Recent Articles in Election Law & Political Commentary from LexMonitor

Bill allowing recalls approved by Senate committee

blog@votelaw.com (Edward Still) — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:56:42 GMT

The Birmingham News reports: A Senate committee today approved a bill aimed at giving Alabama voters the ability to recall public officials if enough people are displeased with their performance. ... The Senate Constitution, Campaign Finance, Ethics, and Elections Committee...

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Thursday, March 22, 2012

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:47:22 GMT

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Thursday, March 22, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Kansas House committee removes provision requiring state courts order funding as required by the U.S. Constitution

wraftery@ncsc.org (Bill Raftery) — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:12:39 GMT

Yesterday I noted with respect to a Minnesota bill that it was common for legislators to propose constitutional amendments to prohibit state courts from ordering funds to be expended. Late last week Kansas’ House Judiciary Committee advanced just such a bill, but with an interesting change. HCR 5006, a state constitutional amendment introduced in January [...]

HCR 5006, a state constitutional amendment introduced in January 2011 read

The executive and judicial branches shall have no authority to direct the legislative branch to make any appropriation of money or to redirect or limit in any fashion an appropriation already made by law, except as the legislative branch may provide by law or as may be required by the constitution of the United States.

It was amended in February 2012 to add a single phrase (in bold)

The executive and judicial branches shall have no authority to direct the legislative branch to make any appropriation of money or to redirect an appropriation or limit in any fashion an appropriation already made by law, except as the legislative branch may provide by law or as may be required by the constitution of the United States.

The bill lay dormant for the year until March 16 when the House Judiciary Committee took up the bill again, this time removing a provision (strikeout).

The executive and judicial branches shall have no authority to direct the legislative branch to make any appropriation of money or to redirect an appropriation or limit in any fashion an appropriation already made by law, except as the legislative branch may provide by law ~~or as may be required by the constitution of the United States~~.

The bill now advances to the House floor where it is on the calendar for March 26.

Trayvon Martin: "Stand Your Ground" Rule Has NOTHING To Do With This Case

dhutchinson@wcl.american.edu (Darren Hutchinson) — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:49:38 GMT

A lot of professional and amateur media have argued that the "stand your ground" rule -- a provision in Florida self-defense law -- could complicate or preclude the prosecution of George Zimmerman. Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, but police declined to arrest him. Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee insists that he cannot dispute Zimmerman's assertion of self-defense. 911 calls, witness testimony and the fact that Trayvon was unarmed and much smaller than his assailant, however, severely undermine Zimmerman's self-defense argument. Nevertheless, some commentators -- most of whom lack any legal training -- insist that the stand your ground rule bolsters Zimmerman's defense. This argument is baseless. In order to understand why the rule should not affect the outcome of this case, it is important first to examine the law of self-defense in Florida. Florida Self-Defense Law Self-defense allows a defendant charged with a homicide or battery to justify his or her actions. In most states, in order to claim self-defense, the defendant must have a reasonable belief that the victim posed a threat to the defendant or to some other person. Also, there are special rules for the use of "lethal" or "deadly" force. Consider Florida law, for example: A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013 (italics added).So, in order to justify killing Martin, Zimmerman must demonstrate that he reasonably believed that Martin was about to kill him or cause him serious bodily injury. Florida law also describes certain circumstances when people can assume as a mater of law that they are going to become victims of lethal force. These circumstances, referred to in Section (2) above, include carjackings and home invasions, which are not relevant to this case. Stand Your Ground In some states, self-defense is not available if the defendant had the ability to "retreat" from the harm. In other words, if the defendant could have escaped the danger without using violence, then the use of force is not justifiable. These states impose a duty to retreat in order to discourage the unnecessary use of force. In 2005, Florida amended its law to remove the duty to retreat provision. So long as the person claiming self-defense had a legal right to be in a particular location, that individual can stand his or her ground and remain there without any duty to retreat from the threat (see statutory language quoted above). Critics argue that that the stand your ground rule encourages violence and makes it easier to prove self-defense. To the extent that a person could escape violence by retreating, the stand your ground rule would ordinarily lessen that individual's burden for proving self-defense; it removes one required element of the defense. Some newspaper studies claim that the success rate of self-defense arguments has increased since 2005. Self-Defense Not Generally Available to Aggressors For several reasons, however, the stand your ground rule has no bearing on the Martin case. First, Florida law clearly states that self-defense is only available to aggressors under very limited circumstances: The justification [for using force] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who. . . (2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of de

Sorry, Trayvon Martin: They Just Don't Like You (UPDATED)

dhutchinson@wcl.american.edu (Darren Hutchinson) — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:36:23 GMT

"It is about time the court faced the fact that the white people of the South don't like the colored people." -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist (written when he was a law clerk on the Supreme Court). The recent murder of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, by George Zimmerman, a white "neighborhood watch vigilante from Sanford, Florida, should remind the public of the continuation of racial injustice in the United States. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin as he walked to his father's home in a central Florida neighborhood. Prior to shooting Martin, Zimmerman called police from his car to report a "suspicious" person in the neighborhood. Zimmerman asked police whether he should leave his car to investigate the situation, but police told him not to do so. Despite the police warning, Zimmerman left his car and confronted Martin. Although the facts remain hazy, Zimmerman admits that after he left his car, he killed Martin. Zimmerman says that he acted in self-defense. Several witnesses tell local newspapers, however, that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense; they have also accused police of mishandling the investigation. It is also clear that Martin was unarmed and that he was returning to his father's home from a store where he had purchased candy for a younger sibling. Police have declined to arrest Zimmerman. Bill Lee, Chief of the Sanford Police Department, accepts Zimmerman's allegation that he acted in self-defense. Lee says that Zimmerman believed that Martin was a threat because "the way that he was walking or appeared seemed suspicious to him." Lee also says (mistakenly - see below) that Zimmerman has a "squeaky clean" record and that he does not believe that "it was [Zimmerman's] intent to go and shoot somebody. . . .” Currently, prosecutors are considering whether to bring criminal charges against Zimmerman. This case is deeply troubling for several reasons. First, the police are misapplying and misleading the public about the criminal laws regarding homicide and self-defense in order to justify the decision not to arrest Zimmerman. Also, this case is yet another reminder of the continuing problem of racial injustice in the United States, particularly, the disparate treatment of black and white offenders and victims. Law Regarding Homicide and Self-Defense The law regarding homicide is far more complicated than the public's general understanding of the term. While the public tends to equate "homicide" and "murder," these words are quite different from a legal perspective. Homicide is simply the killing of a person by another individual. Within that broad category, however, several scenarios are possible. The killing could result from intentional and planned behavior; this is typically described as "murder." The killing could result from recklessness or negligence; this is typically described as "manslaughter." Although I have simplified these categories somewhat, it is clear that even if Zimmerman did not begin the night with the intent to kill an individual, he still might have committed a serious crime -- possibly, manslaughter or even second-degree murder. Every state recognizes "self-defense" as a defense to a homicide charge. Under Florida law (as in many other states), in order to act in self-defense, the assailant must reasonably fear that the victim will harm him or her or some other person. Furthermore, in order to rely upon self-defense, the assailant must not have acted act as the aggressor. In order to act with lethal force, as Zimmerman did, the assailant must reasonably fear that the victim will cause imminent great bodily harm or death to him or her or to another person. Under Florida law, lethal force is also justifiable to stop home invasions and carjacking -- scenarios that are not relevant to Martin's death. The Facts Support Charging Zimmerman From the few facts that are known, Zimmerman's self-defense claim seems shaky at best. Zimmerman, who is 26, weighs about 100 pounds more

Graysville petitioners want mayor impeached (UPDATED)

blog@votelaw.com (Edward Still) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:34:00 GMT

The Birmingham News reports: A group of Graysville residents today filed in Jefferson County Circuit Court a petition to impeach Graysville Mayor Doug Brewer. The petition accuses Brewer of willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, abuse of power and...

Foreclosure Defenses: Round 1

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 20:29:09 GMT

Reblogged from Kentucky Bankruptcy Law: First, a shout out to Ben Carter, a former classmate of mine and one fine presenter with a flair for fashion. Thanks Ben for helping make sense out of foreclosure mayhem. So much has been written about the dilemma of massive numbers of foreclosure actions that I am hesitant to [...]

Reblogged from Kentucky Bankruptcy Law:

First, a shout out to Ben Carter, a former classmate of mine and one fine presenter with a flair for fashion. Thanks Ben for helping make sense out of foreclosure mayhem.

So much has been written about the dilemma of massive numbers of foreclosure actions that I am hesitant to dive into the fray. However, even though many would like us to perceive the economy issues as having resolved, I think the foreclose crisis will continue with us for some time.

Birmingham News ignored ALEC's influence in our latest voter ID bill

blog@votelaw.com (Edward Still) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:02:46 GMT

Media Matters for America reports: Dozens of voter ID laws have been introduced in state legislatures over the past two years, including particularly strict measures passed in seven states in 2011 -- Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee...

New Hampshire House effort to create 7-year terms for judges taken off the table, may have vote this afternoon Update: Effort fails 172-176 on procedural vote

wraftery@ncsc.org (Bill Raftery) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:36:30 GMT

Judges in New Hampshire’s state courts, after their appointment by the governor and confirmation by the state’s executive council, serve until age 70, must to the angst of several members of the legislature. CACR 11, introduced initially in 2011, would replace this with 5-year terms subject to reappointment and reconfirmation. The bill initially failed in [...]

The bill initially failed in November 2011 when the House Judiciary Committee recommended its rejection on a 10-6 vote. It was then recommitted to the Judiciary Committee by the full House and then swiftly moved to another committee (the House Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification Committee) which had previously approved several anti-judiciary bills. That committee expanded the term to 7 years and provided that the new rule would only apply to judges appointed after 1/1/2012. The revised version was recommended for passage on a 10-5 vote. The House then voted on March 7, giving it a majority (218-120) but not the 3/5ths of the full membership (240 out of 400) needed for passage under the state’s constitution. The bill was tabled 244-97.

This morning votes were expected on two pieces of legislation that would curtail or end the state supreme court’s rule making authority. Instead, a motion was made to take CACR 11 off the table, which was approved 209-144.

The bill was then debated, including several references to possible Senate action on an unspecified House bill that is currently in the Senate for a hearing soon. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to take up three House bills tomorrow March 21: HB 344 relative to judicial performance evaluations, HB 1384 relative to the statute of limitations for complaints against judges, and HB 151 repealing the laws relative to marital masters.

The House voted 156-200 to reject a motion that the bill was “Inexpedient to Legislate” and then went into lunch until 1:10 PM Eastern.

Live coverage of this afternoon’s House activity is available here.

Update 3/21/12 @ 1:27 P.M. The House rejected a motion to reconsider the actions taken on March 7 by a 172-176 vote. The Speaker has stated from the chair that there is no further legislative activity to be had on this matter.

Minnesota bill would cut judicial funding for every dollar court orders state to pay

wraftery@ncsc.org (Bill Raftery) — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:35:17 GMT

Bills that would prohibit courts from ordering or directing the expenditure of state funds are nothing new. When courts have ordered increased funding, for schools for example, there has been anecdotal evidence that court budgets have been reduced in retaliation. Minnesota’s SB 2454, however, adds a new twist: direct and explicit fiscal retaliation against the [...]

The bill contains two provisions. The first is the general prohibition on the court ordering of expenditures.

A court may not: (1) order the governor, an executive branch agency, or the legislature to spend money or to otherwise incur a financial obligation; or (2) appropriate money unless pursuant to an enacted law.

The unique element is in the second clause.

Reduction in court budget; determination by commissioner of management and budget. If the commissioner of management and budget determines that money has been paid out of the state treasury as a result of a court order directing that money be spent to continue the operation of a state function in the absence of an appropriation, the commissioner shall reduce the current general fund operating budget appropriation to the court by the amount determined. If no operating budget for the court has been enacted, the commissioner shall make the specified reduction in the next enacted court budget.

The bill seems to stem from instances in 2011 and 2005. There, the state failed to pass a budget by the constitutional deadline, leading to partial government shutdowns. The courts were requested to step in and order at least some “essential services” be maintained. In 2011 this prompted several bills that would have defined “essential services” and curtailed the judiciary’s power to order some funding.

SB 2454 is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:36:23 GMT

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Wednesday, March 21, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

I wish Paul Ryan were running for President Tom Smith

tacsmith@gmail.com (Tom Smith) — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:22:27 GMT

It's a good video.

Tennessee House Judiciary Committee approves 9-6 plan to put merit selection explicitly in state’s constitution

wraftery@ncsc.org (Bill Raftery) — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:17:23 GMT

There has been copious amounts written on this blog and in the Gavel to Gavel publication on Tennessee’s merit selection system (here’s an overview). The latest effort, HJR 753, would specifically place a merit-selection system in the state’s constitution for appellate judges in the state. Specifically the proposed constitutional amendment would replace the existing Article [...]

There has been copious amounts written on this blog and in the Gavel to Gavel publication on Tennessee’s merit selection system (here’s an overview). The latest effort, HJR 753, would specifically place a merit-selection system in the state’s constitution for appellate judges in the state. Specifically the proposed constitutional amendment would replace the existing Article VI, Section 3…

The judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state. The Legislature shall have power to prescribe such rules as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of section two of this article. Every judge of the Supreme Court shall be thirty-five years of age, and shall before his election have been a resident of the state for five years. His term of service shall be eight years.

…with this…

Each judge of the Supreme Court or any intermediate appellate court shall be initially selected via merit-based gubernatorial appointment from a panel of qualified candidates submitted by a nominating commission; shall be legislatively confirmed; and, thereafter, contingent upon a satisfactory job performance evaluation, shall be subject to retention election by the qualified voters of the state. The Legislature shall prescribe such rules as may be necessary to implement sections two and three of this article. Each such judge shall be at least thirty-five years of age and shall have been a resident of the state for the five-year period immediately preceding appointment. The term of service shall be eight years.

The plan has the support of the state’s governor and legislative leaders. Despite this, the bill passed by only a 9-6 vote earlier today on its way to the House Finance, Ways & Means Committee.

The video below is from the (short) Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the bill on March 14 and the (longer) hearing and vote from March 20.

Creating court security fees in Minnesota

wraftery@ncsc.org (Bill Raftery) — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:22:25 GMT

The recent spate of courthouse shootings and attacks has brought the focus back to court security and specifically how to pay for it. Several states provide for court security fees to be added to civil and/or criminal cases. Minnesota is considering such a plan, one that would allow counties that feel the need for such [...]

The recent spate of courthouse shootings and attacks has brought the focus back to court security and specifically how to pay for it.

Several states provide for court security fees to be added to civil and/or criminal cases. Minnesota is considering such a plan, one that would allow counties that feel the need for such a fee to impose it up to $15.

This video is from the March 15, 2012 hearing on the bill (HF 2000) before the Minnesota House Judiciary Policy and Finance Committee.

Trayvon Martin: 911 Call Contradicts Police Account (Audio)

dhutchinson@wcl.american.edu (Darren Hutchinson) — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:08:39 GMT

Note: Major New Development in the Case: SHOCKING NEW WITNESS TESTIMONY IN TRAYVON MARTIN CASE! Under threat of litigation, police in Sanford, Florida have released 911 tapes related to the February 26 killing of Trayvon Martin. Martin's death has begun to attract national media attention. This case underscores the continuation of racial injustice in the United States. George Zimmerman, who is white, killed Martin, who was black, after he called police and reported that a suspicious person was walking in his neighborhood. Martin was visiting his father and was returning home from a local convenience store. During the 911 call, the police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue Martin, but he left his car nonetheless. During other 911 calls, neighbors reported a scuffle between two individuals. Screams and gunshots are heard in the background. Despite the increasing evidence that points to a crime, police have refused to arrest Zimmerman. Instead, Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee has credited Zimmerman's statement that he acted in self-defense when he killed Martin. Earlier this week, Lee also tried to downplay the significance of race in Martin's death. Lee, for example, stated that race could not have been a factor in Martin's death because when the police dispatcher asked Zimmerman to state the race of the individual he was observing, Zimmerman responded that he did not know. The 911 tape, however, directly contradicts Lee's statement. Instead, Zimmerman initially said that he believed Martin was black, and then a few seconds later he said that he was a "black male." In addition to contradicting Lee's account, the 911 tape also strongly suggests that Zimmerman acted pursuant to racial stereotypes, prejudice or both. Zimmerman recited several racial stereotypes during the call. He said that Martin seemed "up to no good." Zimmerman also speculated that Martin was "on drugs or something." Zimmerman said that Martin had his hand in his "waistband," implying that unarmed boy was armed and dangerous. During the call, Zimmerman stated that there had been several burglaries in his neighborhood, and he lamented that they "always get away." Near the end of the call, strong winds are suddenly audible. This suggests that Zimmerman had already left his car to pursue Martin even before he ended the call. Nevertheless, police insist that this was a case of self-defense. The tape, however, contradicts this conclusion. Martin was simply walking home. Unfortunately, he crossed paths with Zimmerman who imagined himself to be a law enforcement officer. Zimmerman did not fear for his life. Instead, he left his vehicle with a gun to pursue an innocent boy. Martin must have been frightened. Zimmerman apparently did not want another one to "get away." Under these circumstances, Zimmerman has no right to assert a self-defense argument. He initiated aggressive contact with Martin. When Zimmerman killed Martin, he committed manslaughter -- at the very least. If Sanford police care about equal justice, they should arrest Zimmerman. Also, given the history of racial strife and cronyism in the Sanford police department, Lee should lose his job. As a result of his behavior in this case, he can no longer serve the public effectively. Note: Zimmerman's 911 call, courtesy of the Orlando Sentinel, is embedded below this post. For more analysis, see: George Zimmerman, Killer of Trayvon Martin: The Man Who Would Be Cop Sorry, Trayvon Martin: They Just Don't Like You BREAKING NEWS in Trayvon Martin Case: Officer in the Case Has A Prior Record of Racial Controversy

George Zimmerman, Killer of Trayvon Martin: The Man Who Would Be Cop

dhutchinson@wcl.american.edu (Darren Hutchinson) — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:07:05 GMT

Note: Major New Development in the Case: SHOCKING NEW WITNESS TESTIMONY IN TRAYVON MARTIN CASE! The Miami Herald and the Orlando Sentinel have published additional reports regarding the death of...

To view the rest of this article, please visit DISSENTING JUSTICE. Thanks.

SHOCKING NEW WITNESS TESTIMONY IN TRAYVON MARTIN CASE!

dhutchinson@wcl.american.edu (Darren Hutchinson) — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:57:45 GMT

ABC News has just released a story that could certainly lead to a murder charge against George Zimmerman, the individual who killed Trayvon Martin. Attorneys for Martin's family released cell phone...

To view the rest of this article, please visit DISSENTING JUSTICE. Thanks.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Bills withdrawn in Minnesota and New Jersey, Kansas House attaches ban to unrelated bill

wraftery@ncsc.org (Bill Raftery) — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:40:53 GMT

The last several weeks in the examination bans on court use of sharia/international law have seen something new: while such bans have been voted down in committee before for t he first time authors are starting to withdraw the bills outright. Minnesota’s SB 2281 was withdrawn the day it was introduced. According to WCCO TV: [...]

Minnesota’s SB 2281 was withdrawn the day it was introduced. According to WCCO TV:

Before the bill was even introduced, the author, Republican Dave Thompson pulled it. “It was never my intent to introduce legislation that was being targeted to any one group,” said Thompson.

The second bill was New Jersey’s AB 919 (introduced in the 2010/2011 session as AB 3496). Introduced January 10 of this year, the bill was withdrawn last week. The NJ Assembly Republicans blog on March 13 quotes the bill’s author (GOP Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi):

In the climate of what has been transpiring in the Muslim community in New Jersey, they were concerned it would further, in their view, portray Muslims in a negative light. After sitting and listening to their concerns, I agreed to withdraw it.

The legislature’s website, however, does not yet show the bill has having been formally withdrawn. (No direct link to bill status page, follow this link and search for bill AB 919).

The other activity as in Kansas. SB 79, as originally introduced, had nothing to do with international law or sharia and dealt with the state’s program on allowing courts to recover fees/fines owed. That bill passed the Senate unanimously.

Yesterday (March 19) the House changed the bill entirely. The House substitute for SB 79 simply replicates the language of HB 2087, which the House had previously passed and the Senate had declined to advance.

Readers may recognize this tactic on the part of the Kansas House. When the House approved bills to end merit selection for the state’s Court of Appeals, bills the Senate did not take up, the House started to add provisions to unrelated bills (see here, here, and here). The difference here is that rather than tacking on the new provision to the existing bill, this effort simply replaces the text of the bill entirely.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.

Bill	Provisions	Status
Alabama SB 33 (Constitutional Amendment)	Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	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.”	Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/1/12.
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.
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.”	Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/22/12. Approved by full House 3/1/12. Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.
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 Budget Subcommittee on Criminal and Civil Justice Appropriations 2/28/12. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.
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. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day.
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.”	Approved by House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil 2/24/12. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day
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. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day.
Georgia SR 926 (Constitutional Amendment)	Describes foreign and religious laws which are incompatible with the laws and policy of the United States and the State of Georgia. Provides ways in which incompatible laws may not be applied or enforced by courts of state.	In Senate Committee on Judiciary. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day.
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. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day.
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. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day.
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. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day.
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. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day.
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. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day.
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. Probably dead; failed to advance to Senate before crossover day.
Iowa SB 2198	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 Senate State Government Committee. Probably dead; failed to advance to House before crossover day.
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.
Kentucky HB 386	Establishes legislative intent that the rights of an individual afforded under the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the United States take precedence over the application of any foreign law in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. Strictly construe waivers of constitutional rights Provides exceptions for corporate entities Prohibits choice of venue outside of the Commonwealth or United States to preserve the constitutional rights of the person against whom enforcement is sought.	In House (no committee).
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.
Minnesota SB 2281	Provides “A 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 rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on a 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 Minnesota Constitution and the United States Constitution, 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 Minnesota Constitution.”	Withdrawn by author 3/5/12.
Mississippi HB 2	Provides “”Foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	In House Judiciary A Committee. Probably dead; failed to advance out of committee before deadline.
Mississippi HB 698	Prohibit use of international or Sharia law by state’s judiciary.	In House Judiciary A Committee. Probably dead; failed to advance out of committee before deadline.
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.	Approved by House Rules Committee 3/8/12.
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.	Approved by Senate General Laws Committee 2/28/12.
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.
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.	Approved as amended by full House 2/22/12.
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.	Author has announced she will withdraw bill 3/13/12.
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. Died when legislature adjourned.
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.
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 HB 1253	ORIGINAL: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.” AS AMENDED: “No court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code.”	Signed into law by Governor 3/12/12.
South Dakota SB 136	ORIGINAL: 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. AS AMENDED: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.”	Deferred to 41st day (i.e. killed) by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/2/12.
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.	Continued to 2013 by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/10/12.
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.	Approved by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/3/12. Continued to 2013 by House Committee for Courts of Justice 2/10/12.
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. Died when legislature adjourned.

140 Law - Legal Headlines for Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:28:46 GMT

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter on the foggiest day of the year so far, Tuesday, March 20, 2012:

- Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Goodbye statins Tom Smith

tacsmith@gmail.com (Tom Smith) — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:14:55 GMT

Well I visited my internist this morning and got official permission to stop taking (the generic of) Zocor I have been taking and try instead diet, exercise, fish oil and artichoke extract. Lest this sound like I am visiting Dr. Bob, Internist o' the Hills, I am a patient of a very fancy, large multi-specialty clinic in San Diego, which has such things as a special valet entrance for plastic surgery patients who don't want to be seen by the masses. So high end medicine, pre-Obamacare, visit your death panel and call me in the morning. Evidently Zocor is especially prone to cause muscle pains, one of my complaints, along with growing stupidity. So we'll see how this goes. I will go back in two months to see how my blood work looks. I know you all find this fascinating, but even so, this has been the short version. I hope to feel less wrecked after my work outs and may find I can start to remember the names of my students, colleagues, children, pets and those law decision thingies that have names.