Gavel to Gavel » Virginia

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.

West Virginia considers creating an intermediate appellate court, Virginia considers getting rid of theirs

Bill Raftery — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:48:50 +0000

Of the 50 U.S. states, 40 have an intermediate appellate court (IAC), generally (but not always) called the “Court of Appeals”. Two states have been actively trying to get their own IACs. The first, Nevada, has been trying for decades but has been unable to get voter support for a constitutional amendment to create or allow the legislature to create such a court. A fourth attempt is currently in the works.

The other state is West Virginia. Creation of an IAC (tentatively entitled the “Intermediate Court of Appeals”) has bounced around the legislature since at least 1999 (HB 3008 of 1999; HB 200B of Second Special Session of 2003) but picked up a great deal of attention in 2010 (HB 3269; HB 4619; SB 589; SB 645) and 2011 (HB 3150; HB 3165) with the state’s senate approving one version (SB 307) that has been reintroduced as part of a larger “Civil Justice Reform Act” in 2012 (SB 420). Under this bill, “all appeals shall be reviewed and a written decision on the merits issued by either the Supreme Court or Intermediate Court as a matter of right except for [certain appeals as specified in statute]…”

Meanwhile, in the name of cost savings, the Commonwealth of Virginia is considering abolishing their IAC. Under SB 630 the current Court of Appeals would end effective October 2012. According to the blog of the Virginia Lawyers’ Weekly, the change would keep the current judges in their respective offices until the end of their terms, but with no apparent work to do after October of this year. The prime sponsor told the VLW Blog “when the state is cutting services to children the judiciary ought not be immune from the budget ax” and criticized the court for having in his view few if any judges with experience in criminal, domestic or workers compensation practice prior to selection to the court.

For the sixth year in a row Virginia’s General Assembly votes on whether to increase mandatory judicial retirement age

Bill Raftery — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:10:13 +0000

I noted just before the 2011 sessions started that Virginia’s legislature has struggled mightily to agree on a plan to increase the state’s mandatory judicial retirement age of 70. Whereas most changes to mandatory judicial retirement ages have been approved, or at least sent to the voters, within 1 or 2 legislative years, Virginia is now entering Year 6 in its efforts to amend Virginia Code 51.1-305(B1) which 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. Each year since 2007, changes have been approved at the committee level, even obtaining one-chamber passage, only to be killed or left to die at the end of the session.

This year the two vehicles are HB 163 and SB 95 with both raising the retirement age from 70 to 73 and eliminating the special provisions related to the Corporation Commission. Earlier this morning the Senate Committee on Courts of Justice approved its version on an 11-3 vote. The House Committee on Courts of Justice, Civil Subcommittee is set to vote on it later this afternoon. This vote is critical as it was the civil subcommittee which killed the House version last year on a 5-5 tie vote (with 1 abstention). This year’s subcommittee may be more welcoming. Of the 9 members of the 2012 committee, 4 voted in favor of the 2011 plan, 2 voted against and 1 abstained. Assuming those 7 delegates vote the same way, that leaves the decision to two delegates first elected in 2011.

Update 1/16/12 @ 5:29 PM – The two newly elected delegates voted against, resulting once again in the bill’s failure to pass due to a tie vote (4-4, 1 abstention).

Details of prior years efforts below the fold.

Year	Bill number	Change from/to	Final status
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
2012	HB 163	70 to 73, eliminates special provisions related to Corporation Commission.	Vote in House Committee on Courts of Justice, Civil Subcommittee 1/16/12.
2012	SB 95	70 to 73, eliminates special provisions related to Corporation Commission.	Approved by Senate Committee on Courts of Justice 1/16/12.

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.

Why Senate reconfirmation for incumbent state judges? Why not House? Or joint? Or election?

Bill Raftery — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:59:37 +0000

Several weeks ago I looked at the historical development of why some states have legislative involvement in judicial confirmation for their appellate courts and whether it was only the state’s senate that had a role or if it was a joint process. To reiterate, one of the big presses in the last year has been to put into place something akin to the “federal model” of senate (only) confirmation. But unlike the federal model, which includes life tenure, almost all these proposals include a reconfirmation at some point.

It should be noted that of the 11 states that give their legislature some role in the confirmation of appellate judges:

6 give at least some appellate judges a decade or more on the bench between reconfirmations: Delaware (12 years), Hawaii (10 years), South Carolina (10 years), Utah (Supreme Court: 10 years), Virginia (Supreme Court: 12 years), and New York (Court of Appeals: 14 years)
3 give reconfirmation to the House and Senate: Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia
3 remove the legislature outright from reconfirmation: Hawaii (judicial nominating commission); Maryland and Utah (retention election)
2 at least have the option of lifetime or near-lifetime appointment: Rhode Island (life) and New Jersey (until 70 after reconfirmation)

Roles of legislatures in appellate judicial re-confirmation

Connecticut: 8 year term for Supreme Court and Appellate Court. Judicial Selection Commission evaluates incumbent judge, with statutory presumption “that each incumbent judge who seeks reappointment to the same court qualifies for retention in judicial office” and provides burden on commission to demonstrate otherwise (see 51-44a (e) and (f), of the Connecticut General Statutes). Commission sends reappoint/don’t reappoint recommendation to Governor who renominates incumbent judge. Legislature jointly reconfirms.

Delaware: 12 year term for the Supreme Court. Governor renominates. Senate reconfirms.

Hawaii: 10 year term for Supreme Court and Intermediate Appellate Court. Judicial selection commission reappoints.

Maine: 7 year term for Supreme Judicial Court. Governor renominates. Joint House/Senate legislative committee recommends reconfirmation or rejection. That recommendation is binding unless the Senate overrides with 2/3 vote.

Maryland: 1 year (at least) initial term for Court of Appeals and Court of Special Appeals. Yes/no retention election. 10 year subsequent term.

New Jersey: 7 year initial term. Governor renominates. Senate reconfirms. Service until 70 for subsequent term.

New York (Court of Appeals, state’s court of last resort): 14 year term for Court of Appeals. Commission on Judicial Nomination resubmits names along incumbent’s to Governor. Governor renominates incumbent or nominates new person. Senate confirms or reconfirms.

NOTE: the state’s primary intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division, has no role for the legislature in terms of reconfirmation. The Governor elevates and may reappoint to the Appellate Division from the judges elected locally in partisan elections to the general jurisdiction court (confusingly called the “Supreme Court”). For example, when his 14 year term in the trial court ended in 2011, the Hon. Henry J. Scudder had to run for re-election and then be reappointed back to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department (see story here).

Rhode Island: N/A (Serve for life)

South Carolina: 10 year term for the Supreme Court, 6 year term for the Court of Appeals. Judicial Merit Selection Commission evaluates incumbent judge and all others seeking position. Commission sends names to Legislature. Legislature jointly reappoints or appoints someone else. (See Title 2, Chapter 19 S.C. Code)

Virginia: 12 year term for the Supreme Court, 6 year term for the Court of Appeals. Legislature jointly reappoints or appoints someone else.

Utah: 3 year (at least) initial term. Yes/no retention election. 10 year subsequent term for Supreme Court, 6 year subsequent term for Court of Appeals.

Virginia’s Committee on District Courts meeting 10/20, will look at legislative proposals by the Judicial Conference of Virginia

Bill Raftery — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:36:31 +0000

Virginia’s Committee on District Court is set to meet on October 20. The Committee, made up of 14 members (8 legislators, 6 jurists) will examine:

Report of the District Court Forms Advisory Committee
Proposals Regarding Schedules of Prepayable Offenses
Legislative Proposals by the Judicial Conference of Virginia for District Courts
Request for Waiver of Magistrate Certification
Informational Items
Department of Judicial Services Visit Reports

Florida and Virginia: Letting retired judges/justices appear as counsel & practice law in state courts

Bill Raftery — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:12:04 +0000

Mandatory retirement ages plus increasing life expectancy is meaning more judges having years of potential active practice after they forced to relinquish their robes. In some states they may be potentially recalled as senior judges or appointed as hearing officers. However, in several states, retired judges and justices who are taking state retirement may not appear in a state court at all representing a client. Two states in particular, Florida and Virginia, have seen legislative activity to loosen the restriction.

Prior to the 2011 General Assembly session, Virginia retirement law (51.1-309) included the following:

§ 51.1-309. Appearance as counsel in certain forums prohibited.

A. No former justice or judge of a court of record of the Commonwealth and no former full-time judge of a court not of record of the Commonwealth, who is retired and receiving retirement benefits under the provisions of the Judicial Retirement System, shall appear as counsel in any case in any court of the Commonwealth. (bolding added)

The general prohibition in 51.1-309(A) remains, but SB 902 of 2011 added a limited exception for retired judges/justices doing pro bono work:

C. The provisions of subsection A shall not be applicable if (i) the retired justice or judge has been retired for at least two years and is not authorized for temporary recall by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, (ii) the retired justice or judge is appearing as counsel, pro bono, for an indigent person in a civil matter, (iii) such civil matter is assigned or referred to the retired justice or judge by a nonprofit legal aid program organized under the auspices of the Virginia State Bar, and (iv) the retired justice or judge is not an employee, officer, or board member of such nonprofit legal aid program. Nothing herein shall relieve the retired justice or judge from having obtained any license or meeting any requirement in connection with the appearance as counsel as required by law, rule, or regulation.

Florida’s current law is even more restrictive. Under 25.151 “No justice of the Supreme Court of Florida drawing retirement compensation as provided by any law shall engage in the practice of law.” In 2011, HB 7113 and HB 7199 would have outright repealed this ban. HB 7199 was the implementation legislation for HJR 7111 as originally introduced. That HJR, as readers may recall, would have divided up the state’s supreme court into civil & criminal panels, changed the court’s rule making powers, etc. (click here for posts on the subject)

HB 7113, however, had nothing to do with HJR. While it was approved by the full House it nevertheless but died in Senate Messages. HB 7113 has already been reintroduced and prefiled for 2012 as HB 4055 but not yet assigned to a committee.

Virginia’s judicial redistricting committee plan to be unveiled today

Bill Raftery — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:57:53 +0000

I’ve previously mentioned the 2011 legislative effort to redistrict Virginia’s judicial districts. In sum, the bill was almost on the verge of passage when it was decided to refer the matter to the state’s Supreme Court,resulting in a committee appointed by the Chief Justice to look at the issue.

Today’s interim joint meeting of Virginia’s Committee on District Courts and Judicial Council on September 19 will see the committee’s recommendations released. The Committee’s 14 members include 8 legislators, including the chairs of the Committees for Courts of Justice in the Senate and House of Delegates. The chairs also serve as members of the Council as well.

According to the Virginia Lawyer’s Weekly, the committee will recommend against redistricting, instead suggesting a system of regional chief judges for assigning judges to fill workload gaps as needed.

The Committee/Council agenda is:

Welcome and Comments by Chief Justice Kinser
Overview of Committee Work and Committee Recommendations Judge Thomas D. Horne, Chairman Judicial Boundary Realignment Study Committee
Review of Committee Realignment Models Dr. Cyril W. Miller, Jr. Director of Judicial Planning
Legislative Proposal Ms. Katya N. Herndon Director of Legislative and Public Relations
Adjournment

2011 South-Atlantic indigent defense legislation

Bill Raftery — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:31:18 +0000

Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Active/Carried over into 2012

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

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

Approved by one chamber

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

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

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

Died in committee

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

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

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

Interim committee activity in Kentucky, Virginia

Bill Raftery — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:00:43 +0000

The Kentucky Joint Interim Judiciary Committee will meet September 14. On the agenda: arrest, prosecution, and treatment of juveniles under 10.

Virginia’s Committee on District Courts is set to meet jointly with the state’s Judicial Council on September 19 in Richmond. The Committee’s 14 members include 8 legislators, including the chairs of the Committees for Courts of Justice in the Senate and House of Delegates. The chairs also serve as members of the Council as well.