AZ: You say court surcharge, I say court penalty assessment….

Trying to come to terms with terms is at the heart of both legislative and judicial branches. One such area where the two can become entangled is with the difference between a court imposed surcharge in criminal cases where there is a conviction and an assessment the court imposes as the result of a criminal conviction. For Arizona, the terms matter: courts are required to collect a 61% and 13% surcharge, or penalty assessment, for violations of motor vehicle statutes and a 10% surcharge is also permitted for violations related to the Clean Elections Act. Moreover, it is not 100% what the surcharge is on (can one surcharge a surcharge? an assessment?)

Enter HB 2353 which clarifies that surcharges apply to the base fine and do not apply to another surcharge and conforms all terminology currently referring to a penalty assessment as a surcharge. It was adopted on a 9-0 vote by the House Judiciary Committee last Thursday and is now in the House Committee of the Whole.

Recently introduced e-filing bills

Cross-posted at the Court Technology Bulletin blog

Much has been made, particularly in the recent spate of State of the Judiciary Speeches, about the boon and promise of e-filing in state courts. In just the last week legislators in five states introduced or advanced bills related to the subject.

Arizona SB 1185 Would change the state’s existing laws that allow the Supreme Court and Superior Courts (pursuant to rules adopted by the Supreme Court) to have e-filing to require they do (“may” to “shall”) Moreover, the bill would require the electronic access to court records and add bulk data to required material the courts shall provide. It is currently in the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee.

Oregon HB 2690 (link to legislature’s website, no direct link to bill status page) takes a different tack. It allows the state;s Chief Justice to establish reasonable subscription fees, and other user and transaction fees, for remote access to case information and other Judicial Department forms, reports and services that are available in electronic form. Moreover, it modifies laws on filing of trial court transcripts on appeal to allow for the electronic filing of the transcript. It is in the House Judiciary Committee.

South Dakota HB 1038 requires the clerk of that state’s Supreme Court collect certain fees for the electronic transmission of court records. That bill was approved by the House Committee on Judiciary on January 21 and by the full House on January 25.

Virginia SB 1369 would allow Circuit Court Clerks to charge a fee of $25 for civil or criminal proceedings filed electronically and an additional $10 fee for subsequent filings in such proceedings. The funds would be directed to the clerk’s local fund to cover operational expenses of the electronic filing system.  That bill is currently in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee.

Finally, Wyoming HB 190 offers what amounts to an e-filing discount of sorts. The bill provides for the electronic submittal of fees, fines, bonds and penalties to circuit courts and authorizes the Supreme Court to reduce the aforementioned fines, bonds and penalties if submitted electronically. That bill is currently in the House Judiciary Committee.

An examination of 2011 sharia law & international law bans before state legislatures

This post has been updated. Click here and here.

Welcome Thinkprogress.org, Stateline, Opinio Juris and HLPR readers! Enjoy and sign up for Gavel to Gavel the weekly edition here.

In 2010, several states proposed bans on the use of sharia or international law (prior blog posts here and here; Gavel to Gavel the publication special focus issue here). The Oklahoma version (which was limited to the state’s courts) was approved by voters in the state in November 2010, but a restraining order has been issued as part of a Federal lawsuit against the state constitutional amendment. The relevant portions (another part renamed the State Industrial Court to the State Worker’s Compensation court) read:

The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section [i.e. Oklahoma’s state courts], when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules 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 or Sharia Law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.

Constitutional Amendments

Undaunted by the Federal court action, Wyoming has introduced its own version (HJR 8):

When exercising their judicial authority the courts of this state shall 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, established common law as specified by legislative enactment, 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 consider the legal precepts of other nations or cultures including, without limitation, international law and Sharia law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.

Texas also has a proposed constitutional amendment (HJR 57):

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.

Arizona’s proposed constitutional amendment (SCR 1010 of 2011)  is a modified version of various 2010 bills (HB 2379, SB 1026, SB 1396) that would have made statutory changes only:

In making judicial decisions, the courts provided for in subsection A [i.e. Arizona’s state courts], when exercising their judicial authority, 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 include international law.  The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures.  The courts shall not consider international law.

South Dakota’s House is also considering adding the following to their constitution (HJR 1004)

No such court [i.e. 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.


Statutes


While Oklahoma was amending its constitution, Tennessee (HB 3768/SB 3470) *and Louisiana (HB 785) adopted statutes in 2010 that addressed the use of international law. That law* has been introduced almost verbatim in 2011 in Arkansas (SB 97), Kansas (HB 2087), Nebraska (LB 647), and Oklahoma (HB 1552). Interestingly, the Tennessee law and its variations in the other states are not specifically limited to state courts, only.

As used in this act, “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…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 [name of state] Constitution.

*Update: there was a Louisiana version as well in 2010, HB 785 prefiled 3/18/2010 that was enacted.

“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.

However, the Tennessee version was filed 2/2/2010 in the House and 1/28/2010 in the Senate. Therefore, I still think it valid to call it the Tennessee version.

Alaska (SB 88), Georgia (HB 45), Indiana (SJR 16), Mississippi (HB 301 and HB 525), South Carolina (SB 444) and Texas (HB 911) have variations on the Tennessee version, although only Mississippi HB 301 specifically mentions sharia law:

Alaska: A court, arbitrator, mediator, administrative agency, or enforcement agency may not apply 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….In this section, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States and the territories of the United States.

Georgia: As used in this Code section, 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.

Indiana: 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.

Mississippi HB 301: “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 including Sharia Law…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.

Mississippi HB 525: “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.

Nebraska: For purposes of this section, 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, an international organization or tribunal, and applied by such jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…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.

South Carolina: 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.

Texas: 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 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.

Legislation to ban the use of Karma, Sharia, and Canon Law by Courts

Efforts to strip courts of jurisdiction over case types, such as taxation and school funding, are nothing new. See, for example, Kansas’ SCR 1613 which would prohibit the judicial branch from directing the legislative branch make any appropriation of money or to redirect the expenditure of funds.

2010 however is perhaps the first time a state legislature has tried to stop the use of karma by the courts (although it is not clear any courts are presently using it). Arizona’s HB 2379 and SB 1026 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. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law are declared void and such usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Moreover, the bills are not just targetting Arizona’s state courts; the same legislation declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction and requires any court that construes the statutes must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary.

A similar bill in Oklahoma, HJR 1056, would amend that state’s constitution to prohibit the courts from “look[ing] to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider Sharia Law…” That  bill was approved by the House Rules Committee on February 4.