Martine Fiske

While the resolution claims to protect the sovereignty of New Hampshire’s laws, its framing relies on significant legal and factual inaccuracies that undermine the very constitutional principles it aims to defend. HR 34 has potential to violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. By singling out "Sharia"—which, for the vast majority of the approximately 3.45 million Muslims in the United States, refers to personal religious guidance on prayer, fasting, and charity—the resolution promotes state-sanctioned discrimination against a specific faith group. The U.S. Constitution and the New Hampshire Constitution already establish that no foreign law or religious code can supersede the law of the land. Creating a resolution specific to one religion is not only redundant but also discriminatory and legally precarious. Furthermore, the resolution claims that states like Minnesota and New York have "Sharia enforcement" in place via tribunals. This is an inaccuracy regarding the Federal Arbitration Act. Like Jewish Beth Din courts or Christian mediation services, Muslim Americans sometimes use voluntary arbitration for civil contracts. These panels cannot override U.S. law, and any arbitration agreement that violates public policy, such as those involving criminal acts or the waiving of fundamental rights, is legally unenforceable in U.S. courts. There are no jurisdictions in the United States where Sharia law has replaced or stands equal to civil or criminal statutes. The language in this resolution also characterizes a significant religious minority as an "existential threat." Painting an entire faith as a "moral imperative to extend the Islamic state" ignores the reality of the millions of Muslims who positively contribute to our state and national daily. HR 34 is redundant in New Hampshire law. New Hampshire courts are already bound by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and existing state statutes to apply only laws that conform to constitutional standards. This resolution does not add a layer of protection; rather, such rhetoric introduces vague terminology that could lead to costly litigation, chilling of legitimate religious expression and endangering a community that is among the most diverse in our country. Protecting the New Hampshire Constitution is best achieved through neutral laws that apply to all citizens equally, rather than resolutions that target specific religious practices. HR 34 relies on hyperbolic premises that do not reflect the legal reality of our judicial system. I respectfully urge the committee to report HR 34 as Inexpedient to Legislate.