In 2010, a woman in New Jersey was denied a restraining order against her husband after she alleged that he raped her; her husband argued that he was acting in accordance with his religious beliefs in forcing her to have sex.[1][2] This case, though later overturned, gained significant national attention, and inspired Oklahoma lawmakers to pursue a ban on the use of Sharia law in their state.[2] After the amendment passed, Oklahoma's solicitor general, Patrick R. Wyrick, cited this case as part of his attempt to defend the amendment in court.[1]
The state legislature named the proposal the "Save Our State Amendment" and sent it to the state's ballots with the following ballot title:[3]
This measure amends the State Constitution. It would change a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would make courts rely on federal and state laws when deciding cases. It would forbid courts from looking at international law or Sharia Law when deciding cases.
However, as this title did not explain what Sharia law or international law were, Oklahoma attorney general Drew Edmondson deemed it inadequate and replaced it with a more explanatory ballot title.[4][3] The proposal was therefore listed on ballots as follows:[3]
This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.
International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.
The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.
Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.
The amendment was numbered and listed on ballots as State Question 755 and as Legislative Referendum 355.[3]
Support and opposition
The amendment was supported by most legislators, with only ten in the House and two in the Senate voting against the measure.[5] All opponents in the House were Democrats, though 24 Democrats in the House supported the measure.[a][6]ACT for America, a conservative advocacy group led by activist Brigitte Gabriel, strongly supported the measure, with Gabriel visiting the state to make multiple speeches in favor of the amendment.[7] The Tulsa Beacon, a conservative newspaper, endorsed the measure.[8]
Democratic state representative Cory Williams, one of the opponents of the measure, argued that it was unnecessary and singled out Muslims. Chris White, the executive director of governmental affairs of the Osage Nation, expressed concerns that the measure could undermine treaty rights established in U.S.–Native American treaties.[9] Several religious groups also opposed the measure, with Saad Mohammed, the director of information for the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, arguing that the measure was unnecessary and only targeted Muslims without a good reason.[5]
Many newspapers in the state opposed the measure. The Oklahoman opposed the amendment, describing it as an unnecessary "feel-good measure".[10] The Enid News & Eagle similarly opposed it, noting that state and federal law is already the only law used in Oklahoma.[11]Tulsa World described the measure as bigoted,[12] and The Oklahoma Daily described it as Islamophobic.[13]
A preliminary injunction against the ban was issued by Vicki Miles-LaGrange, a judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, on November 29, 2010.[19] The injunction was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where it was upheld on January 10, 2012.[2] The amendment was struck down in its entirety by Miles-LaGrange on August 15, 2013, with her finding that the law clearly violated the First Amendment. Oklahoma officials argued that only the Sharia prohibition in the law could be struck down, while leaving the rest intact, but Miles-LaGrange found that as most campaigning regarding the amendment focused on Sharia law, there was insufficient evidence that it would have been approved by voters without the Sharia prohibitions.[20]
Following initial legal challenges to the amendment, Sally Kern, a Republican member of the Oklahoma House, introduced HB 1552 in 2011. The bill intended to work around legal challenges by banning all religious and foreign law from being used in the state. The Oklahoma Council on American–Islamic Relations lobbied against this bill, arguing that it infringes on religious freedom and also threatens the validity of international business contracts.[21] The measure passed by a 76–3 margin in the House, but was ignored in the Senate.[22] She reintroduced the bill in 2012, where it again passed the House, but was rejected 6–9 in the Senate's rules committee.[23]
