Florida state Sen. Alan Hays (R) is a driving force behind an anti-Muslim bill targeting the imaginary problem of Florida courts ignoring American law in order to follow Islamic law. Indeed, despite the fact that this problem does not actually exist, Hays distributed alarmist flyers to his colleagues last year entitled “Shari’ah Law: Radical Islam’s threat to the U.S. Constitution.”

This year, Hays appears to be taking a different tactic. In an apparently acknowledgment that Florida courts are not exactly a haven for Islamic legal citations, Hays argues that his bill is still necessary as a preventative measure similar to a vaccination:

When you were a child, did your parents have you vaccinated against different diseases? That was a preemptive gesture on their part for which I would hope you’re very thankful. And this is very similar to that. Your mom and dad would not want you to get sick from one of those dreadful diseases, and I don’t want any American to be in a Florida courtroom and have their constitutional rights violated by any foreign law. That’s it. It’s not that complicated.

Watch it:

Of course, by this logic, Hays also might want to consider legislation preventing courts from replacing American law with the laws of ancient Rome or the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons second edition rules — both of which are exactly as likely to silently creep into our judicial system as Islamic law.

Republican candidate and tea party darling Ted Cruz made an appearance at a campaign forum last night, and took the opportunity to advance some of the far-right’s favorite baseless conspiracy theories — including a claim that American law is in danger of being replaced by Islamic law:

“In response to questions from attendees, Cruz said he hoped to see U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder impeached and opposed the law that prohibits tax-exempt churches from endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

When asked about whether he viewed “Sharia Law” as a problem in the United States, Cruz said “Sharia law is an enormous problem.”

It’s not. It’s not even a small problem. Although it is common for politicians on the far right of America’s political spectrum to claim that courts are slowly replacing American law with Islamic law, these claims have no basis in reality. Few American courts have ever even mentioned Sharia or Islamic law, and those that have generally only do so in contracts or similar cases where a party before the court agreed to be bound by Sharia law.

This is hardly the first time that Cruz abandoned reality to toss red meat to his Tea Party base. In 2010, Cruz floated a theory about how states can bypass the federal government and ignore existing laws they disagreed with, advocated for a radical rereading of the US constitution which would have rendered Medicaid unconstitutional, and in March, warned Texans about the dangers of a George Soros and United Nations-led intrusion into local communities to eliminate golf and paved roads.

Cruz and Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst are locked in a runoff election to be the Republican nominee to replace outgoing Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). In the May 29 primary, Dewhurst easily defeated Cruz 47 percent to 25 percent, but failed to reach the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff election. The runoff, scheduled for July 31, has already gotten ugly, with both sides exchanging accusations of misrepresenting the facts. The race is expected to be one of the most costly senate elections in the country. Spending already exceeds $25 million.

Frank Gaffney warning of Sharia

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.

Anti-Muslim Activist Frank Gaffney

“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.

U.S. Senate candidate Sam Rohrer (R-PA)

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.

Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R-SD)

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.