Special Edition on Court Funding

The American Bar Association Task Force on Preservation of the Justice System will be holding its inaugural meeting in Atlanta today. The task force is set to address “the severe underfunding of our justice system, depletion of resources, and the courts’ struggle to render their constitutional function and provide access to justice for countless Americans.

This special edition of Gavel to Gavel looks at just some of the ways state legislatures have proposed funding courts in the last several years.

The regular, weekly edition of Gavel to Gavel will appear Thursday.

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.

E-signed and e-delivered, but not e-sealed?

Signed, sealed and delivered is more than a Stevie Wonder song, it represents the attestation of an action or record of a court dating back centuries. Technology, however, has outpaced the days of wax and impressions. For that reason, several state legislatures have had to go back and change the laws of their states to allow their courts more latitude. Legislatures in Oklahoma (HB 2253 of 2004), Iowa (HB 579 of 2009), and Michigan (SB 720 of 2010)  all authorized all courts in their state to e-seal. Texas in 2007 (SB 229) gave its district court the authority to create a seal electronically, thus allowing the courts to transfer, store, and locate documents with greater efficiency.

This year, Nevada enters into the e-seal fray. SB 6 authorizes the electronic reproduction of the seal of a court (current law requires either impressing the seal on the document or impressing the seal on a substance attached to the document). The bill is currently pending in the Senate Committee on Judiciary.

Cross-posted at Court Technology Bulletin blog

OK: Efforts to impeach/remove trial judge already starting

Readers may recall earlier this year I noted a case involving legislative efforts to remove OK trial judge Thomas Bartheld.

Media reports of legislators planning his ouster made the news in June 2009 after Judge Bartheld sentenced a man who had pled no contest of raping and sodomizing a 5-year-old girl to 20 years in prison, 19 of which are suspended. The case made national headlines, with Bill O’Reilly mentioning the judge by name on his show seven times. Judge Bartheld, however, noted that “The district attorney, child’s family, advocates and the defendant all agreed to this [plea bargain].”

HR 1001 of 2011 asks the Trial Division of the Court on the Judiciary to assume jurisdiction and institute proceedings for the removal of Judge Bartheld from office.

Judicial Retirement Plans/Pensions: Southern States

Georgia HB 202 Authorizes the boards of all public retirement systems operating under Title 47 of O.C.G.A to adopt any rules which are required to meet the necessary federal compliance standards. It requires all systems to comply with mandatory distribution requirements that are included in the Internal Revenue Code. Clarifies provisions relating to rollovers from public retirement systems to other qualified plans, and revises language relating to maximum benefits payable to ensure the language is consistent with the Internal Revenue Code.

Georgia HB 210 Amends provisions relating to membership in the Georgia Judicial Retirement System. Clarifies that certain attorney‘s employed by the office of Legislative Counsel or the Department of Law on June 30, 2005, shall retain all rights and obligations as exist on that day. Those in this group shall be subject to all provisions of this chapter applicable to solicitors-general of the state courts, and Employer contributions shall be paid by respective employers under such Code sections.

Georgia HB 452 Provides that members of the Georgia Judicial Retirement System who become members on or after July 1, 2009, not be entitled to receive any postretirement benefit adjustments.

Georgia SB 109 Provides for each of the following Councils to pay their respective employer contributions for retirement: Superior Court Judges, State Court Judges, Juvenile Court Judges and the Prosecuting Attorneys. Requires  that each of these Councils be authorized, and directed to pay from funds appropriated or otherwise available in additional amount equal to the 5% contribution of the member plus an additional 20% so that the state contribution is in accordance with the Employees’ Retirement System of Georgia

Georgia SB 177 Provides that appellate court judges who become members of the Employees’ Retirement System of Georgia, and persons who become members of the Georgia Judicial Retirement System on or after July 1, 2009, not be entitled to Survivors benefits.

Kentucky HB 182 Permits the Judicial Form Retirement System board of trustees to promulgate administrative regulations to conform with federal statutes and regulations and to meet the qualification requirements under 26 U.S.C. Section 401(a).

Kentucky HB 289 Judicial Retirement Plan to honor qualified domestic relations orders if the orders meet the requirements established by the retirement systems or plan and by these sections

North Carolina HB 1507 & SB 703 Permits assets of Consolidated Judicial Retirement System and systems to may be invested in securities traded on a public securities exchange or market organized and regulated pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction of such exchange or market (previously limited to “preferred or common stock”) . Signed into law by governor 6/11/09.

North Carolina HB 649 & SB 691 Specifies Treasurer’s responsibilities and duties regarding Consolidated Judicial Retirement System and other retirement systems. Signed into law by Governor 7/10/09.

Oklahoma HB 1110 (2009) Requires Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System deliver two reports of the fiscal activities of  the State Judicial Retirement Fund for the fiscal year to the Legislative Service Bureau. House and Senate conference committee unable to come to agreement 5/27/09.

Oklahoma HB 2357 (2010) Requires Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System deliver two reports of the fiscal activities of  the State Judicial Retirement Fund for the fiscal year to the Legislative Service Bureau. Approved by full House 2/10/10. Approved with Senate amendment by full Senate 3/29/10. To House to concur with amendment.

Oklahoma SB 1059 Makes various modifications to employer contribution rates for Uniform Retirement System for Justices and Judges. Requires certain funds be transferred to the Judicial Retirement Fund.  Approved by full Senate 3/9/09. Died in House.

Oklahoma SB 212 Specifies that the funded ratio for the State Judicial Retirement Fund should be at or near 90%  (previously 100%) or be receiving sufficient contributions to amortize any unfunded liability of the fund according to the adopted amortization schedule.  Modifies the Board of Trustees ability to raise employer contribution rates. Signed into law by Governor 5/26/09.

Virginia HB 1189 & SB 232 Changes member contributions for those under the Judicial Retirement System or other specified plans. Institutes a new service weight schedule based on the judge’s age at the time he or she is appointed or elected to an original term commencing July 1, 2010 Changes the requirements for unreduced early retirement benefits from 50 years of age and 30 years of creditable service, to the “Rule of 90” (combination of age and service equals 90). Approved by House and Senate 3/11/10. To Governor for approval.

OK: State courts may not reference U.S. treaties or conventions?

Late last week, Oklahoma’s House voted to amend the state constitution to ban court references to sharia law and international law. HJR 1056 would enact the “Save Our State Amendment” and would include the following as a new paragraph of the state’s Judiciary Article (Article VII):

The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, 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, and the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto 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 subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression. (emphasis added)

The bill, as originally introduced, read:

The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures.  Specifically, the courts shall not consider Sharia Law, international law, the constitutions, laws, rules, regulations, and decisions of courts or tribunals of other nations, or conventions or treaties, whether or not the United States is a party. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.

The original language was approved by the House Rules Committee but amended on the floor. The bill, as amended, passed on a 91-2 vote.

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.