Nicholson says that regardless of the proposal's origins, it's clear that it exists only to "demonstrate disgust in things that are allegedly un-American. I don't know what that means in practice."
In other words, if passed, it's unclear if it would accomplish anything.
Of Nieves' reply that the "simple answer" to the coincidence of his bill's similarity to past anti-Sharia Law proposals, Nicholson adds, "That was pretty amusing."
Here is one example of a clear similarity in language that Progress Missouri highlights:
Nieves' bill:
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 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.
Compare to the Yerushalmi model:
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 U.S. and [State] Constitutions.
Still, that's not stopping Nieves from declaring on Twitter that his bill most definitely is "NOT about sharia!"
Here's the full draft of his bill.
Send feedback and tips to the author. Follow Sam Levin on Twitter at @SamTLevin.