PHOENIX — Following Texas and some other states, an Arizona Senate panel has voted to ban the use of Sharia law in Arizona.
Current law already prohibits Arizona courts from recognizing foreign law in making decisions. Senate Bill 1018 would add Sharia law to that.
"We've seen examples nationwide where foreign laws have been invoked to justify outcomes that would never pass muster under U.S. constitutional standards, outcomes that undermine equal protection, due process, freedom of speech, or the rights of women and children and families in inheritance disputes,'' said Sen. Janae Shamp.
The Surprise Republican did not cite any examples of that happening in Arizona. But she told the Senate Committee on Federalism that is irrelevant.
"Arizona should not wait for a high-profile case to arise on our doorstep,'' Shamp said. "Prevention is a far, far better cure.''
Sharia law is a set of principles that governs the moral and religious lives of Muslims, ranging from dietary laws to marriage, divorce, inheritance, the rights of women and punishment for criminal offenses.
The closest suggestion presented to lawmakers that someone is trying to bring Sharia law to Arizona was some papers brought by Jeff Schwartz, a member of the public who testified about a proposed development in north Phoenix for something called "Qatar City.''
There's nothing in the documents mentioning religion.
"Arizona should not wait for a high-profile case to arise on our doorstep,'' Sen. Janae Shamp, R-Surprise, said in support of adding Sharia law to the state law that already prohibits Arizona courts from recognizing foreign law in making decisions. "Prevention is a far, far better cure."
But Schwartz, speaking on his own behalf, said a real estate agent has told him the plan is to create a community governed by Sharia law, which he said should be a concern.
"Sharia law, by definition, is not merely a set of personal beliefs,'' Schwartz said. "We cannot allow creation of enclaves where alternative legal systems are encouraged, tolerated or quietly implemented.''
But even Sen. Mark Finchem, who voted for the bill, questioned whether such a community, if it ever were created, actually could override federal and state constitutional and statutory rights.
"It sounds very much like an HOA,'' said the Prescott Republican, referring to homeowner associations formed by developers where anyone moving into the community agrees to live by certain rules. Generally speaking, these involve things like house colors, yard maintenance, off-street parking and lighting.
There are no reports that any has sought to impose religious restrictions. And when an HOA has tried to limit individual rights — such as by prohibiting campaign signs — the Legislature has stepped in to prohibit that.
Schwartz, however, said there were attempts in Texas to have communities set up with their own court systems governed by Sharia law.
That possibility is what Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott cited in September when he signed legislation he said was designed to keep any developer from creating a "city'' open only to Muslims, subject anyone who lives there to Sharia law, and restrict a landowner's ability to later sell property. The Texas law says such issues are to be decided solely on civil law.
What Shamp is proposing, however, is broader, barring courts from considering Sharia law at all in any case — and only Sharia Law. The decision to single this out drew questions from Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan.
Shamp said the distinction is justified. "The language 'Sharia law' is what the citizens of this state are asking for clarification on,'' she told the Tucson Democrat.
"Citizens of Arizona don't necessarily see it as just foreign law,'' Shamp said. "Sharia law is very specific in its attacks on women.''
She said there have been court cases elsewhere about whether a person's will that is drawn up according to Sharia law, dealing with how assets are divided among survivors, will be honored by probate courts.
Sen. Analise Ortiz said she remains unconvinced a law like this is needed.
"It does single out a particular religion in a way that I do feel is Islamophobic,'' said the Phoenix Democrat.
Nor was she impressed by the claims Qatar City would be a Muslim-only community. "It does not make sense that we are proposing it (a new law) just because someone got afraid of a word that was in a proposal,'' Ortiz said.
She also dismissed claims that, absent this proposed law, it would provide some legal shield for honor killings, child marriages and female genital mutilation.
"Those things are already illegal,'' Ortiz said.
She also wasn't convinced that allowing people to agree to things within their own religion would somehow overrule state law.
"It's the same way that Catholic canon law does not tolerate divorce,'' Ortiz said. "But that doesn't mean that we recognize that in our U.S. legal system.''
Finchem, however, said he's not convinced judges always will rule that civil laws will prevail.
"I have just about lost faith in the court system in the United States,'' Finchem said. He said he fears some individual will say, "I am justified in my faith in an honor killing of my daughter.''
"It hasn't happened yet,'' he said. "But that argument has been presented in court. It only takes one judge to allow that jurisprudence to seep in.''
He also said the legislation would not interfere with the ability of someone to practice religion.
"This is nothing more than prohibiting a theocracy's position that is antithetical to American law,'' Finchem said.
The measure now goes to the Senate Rules Committee for a decision on whether it is constitutional. Only if approved there can it go to the full Senate.
