Last week, the Kansas Senate became the latest state to enact a discriminatory measure against Muslims in America by passing a so-called Sharia ban. The bill goes before Gov. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who has not indicated whethere he will sign or veto it.

Oklahoma passed a Sharia ban by ballot in 2010, but that measure has been deemed facially unconstitutional by the courts because it specifically targets Muslims for discrimination. Because of Oklahoma’s experience, state legislatures are moving bills that are more oblique about their discriminatory intent. South Dakota, Louisiana, Arizona, and Tennessee have all passed laws that ban “foreign law in American courts” and don’t mention Muslims or Sharia by name.

Kansas’ proposed anti-Muslim law also similarly asserts it is about promoting “American law for American courts.” (Note: the Constitution already establishes this in its Supremacy Clause.) As Kansas Republican state Sen. Chris Steineger noted, the measure was “presented” to him as a bill specifically targeting Muslims:

But Sen. Chris Steineger, R-Kansas City, said a marketing campaign by supporters of the bill inundated him with materials that “explain why sharia law is coming and Muslims are trying to take over America.”

“I thought that was quite ludicrous at the time, and I still do,” Steineger said. “I pointed this out, because this was not presented as protecting the Kansas Constitution. The proponents of this measure, clearly by the literature they gave me and by the video link they directed me to, they presented this as protecting us against sharia law. Despite the fact that this doesn’t mention sharia, that’s how this whole issue was presented.”

Indeed, Kansas was bombarded by anti-Sharia emails and letters from out-of-staters. The bill’s sponsors and advocates proclaimed that it was really about protecting “women’s rights.” The bill helps “women know the rights they have in America,” said sate Rep. Peggy Mast (R). “To me, this is a women’s rights issue,” said Sen. Susan Wagle (R). Nevermind that these same legislators have been engaged in a war against women’s health, Planned Parenthood, the right to choose, and so many other far more relevant “women’s rights” causes.

Right-wing legislators have been pushing Sharia bans across the country; roughly 20 other states are also considering similar legislation. The anti-Sharia legislative movement was spawned by David Yerushalmi, an influential Islamophobic lawyer who we profiled last year in Fear, Inc.

The anti-Sharia movement continues despite the fact that no evidence has been provided that there is any threat that a Sharia takeover is occurring. Kansas Republican state Sen. John Vratil “said he quizzed the bill’s supporters on when a Kansas court had ever based a decision on sharia law and had yet to be provided with an example.” As Vratil asserted, “Ladies and gentleman, this is a solution in search of a problem.” True, unless you are someone who views the increasing presence of Muslims in America as the problem.

More than twenty state legislatures are considering bills that ostensibly prohibit judges from following foreign law, but which are actually part of a nationwide Islamophobic campaign to combat the nonexistent problem of American courts relying on Sharia law. As the Topeka Capital-Journal explains, however, this effort has been much less effective in convincing Kansas lawmakers’ actual constituents to support an anti-Muslim bill than it has been in simply harassing those lawmakers with out-of-state emails:

“I had a large number of emails — like in the thousands — during the last couple weeks of session (before the current break),” said Sen. Jeff King, R-Independence.

King said he had to instruct his assistant to funnel them into a separate folder and further separate the emails that actually came from his constituents, which he said narrowed the number to “dozens.”

Sen. Tim Owens, R-Overland Park, recently said his inbox also was full of anti-Sharia emails, most of them from out-of-state.

It’s really no surprise that there aren’t many actual Kansans worried about the threat of creeping Sharia. As ThinkProgress previously explained, a judge is about as likely to replace American law with “the laws of ancient Rome or the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons second edition rules” as they are to suddenly decide to embrace Sharia law.

Yet, while the anti-Sharia bills being pushed by national Islamophobes are completely unnecessary, that does not mean that they are harmless. Initially, anti-Muslim activists pushed bills and ballot initiatives that expressly forbade the courts from applying Islamic law in any circumstance. This kind of law is unambiguously unconstitutional, and it fared poorly in federal court. So the latest round of anti-Sharia bills have removed expressed references to Sharia or Islam, and they have expanded their scope to include bans on other foreign law.

These bans, however, can have serious consequences for a state’s businesses and for non-Muslim residents. Businesses frequently contract with foreign companies to resolve their disputes according to foreign law, which is why business groups came out against a Virginia anti-Sharia bill to prevent it from hurting their ability to do business overseas. Similarly, a Florida anti-Sharia bill’s overbroad language likely would have prevented Florida courts from enforcing many Orthodox Jewish divorces.

And for all the anti-Muslim lobby’s effort’s to save their pet bills from unconstitutionality by not being entirely candid about what these bills are intended to accomplish, their efforts are likely to amount to nothing. As the Supreme Court held in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, the Constitution forbids laws that “regulate[] or prohibit[] conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons” — even if the law banning religious conduct is written without referencing a particular faith.

Former Pennsylvania State Rep. Sam Rohrer (R) is leading the GOP field for his party’s nomination for U.S. Senate, according to the latest PPP poll. He is seeking the right to challenge Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D) in November.

But Rohrer holds some downright crazy views on American politics and the role of government — arguing that the federal government has only three roles, suggesting that voters should no longer be trusted to elect their own U.S. senators, and even once likening drivers’ licenses to slavery.

Here are seven of his most outrageous statements:

Since his proposed repeal of the 17th Amendment is not yet a reality, on April 24, Republican primary voters get the chance to decide whether they share Rohrer’s radical positions. Rohrer had just better hope none of them have to take a federal highway to get to the polls.

Yesterday, South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) signed an unconstitutional law that purports to target courts applying religious law, but which is almost certainly part of a broader push by Islamophobic advocates to fight the imaginary problem of courts substituting Islamic law for American law. The brief bill Daugaard signed provides simply that “[n]o court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code.”

Although this bill does not specifically call out any particular religion for ill treatment, it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. As the Supreme Court explained in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, “the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs or regulates or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons.”

While it is uncommon for American courts to apply religious law, it is not unheard of. Private parties sometimes enter into contracts where they agree to resolve their disputes under something other than U.S. law, and individuals sometimes write wills devising their property according to the tenets of their faith. Under the bill Daugaard signed, however, courts will be allowed to enforce contracts requiring disputes to be resolved under French law or ancient Roman law or under the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons second edition rules, but they won’t be allowed to enforce contracts requiring disputes to be resolved under the requirements of someone’s religious beliefs. This is discrimination “against some or all religious beliefs,” and is therefore unconstitutional.

At a time when the national political debate is dominated by questions of religious freedoms, dueling headlines on the Miami Herald’s website underscore how self-described defenders of faith are often only interested in promoting freedom for some and not for all

Yesterday, within the span of 24 hours, the Florida House passed a bill to allow prayer in public schools and another to crack down on the supposed threat of Sharia law.

In a lopsided 88-27 vote, the chamber okayed a bill to allow any student to deliver “inspirational messages,” including religious prayers, at public-school events. “Look at what just happened in Ohio,” one lawmaker said, referencing the recent school school shooting there. “The kids need to have prayer at school.” Another explained the need by citing the “sex, gambling and all of the moral decay that’s on our televisions and radios.”

The ACLU and Anti-Defamation League believe the bill violates the separation of Church and State and have threatened legal action. Meanwhile, the other bill bans the use of “foreign law,” with an implicit focus on the supposed dangers of Sharia. When asked, the bill’s sponsor couldn’t point to a single cases in Florida in which a judge ruled on Sharia, but said the state needs to “jump in front of the problem.”

Civil libertarians and Jewish lawmakers are also outraged by the measure, as it may “void divorces mediated through Jewish tribunals.” The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in Florida is fighting back. “The alleged threat of Islamic or other religious or foreign law to Florida’s court system is completely illusory, and the Senate’s consideration of this measure is an unwise use of resources,” said ADL’s Andrew Rosenkranz.

Carin Marie Porr, of the Florida Bar Association, pointed out that Florida law “already refuse to support the laws of another state or country that contradicts our public policy,” saying the anti-Sharia bill “clearly goes against the fundamental rights of the people of Florida.”

While neither bill explicitly targets any religion, the school prayer bill was pushed by evangelical Christians and will likely be used by them most, while the anti-Sharia law clearly targets Muslims and may be based on xenophobia.