona laws and rules and if necessary, the laws of another state within the U.S. provided the laws in the other state do not include international law. Prohibits Arizona courts from considering international law or legal precepts of other nations or cultures when making judicial decisions.	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Arkansas SJR 10 (Constitutional Amendment)	(Placeholder bill) Declares “The purpose of this Senate Joint Resolution is to amend the Arkansas Constitution concerning the application of foreign laws, legal codes, or systems for the purpose of protecting rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution.”	Died in Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs when legislature adjourned.	No
Arkansas SB 97	Prohibits 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 Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Florida HB 1273	Defines term “foreign law, legal code, or system”; specifies public policy of this state in applying choice of foreign law, legal code, or system. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void.	Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11.	No
Florida SB 1294	Specifies the public policy of this state in applying the choice of a foreign law, legal code, or system under certain circumstances. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void.	Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11.	No
Georgia HB 45	Provides “the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal 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.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Georgia HB 242	Declares “‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, administrative agency, or other tribunal 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.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Georgia SB 51	Provides that no court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States	Died in Senate Committee on the Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Indiana HB 1078	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States constitution.	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Indiana SB 298	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States constitution.	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Indiana SB 520	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States constitution.	Approved by full Senate 2/17/11. Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Indiana SJR 16 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides a court may not enforce a law, rule, or legal code or system established and either used or applied in a jurisdiction outside the states of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the territories of the United States if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by this constitution or the Constitution of the United States.	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Iowa HB 489	Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system” as “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.” Provides “It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code, or system against a person in this state is whether the decision rendered violated any right of the person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the Constitution of the United States, or any statute enacted or decision issued under the constitution of the state of Iowa or the United States.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Iowa HB 575	Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.”	Died in House State Government Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Iowa HJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides the state courts “when exercising judicial power, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the United States Code, federal regulations, established common law, the Iowa Code, the Iowa administrative code, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not use the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including but not limited to cases of first impression.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Kansas HB 2087	Defines “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. Provides “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 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 Kansas constitutions.”	Approved by full House 3/30/11. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Maine HB 811	Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code or legal system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, that is applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals…The primary factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law must consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law, legal code or legal system against a natural person in this State is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this State guaranteed by the Constitution of Maine or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those constitutions.”	Rejected by Joint Committee on Judiciary 5/25/11.	No
Michigan HB 4769	Defines “foreign law,” as “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.” Provides “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.”	In House Committee on Judiciary.	Probably
Michigan SB 701	Defines “foreign law,” as “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.” Provides “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.”	In Senate Committee on Government Operations.	Probably
Mississippi HB 301	Prohibits courts from enforcing a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.	Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Mississippi HB 525	Provides “”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.”	Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri HB 708	Provides 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.	Approved by full House 4/20/11. Died on House Informal Calendar when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri HB 768	Defines “foreign law” as “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.” Provides “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.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri HJR 31 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides state courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Missouri, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including but not limited to cases of first impression.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri SB 308	Defines “”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…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.”	Approved by Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee 4/28/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.	No
Nebraska LB 647	Declares a 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 on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decisions the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Nebraska.	Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
New Mexico SJR 18 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “The courts provided for in this article, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States constitution, the constitution of New Mexico, statutes of the United States and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, established common law, New Mexico statutes and state regulations adopted pursuant thereto and, if necessary, the law of another state of the United States, provided that the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not consider or apply a rule of comity to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, international law, laws promulgated by foreign governments or national laws of foreign countries if the consideration or application of the foreign precepts or laws would violate the public policy of the state of New Mexico or reduce or impair the rights of any resident of the state of New Mexico existing under New Mexico statutes or common law governing child custody, rights of married persons, property rights, protection from domestic violence or any criminal law. The courts shall not consider or apply Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
New Jersey AB 3496	Provides that a foreign law may only be recognized by a court in New Jersey if it does not violate any right guaranteed by the Constitution of this State or of the United States of America.	Carried over from 2011 session. In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over into 2011 session.	No
North Carolina HB 640	Declares “it to be the public policy of this State to protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a right of a natural person guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution or the United States Constitution. The public policies expressed in this section shall apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of a constitutional right resulting from the application of the foreign law.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C when legislature adjourned.	Possibly
Oklahoma HB 1552	Provides 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 law, rule, 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 Oklahoma Constitutions.	Approved by full House 3/17/11. Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Pennsylvania HB 2029	Provides a tribunal shall not consider a foreign legal code or system which does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania.	In House Judiciary Committee	Yes
South Carolina HB 3490	Provides “As used in this section, the term “foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
South Carolina SB 444	Provides “As used in this section, the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories….A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
South Dakota HJR 1004 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides no South Dakota state court may apply international law, the law of any foreign nation, or any foreign religious or moral code with the force of law in the adjudication of any case under its jurisdiction.	Tabled by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/17/11.	No
South Dakota SB 201	Declares “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 international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision is 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 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 the United States and the State of South Dakota.”	Deferred to 41st legislative day (i.e. killed) by Senate Commerce and Energy Committee 2/16/11.	No
Texas HB 274	AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Approved as amended by full House 5/10/11. 4/18/11. Removed by Senate State Affairs Committee 5/23/11.	No
Texas HB 911	AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Approved as amended by House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence 4/18/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 999	Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 1240	Declares “”foreign or international law or doctrine” means a law, rule, legal code, or principle of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States, including international law, that is not codified or recognized by this state or the United States…A court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not base a ruling or decision on a foreign or international law or doctrine; or a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.”	Approved by House Select Committee on State Sovereignty 5/10/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 3027	Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”.	Died in House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HJR 57 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “A court of this state shall uphold the laws of the Constitution of the United States, this Constitution, federal laws, and laws of this state. A court of this state may not enforce, consider, or apply any religious or cultural law.”	Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 79A (Special Session)	AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Approved as amended by full House 6/22/11. Removed by Senate Jurisprudence Committee 6/27/11.	No
West Virginia HB 3220	Provides “”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…It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code or system against a natural person in this state is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of West Virginia or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those Constitutions.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Possibly
Wyoming HJR 8 (Constitutional Amendment)	Prohibits court use of sharia law. Prohibits Wyoming courts from referencing law of other U.S. states if law of the other state does include sharia law. Requires Wyoming courts uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the constitution of the United States, the Wyoming constitution, the United States Code and federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, laws of this state, and established common law as specified by legislative enactment. Prohibits courts from considering the legal precepts of other nations or cultures including, without limitation, international law and Sharia law.	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	No

Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee meets November 21, will look at personal injury

Bill Raftery — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:58:07 +0000

The Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee will meet 11/21 to vote on HB 1976, related to venue in personal injury actions against corporations and similar entities.

Pennsylvania’s House also set to examine judicial selection November 17

Bill Raftery — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:58:00 +0000

While Minnesota’s Senate will be considering changes to its judicial selection system, the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee will consider on November 17 the use of a merit selection system of the state’s appellate courts (prior post here). A public hearing is set to take place at the University of Pennsylvania on HB 1815 (Constitutional Amendment) and HB 1816 setting up the Appellate Nominating Commission system. If approved, the constitutional amendment would have to be readopted by a subsequent legislature before going to the voters.

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

Bill Raftery — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:18:20 +0000

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.

Alabama

In the last decade, Alabama’s House and Senate have at various times both passed constitutional amendments for the elimination of mandatory judicial retirement and rejected them as well.

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
1999	SB 307	70 to 74	Approved by Senate committee
2001	HB 858	Eliminate	Killed by full House
2001	SB 594	Eliminate	Died in Senate committee
2002	SB 358	Eliminate	Died in Senate committee
2002	HB 128	Eliminate	Approved by full House. Died in Senate committee
2003	HB 24	Eliminate	Killed by full House
2003	HB 84 (Second Special)	Eliminate	Died in House committee
2010	HB 537	70 to 72	Approved by full House and Senate committee. Killed by full Senate.
2011	SB 266	70 to 75	Killed in Senate committee

Arizona

All efforts since 1990 to change the state’s mandatory retirement age of 70 have focused on increasing it to 75. The first round of bills (2002-2004) met with some success in the House but not the Senate. A second round (2005-2006) included a Senate effort to increase for the state’s main trial court judges (Superior Court) only. The Senate approved, the House balked. The third and continuing round (2007-2011) tied the increase to 75 with changes to the state’s merit selection system. Such a connective bill was passed in 2011 and is set to be voted on in 2012. Under SCR1001 the mandatory retirement age would go to 75, but the composition of the state’s merit selection commissions would be altered.

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
2002	HCR 2022	70 to 75	Approved by House committee
2003	HCR 2019	70 to 75	Approved by House committee
2004	HCR 2038	70 to 75	Died in House committee
2004	SCR 1019	70 to 75	Rejected in Senate committee
2005	HCR 2042	70 to 75	Died in House committee
2006	SCR 1013	70 to 75 for Superior Court judges only	Approved by full Senate. Rejected in House committee.
2007	SCR 1020	70 to 75	Died in Senate committee
2008	SCR 1014	70 to 75; Senate confirmation for judges selected through state’s merit selection system	Died in Senate committee
2009	HCR 2016	70 to 75	Died in House committee
2010	SCR 1040	70 to 75	Approved by full Senate. Died in House committee.
2011	SCR 1001	70 to 75; increases to 8 years the term of office for Supreme, Court of Appeals, and Superior Court judges starting in 2013. Alters numerous provisions related to merit selection system.	On November 2012 ballot

Florida

As with Arizona, the Florida interest in changing the mandatory retirement age was connected to changes to judicial selection. Bills introduced in 1994 and 1996 would have raised the limit or allowed the legislature to do so at a later date. The constitutional amendment that appeared on the ballot excluded the reference to the mandatory retirement age.

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
1994	SJR 468	70 to 75	Died in Senate committee
1996	HJR 1415	70 to legislatively set age of at least 72. Alters merit selection system. Alters judicial qualifications commission membership and procedures.	Approved by House Committee
1996	SJR 578	70 to 72; creates single trial court by merging County Courts into Circuit Courts.	Approved by Senate committee
1996	SJR 978	70 to any age set by statue; alters merit selection system and judicial qualifications commission membership and procedures.	Provisions related to retirement age removed; remaining portions put on 1996 ballot.
1999	SJR 758	70 to 75	Approved by Senate committee

Hawaii

In 2005, Hawaii was faced with a Republican Governor (something which had not happened since 1962), a very Democratic legislature, and several members of the state’s courts up against the mandatory retirement age of 70. The state’s senate proposed a standalone constitutional amendment eliminating the retirement age which went down to a nearly 2-1 defeat. A 2008/2009 effort to increase the age to 80 for justices and judges appointed after November 4, 2008 (i.e. after the Republican governor would be term limited out of office) died in a conference committee.

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
2006	SB 995	Eliminate	Rejected by voters 65%-35%
2008	HB 2344	70 to 72	Died in House committee
2008	SB 3202	70 to 80, but only for judges appointed after November 4, 2008	Died in conference committee
2009	HB 621	70 to end of term in which turn 70	Died in House committee

Indiana

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
1999	HB 2042	Eliminates any remaining references to mandatory retirement ages left in statute	Died in House committee
2003	HB 1986	Eliminates any remaining references to mandatory retirement ages left in statute; provides for elimination of merit selection of judges in various counties.	Died in House committee
2011	HB 1266	Eliminates any remaining references to mandatory retirement ages left in statute	Signed into law.
2011	SB 463	Eliminates any remaining references to mandatory retirement ages left in statute	Signed into law.

Kansas

Kansas had been considering a change to its statutes regarding mandatory judicial retirement at 70 for several years before a 2002 Supreme Court order reset the dynamics. In March of that year, in response to legislative cuts to the courts, the Supreme Court entered an order for emergency surcharges on various court filings, fees, and fines. The language of a 2000 bill was then reintroduced in 2003 to increase the mandatory retirement age for judges, even the Court of Appeals, except the Supreme Court. That version was enacted. It was not until 2010 that the law was further amended to include the Supreme Court in the increase.

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
1999	HB 2372	Appellate courts: end of term turns 70 to 75; Trial Court: 70 to end of term in which turn 70.	Approved by full House and Senate committee. Died on Senate floor.
2000	SB 650	End of term turns 70 to 75	Died in House committee
2002	HB 2040	End of term turns 70 to 75
2002	HB 2620	Eliminates	Died in House committee
2001	SB 46	End of term turns 70 to 75	Died in Senate committee
2003	HB 2418	Supreme Court: Remain end of term in which turn 70. Court of Appeals and District Court: end of term in which turn 70 to end of term in which turn 75.	Signed into law.
2003	SB 19	End of term turns 70 to 75	Approved by full Senate. Died in House committee.
2008	SB 494	Appellate courts: end of term turns 70 to end of term in which turns 73; Trial Court: 70 to end of term in which turn 75	Died in House committee
2010	HB 2164	Eliminates	Approved by full House. Approved by Senate committee.
2010	SB 68	Supreme Court: end of term turns 70 to end of term in which turns 75	Signed into law.

Louisiana

Louisiana has had two efforts to increase the retirement ages of its judges. The first was in the early 1990s and sought an increase from 70 to 75. It was put up on the ballot in 1995, along with 14 other items, as Amendment 4. It was one of only 2 proposals to lose. The loss can at least in part be attributed to bad timing; the same 1995 ballot included as Amendment 2 term limits for the legislature. It passed overwhelmingly 75%-25%, making the “mere” 62%-38% drubbing Amendment 4 took somewhat remarkable. Thereafter the issue lay dormant for almost a decade until 2003 when a change was proposed to allow judges to serve out the term in which they turned 70. Like its 1995 its counterpart it was one of 14 items on an October ballot. The 2003 effort, however, succeeded.

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
1993	HB 12	70 to 75	House committee approved
1995	HB 1033	70 to 75	House committee approved
1995	HB 234	70 to 75	Rejected on October 1995 ballot 62%-38%
1995	SB 256	70 to 75	Approved by full Senate and House committee. Replaced with HB 234.
1997	HB 432	70 to 75; increases from 5 to 10 number of years individual practice law before being eligible to run for most judicial offices	Died in House committee
2003	HB 19	70 to end of term in which turn 70	Approved on October 2003 ballot 53%-47%
2003	HB 28	70 to end of term in which turn 70	Approved by full House. Died in Senate committee.
2003	HB 86	70 to 75	Failed to reach 2/3rds vote in House
2003	SB 217	70 to 76	Approved by full Senate. House amended (see HB 19)

Michigan

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
2001	HJR 16	70 to 75	Died in House committee
2007	HJR 32	70 to 75	Died in House committee

Massachusetts

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
2010	HB 1640	70 to 76	Approved by Joint Judiciary Committee
2011	HB 1826	70 to 76	Approved by Joint Judiciary Committee

Minnesota

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
2011	HB 1536	From end of month turns 70 to end of “official year of the state in the first even-numbered year”. Deletes provision that puts word “incumbent” after judge’s name if seeking re-election.	Died in House committee
2011	SB 627	From end of month turns 70 to end of “official year of the state in the first even-numbered year”. Deletes provision that puts word “incumbent” after judge’s name if seeking re-election.	Died in Senate committee

Missouri

Missouri is one of only a handful of states that have a different retirement age for trial and appellate judges. Moreover, municipal judges have a higher retirement age (75) than that of the judges of all the other courts (Circuit, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court = 70).

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
2001	SJR 21	70 to 75 for all but municipal judges	Died in Senate committee
2002	HB 1962	75 to 70 for municipal judges	Killed in conference committee
2006	HB 1030	75 to 65 for municipal judges in home rule cities over 400,000	Killed by Senate committee
2006	HB 1826	75 to 65 for municipal judges	Died in House committee
2006	SB 1058	75 to 65 for municipal judges in home rule cities over 400,000	Died in conference committee
2011	HB 111	75 to 78 for municipal court judges	Approved by full House. Killed in Senate committee
2011	HB 889	75 to 78 for municipal court judges	Approved by House committee

North Carolina

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
1992	HB 1512	70 to 72 for appellate judges	Signed into law
2003	HB 578	Eliminate	Died in House Committee
2004	HB 1414	Allow District Judges only to serve out term turn 72; put in as section of general appropriations act	Rejected in conference committee
2005	HB 1181	Allow District Judges only to serve out term turn 72	Died in House committee
2005	SB 523	72 to year in which turns 72	Ends nonpartisan elections and replaces with merit selection system.
2005	SB 229	Allow District Judges only to serve out term turn 72	Died in Senate committee

New Jersey

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
2000	SCR 66	70 to 75	Died in Senate committee
2006	ACR 271	70 to 75	Died in Assembly committee
2006	SCR 109	70 to 75	Died in Senate committee
2008	ACR 110	70 to 75	Died in Assembly committee
2008	SCR 59	70 to 75	Died in Senate committee
2010	ACR 70	70 to 75	Died in Assembly committee
2010	SCR 123	70 to 75	Died in Senate committee

New York

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
2011	AB 8469	End of year turn 70 to end of year turn 80 for Court of Appeals (state’s top court) only	Replaced by SB 5827
2011	SB 4587	End of year turn 70 to end of year turn 74 for all judges except town/village	Approved by full Senate.
2011	SB 5827	end of year turn 70 to end of year turn 80 for Court of Appeals (state’s top court) only	Approved by legislature. Requires re-adoption by 2013-2014 legislature before submission to public vote.

Ohio

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
2009	HJR 9	70 to 75; eliminates the authority of the General Assembly to establish courts of conciliation and to reappoint a Supreme Court commission. Amended to require general election judicial races be partisan.	Died in House committee
2010	HJR 16	Eliminate	Died in House committee
2010	SJR 10	70 to 75; eliminates the authority to establish courts of conciliation and to appoint a Supreme Court commission.	Died in Senate committee
2011	HJR 1	70 to 75; eliminates the authority to establish courts of conciliation and to appoint a Supreme Court commission.	On November 2011 ballot

Pennsylvania

Throughout the 1990s several attempts were made to extend judicial terms to the end of the calendar year a judge turned 70.The extension was added onto a bill related to reapportionment, but approved by the voters in a separate vote in May 2001 where it won on a 2-1 vote.

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
1993	HB 399	70 to end of calendar year turn 70	Died in House committee
1994	HB 2954	70 to end of calendar year turn 70	Died in House committee
1995	HB 225	70 to end of calendar year turn 70	Died in House committee
1995	HB 316	70 to end of calendar year turn 70	Died in House committee
1998	HB 114	70 to end of calendar year turn 70	Approved and forwarded to 1999/2000 legislature
1999	HB 411	70 to end of calendar year turn 70	Replaced by SB 231
1999	SB 231	70 to end of calendar year turn 70	Approved by voters 66%-34% on 2001 ballot.
2010	HB 2657	Eliminate	Died in House committee

South Dakota

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
2009	SB 78	70 to 75	Killed in Senate committee

Texas

The 2007 Texas amendment noted below was the first effort in a decade to change the state’s judicial retirement. It was one of 16 ballot items voters cast ballots on in November 2007, all of which passed.

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
1993	Texas HJR 62	Eliminate	Died in House committee
1997	Texas HJR 15	Eliminate	Died in House committee
2007	Texas HJR 36	Retains legislature’s power to set retirement to age any between 70 and 75. Provides justice or judge who reaches the mandatory age of retirement during the first four years of the justice’s or judge’s term of office to complete the first four years of the justice’s or judge’s current term.	Approved by voters 75%-25%

Virginia

For each of the past 5 years it appeared that Virginia General Assembly would raise the mandatory retirement age for judges and in each one of those years it failed, often at the last minute. Part of the challenge is the statutory placement of the law itself; Virginia Code 51.1-305(B1) not only sets 70 as the mandatory age for judges, but for members of the state Corporation Commission who are also members of the Judicial Retirement System. Trying to craft a bill that does, or does not, also change the retirement provisions for the members of the Commission has been a sticking point. The result has been numerous attempts, including three tie-vote-failures in committee.

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
1998	HB 557	Exempts juvenile and domestic relations judges in the 27th judicial district from mandatory retirement.	Killed in House committee
2000	SB 151	Eliminates for judges taking office after July 2000.	Approved by full Senate. Killed in House committee.
2007	SB 977	70 to 75 for judges taking office after July 2007	Approved by full Senate. Died in House committee.
2008	HB 783	Original: 70 to 75 for judges taking office after July 2008; Amended: 70 to 73 for judges taking office after July 2008	Killed by full House
2008	SB 19	Original: 70 to 75 for judges taking office after July 2008; Committee amended: 70 to 75, all judges; Floor amended: 70 to 75, eliminates special provisions related to Corporation Commission.	Killed on Senate floor
2008	SB 34	70 to 75	Incorporated into SB 19
2009	SB 856	70 to 75	Killed on Senate floor
2009	HB 1818	70 to 75, eliminates special provisions related to Corporation Commission.	Killed on Senate floor
2010	HB 1189	Senate committee amendment: 70 to 73, eliminates special provisions related to Corporation Commission.	Killed in conference committee
2010	SB 206	70 to 73, eliminates special provisions related to Corporation Commission.	Approved by full Senate. Died in House committee.
2010	HB 126	70 to 73, eliminates special provisions related to Corporation Commission.	Approved by full Senate. Killed on tie vote in House committee.
2010	SB 44	70 to 76 for District Judges only	Incorporated into SB 206
2011	HB 1497	70 to 73, eliminates special provisions related to Corporation Commission.	Killed on tie vote in House committee
2011	HB 1890	70 to 73, eliminates special provisions related to Corporation Commission.	Died in House committee
2011	SB 1066	70 to 73, eliminates special provisions related to Corporation Commission.	Approved by full Senate. Killed by House committee

Vermont

When originally proposed in the Vermont Senate, the bill to simply eliminate the retirement age. A committee amendment changed it to a range to be set by the legislature instead. The legislature would later opt for the high end, passing a statute in 2003 to set it as being the end of the calendar year the judge turns 90.

Year

Bill number

Change from/to

Final status

1999

PR 4

Original: Eliminate. Amended: End of term turn 70 to any age between 70 and 90 legislature sets.

Approved 64%-36% on November 2002 ballot.

2003

HB 191

Original: Eliminate.

Senate amended: 70 to end of calendar year turn 80. Requires judicial evaluations be given to legislature.

Conference committee/Enacted: 70 to end of calendar year turn 90.

Signed into law.

Washington

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
2007	HJR 4209	Eliminates	Approved by House committee
2010	HJR 4216	Eliminates	Died in House committee
2011	HJR 4203	Eliminates	May be carried over into 2012
2011	SJR 8200	End of year turns 70 to end of term turns 70	May be carried over into 2012
2011	SJR 8204	Eliminates	May be carried over into 2012

Wyoming

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
2010	HJR 4	Eliminates	Approved by full House and Senate committee. Killed by full Senate.

Interim Judiciary Committees meeting in Illinois and Pennsylvania

Bill Raftery — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:57:18 +0000

This is going to be a very active week for interim judiciary committees.

Today, October 24, the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee looks at venue in personal injury actions (HB 1552) while tomorrow it will vote on HB 1552 as well as HB 1156 (Offense of phishing and for protection from liability under certain circumstances) and HB 1709 (child custody, further providing for consideration of criminal conviction).

The Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary also meets October 25. On its agenda N

SB 433 (incorporation of benefit corporations)
SB 903 (arson and related offenses)
SB 1019 (“corrections managers”)
SB 1092 (powers of attorney)

Illinois’ Senate Judiciary Committee meets October 25 to consider HB1589 (custody and related court orders where one parent is in military service) and HB1604 (parents who violate visitation orders to have driving license suspended).

At the same time the Senate is meeting, the Illinois House Judiciary I – Civil Law Committee will look at SB1694 (who has access to copies of the deceased patient’s records) while House Judiciary II – Criminal Law Committee considers a new law providing that any judge, circuit clerk or clerk of court, public official or employee, court reporter, or other person who knowingly and without lawful authority falsifies any public record received or held by any judge or by a clerk of any court commits a Class 3 felony (SB 1808).

Pennsylvania House Interim Judiciary Committee to examine phishing, criminal surveillance

Bill Raftery — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:41:52 +0000

The Pennsylvania House’s interim Judiciary Committee will meet on October 18 to vote on several bills:

HB 1126 Restitution for tampering with evidence or public records or information
HB 1156 Offense of phishing and for protection from liability under certain circumstances
HB 1531 Offense of criminal surveillance
HB 1552 Venue in personal injury actions

Why Senate confirmation for state judicial nominees? Why not House? Or joint?

Bill Raftery — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:43:25 +0000

Numerous state legislatures in 2011 that have a version of merit selection (Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma) or have considered adopting merit selection (Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) have put in provisions for Senate confirmation. Additionally, Rhode Island (HB 5675) considered removing the state senate’s existing confirmation power with respect to a trial court (Superior Court) and transferring the power to the house.

But the question arises: why Senate confirmation? There’s the case for reference to the U.S. Senate and its role in federal judicial confirmations. And this was consistent when a) state senators were elected by counties to represent the county as a whole (as in New Jersey) or clusters of counties (as in New York) and b) trial judges (and occasionally appellate judges) were picked by districts made up of clusters of counties.

Thanks to one person/one vote decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court over the years, the practice of Senate districts following county lines is over. The practice of appellate judges being chosen based on geography is also on the decline with only 10 states continuing to use the practice for courts of last resort and 17 of 40 states with intermediate appellate courts using district based selection (although Montana may buck the trend in 2012, Oregon voters rejected the idea 2-1 in 2006).

Moreover, as I noted in March, such proposals have fared much better in state senates than in state houses, and history bears this out. In short, when the power to confirm has been handed solely to the state senate, it has had mixed support in the state’s house. The only way it happens, normally, is when there is a litany of other issues in play.

When does Senate confirmation of appellate nominees come into a constitution?

Conventions changing entire constitution: Delaware, Hawaii, and New Jersey
Constitutional amendment changing most/entire Judiciary Article: Maryland (1970 attempt) and Utah
Constitutional amendment changing judicial selection only: Maryland (1976), New York
Constitutional amendment changing most/entire Executive Branch Article: Maine, Vermont

In the case of Maryland (1976) and New York (1977) the amendments to have Senate confirmation met with lower House approval as part of a package of bills related to the courts.

Maryland’s 1976 attempt for merit-selection-with-Senate-confirmation was part of a package of bills that included constitutional amendments guaranteeing every county would have at least 1 circuit judge (House Bill 1048), giving District Court juvenile jurisdiction (SB 219), and giving the state’s Chief Judge the power to recall retired judges back into service (SB 817). Voters approved 16 different items on the ballot that year.
Similarly, New York’s 1977 shift to end elections and have merit-selection-with-Senate-confirmation was one of four judiciary-related constitutional amendments, including a revamp of the state’s entire judicial governance structure and the creation of a commission on judicial conduct. The fourth item, changes to the jurisdiction of town, village and (most) city courts, was rejected.

This institutional inertia may explain some 2011 activity. Consider the following:

The original Florida House proposal HJR 7111, introduced March 22, 2011 included nothing about Senate confirmation of justices of the planned modified supreme court with civil and criminal panels. The only mention of the Senate was a provision stripping the power of the court(s) to name their chief justice and giving it to the Governor with Senate confirmation. Six days later, SJR 1664 requiring Senate confirmation for the Supreme Court was passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. On April 5, the Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee gave its approval of SJR 1664. By April 8, “>a new version of HJR 7111 including Senate confirmation language very similar to SJR 1664 made its way out of the House Judiciary Committee. The Senate confirmation provision is part of the final version of HJR 7111 on the ballot in 2012.
Bills originating in the Arizona Senate (SCR 1046) and Oklahoma Senate (SB 621) did not fare as well. The Arizona bill went nowhere. The Oklahoma bill moved through the Senate and was not even brought up for a House committee hearing.

Roles of legislatures in appellate judicial selection

Both chambers

Connecticut: since the 1818 Constitution. An 1880 amendment (Article XXVI) allowed for the Governor to nominate, but still required confirmation by both chambers. A 1986 amendment added merit selection, permitting the Governor to nominate only from those names submitted by the Judicial Selection Commission.

Rhode Island: since the 1842 Constitution and kept as part of the 1986 constitution. A 1994 amendment added merit selection, permitting the Governor to nominate only from those names submitted by an independent non-partisan judicial nominating commission.

South Carolina: since the 1776 Constitution and kept as a part of the 1778, 1790, 1861, 1865 and 1868 constitutions, plus a 1973 revision to the judiciary article. A 1997 constitutional amendment added merit selection allowing the legislature to elect only from those names submitted by the Judicial Merit Selection Commission.

Virginia: since the 1776 Constitution and kept as part of the 1850, 1861, 1864, 1870, and 1902 constitutions.

Senate only

Delaware: since the 1897 Constitution. The 1776 Constitution specified a joint ballot of both chambers of the general assembly and the “president” (i.e. governor) of the state. The 1792 and 1831 Constitutions placed the power of appointment solely in the hands of the Governor.

Hawaii: since the 1949 Constitution.

Maryland: since a 1976 constitutional amendment. The 1776 Constitution gave appointment to the Governor with the Council “for the time being” and put it solely in the hands of the Governor via an 1837 amendment. Maryland’s 1864 Constitution provided for direct election of the judges of the top court (Court of Appeals), but provided the Governor with Senate confirmation would select the chief judge. The 1867 Constitution made 7 of the 8 chief judges of the state’s judicial circuits the state’s top court and provided the Governor with the confirmation of the Senate would select the chief judge of the Court of Appeals. This practice continued until a 1943 constitutional amendment separated the roles of chief circuit judge from judge of the Court of Appeals but still required direct election. A 1960 amendment reaffirmed direct election, while changing the geographic boundaries.

It should be noted that the Maryland proposal was initially rejected in 1970 (1970 version) and included most courts in the state (judges of the Court of Appeals, intermediate courts of appeal, Circuit Courts, and the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City), increased terms of office to 15 years, and made revisions to the power of the Commission on Judicial Disabilities which had just been created in 1966. The successful 1976 version focused exclusively on merit selection with Senate confirmation for appellate courts only.

New Jersey: since the 1844 Constitution. The 1776 Constitution made the Governor and Council the state’s top court (Court of Appeals). The current 1947 Constitution replicated the Governor-appoints-Senate confirms system of the 1844 Constitution, but with a significant change. Rather than being re-confirmed every 7 years, the justices would face only 2 Senate confirmations: one for their initial appointment and a second after 7 years. If reconfirmed a second time, they would remain in office until age 70.

New York Court of Appeals (state’s court of last resort): sporadically since the 1777 Constitution. Under the 1777 Constitution, a Council on Appointments made up of 4 Senators chosen by the Assembly, plus the Governor (to break ties) was used. The 1821 Constitution changed this to a Governor-appoints-Senate-confirms system. The 1846 Constitution created a bifurcated election system: 4 of the 8 judges would be elected by the statewide, the other 4 would be locally elected judges of the general jurisdiction court (confusingly called the “supreme court”) “having the shortest time to serve.” A new constitution was voted on, section by section, in 1869; the judicial article was the only one approved. That new article provided for statewide election. The 1894 Constitution and 1938 Constitution continued the statewide election system. A 1977 amendment that revamped much of the Judiciary Article created the present merit-selection-Senate-confirmation system.

10/24/11 update: Selection to the state’s primary intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division, has no role for the legislature. The Governor alone elevates from the judges elected locally in partisan elections to the general jurisdiction court (confusingly called the “Supreme Court”).

Utah: since a 1984 constitutional amendment. The original 1895 constitution provided for statewide election. The 1984 amendment overhauling the entire Judiciary Article provided for the present merit-selection-Senate-confirmation system. A subsequent 1992 amendment increased the time for the Senate to consider nominations.

Vermont: since a 1971 constitutional amendment. The 1793 Constitution provide for joint election by the unicameral House and Executive Council, a practice that was continued when the Council was made the Senate via a 1836 amendment. An 1890 effort to shift this to the Senate alone was rejected by the Senate itself but was incorporated into the 1971 revision of the state’s entire Judiciary Article.

Hybrid

Maine: since a 1975 constitutional amendment (L.D. 25). The 1820 Constitution in place when Maine was separated from Massachusetts and became a state kept the Massachusetts practice of supreme court selection method of governor-appoints-and-executive-council-confirms. The 1975 amendment abolishing the Council created the current procedure for confirmation: the Governor nominates and a Joint House/Senate legislative committee recommends confirmation or rejection. That recommendation is binding unless the Senate overrides with 2/3 vote.