include lawyers in private practice, government attorneys,
judges, law professors and legislators. At the annual meetings,
drafts are read to the entire
Conference line by line, word by
word, to enable commissioners
to comment and offer suggestions on the statutory language.
Almost all uniform acts go
through two such line-by-line
readings in consecutive years
before being approved, by majority vote, as a “uniform” law.
After approval by the ULC,
uniform acts typically are submitted to the American Bar
Association for endorsement by
the House of Delegates. Of
course, a uniform act has realworld impact only if it is enacted
by state legislatures. Thus, once a
uniform act is approved by the
ULC, commissioners have the
responsibility to inform their
home states about the act and to
provide assistance to lawmakers
interested in introducing the law
in their own legislature.
It is interesting to note that
Arizona has had a state commission on uniform law since 1900, well
before statehood. In fact, some of the earliest Arizona Commissioners were delegates to the Arizona Constitutional
Convention in 1910. Arizona commissioners over the years have included some stellar members of the legal profession. The
late Chief Justice William Rehnquist
served as commissioner from 1963 to
1969. Judge Michael Hawkins of the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was a commissioner before his appointment to the
court, and Tucsonan Harold Warnock
served as commissioner during the 1950s.
The first woman commissioner from
Arizona was Jo Ann Diamos, a former
United States Attorney who joined the
Federal Public Defender’s Office and
worked there for many years.6 Jim Bush,
currently a Commissioner, was president
of the national Conference from 1975 to
1977.7
In reflecting on his own work with the
ULC, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote:
My most vivid recollection of the
annual meetings is the high quality of
The Uniform Law Commission
Its Continuing Relevance to Arizona
BY BARBARA A. ATWOOD
L
awyers in Arizona use uniform laws
every day, but many are probably
unfamiliar with the origins of these
laws, or with the organization that gives
rise to them—the Uniform Law
Commission, formally known as the
National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws.
The ULC is comprised of more than
300 commissioners appointed by every
state, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Arizona
currently has six commissioners.1 Its origins date back to 1786, when a convention
of the states was convened in Annapolis,
Maryland, to consider “how far a uniform
system in the commercial requirements [of
the states] would be necessary to their
common interest and their permanent harmony.”2 While the immediate result of that
gathering was the Constitutional
BARBARA A. ATWOOD is the Mary Anne
Richey Professor of Law at the University of
Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.
30
A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y A P R I L 2 0 0 9
Convention the following year, the need
for uniformity in certain realms of state
regulation remained apparent. In 1892,
the ULC was formally created by state
governments to identify areas in which
national uniformity of state law was desirable and to draft uniform and model acts
for consideration by the states.
One of the ULC’s most successful acts
is the Uniform Commercial Code, first
approved in 1951 and now the law in
some form in every state.3 By establishing
nationwide rules for commercial transactions, the UCC gave a needed predictability and certainty to the commercial world.4
Similarly, in the family law realm, the
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act,
first approved in 1968, was of enormous
importance in bringing a measure of stability and finality to child custody litigation.5
The ULC gathers once a year to study
and debate drafts of proposed acts in areas
where uniformity across the nation is
good policy. Commissioners donate their
time as pro bono public service; they
w w w . m y a z b a r. o r g / A Z A t t o r n e y
the floor debate about
a pending proposed
uniform law. There was
no staff to speak of, and no legislative
aides scurrying to and fro on the floor.
… The debates testified to the ability
of thoughtful practitioners, usually
without any expertise in the field under
study, to carefully analyze and discuss
the merits of a pending proposal.8
Until recently, the Arizona Uniform
Law Commission was authorized by
statute. But in 2007, the Legislature
repealed the authorizing law and the
underlying legislative appropriation that
was used to cover dues and transportation
of commissioners to the annual meeting.9
Then-Gov. Janet Napolitano stepped in to
re-establish the Arizona Commission by
executive order and reappointed the existing commissioners to a six-year term.10
The Governor’s Office, however, has been
unable to provide funding for annual dues
owed by the Commission or for commissioners’ expenses.11
One might wonder why Arizona needs
its own commission on uniform laws.
After all, the Legislature can always access
any uniform law on the ULC Web site or
at the law library. There are several reasons
why the state should have its own delegates to the ULC.
By virtue of their work, commissioners
are aware of proposed uniform laws and
can apprise the Legislature of new uniform
laws on a timely basis. If Arizona already
has a uniform law on the books, commissioners can make sure that the state
Legislature is aware of any amendments to
Recent Uniform
Law Developments
the law emerging from the
ULC. As a “consumer” of uniform laws, Arizona has been
quite active, having enacted
more than 90 uniform laws over
At its 2008 annual meeting in Big Sky,
the years.
Montana, the ULC considered a range of
An additional advantage is
proposals and approved one new act, the
that Arizona commissioners can
Uniform Unsworn Foreign Declarations Act,
as well as amendments to five existing acts.
represent interests important to
The 2008 amendments include important
this state in the drafting of unirevisions
to the Uniform Interstate Family
form laws. In other words,
Support
Act,
the Uniform Probate Code,
Arizona’s membership in the
the
Uniform
Common
Interest Ownership
ULC enables commissioners to
Act,
the
Revised
Uniform
Unincorporated
put Arizona’s issues and conNonprofit
Association
Act
and
the Uniform
cerns into the national drafting
Principal
and
Income
Act.
process. Tim Berg, for example,
chairs the ULC Committee on
Information on all of these acts,
including the approved text of each, as well
Liaison with American Indian
as organization activities and projects,
Tribes and Nations and was
can be found at
centrally involved in drafting a
model act for tribes on secured
www.nccusl.org
transactions.12 The first tribe to
adopt the act was the Crow
Nation, and several Arizona-based tribes ULC held its annual meeting at a resort in
Tucson. These meetings typically draw
also have taken an interest in this area.
Another example is the author’s work 250 to 300 people for a week of proceedon the amendments to the Uniform ings and social events. Such gatherings are
Interstate Family Support Act to accom- clearly a boost for local hotels and restaumodate the recently adopted Hague rants. Also, ULC drafting committee
Convention on the International meetings are held throughout the year,
Recovery of Child Support and Other and many such meetings have been held in
Forms of Family Maintenance. As a border Arizona at the suggestion of local comstate, Arizona has faced the complexities missioners.
The work of the ULC has been an
of international family support enforcement for many years. The amendments to essential vehicle for law reform in areas
UIFSA provide an efficient procedure for where national uniformity is needed.
cooperation between child support Members of the Arizona Commission welcome your suggestions for future areas of
authorities across international borders.
A side benefit of having a state com- study, especially those in which Arizona
AT
mission is purely economic. In 2005, the interests are prominent. AZ
endnotes
1. Timothy Berg, managing partner, Fennemore Craig; James Bush, retired
from Fennemore Craig after more than 50 years of practice; Roger
Henderson, emeritus professor of law and former dean, University of
Arizona College of Law; L. Gene Lemon, retired attorney and former inhouse counsel to Dial Corporation; Edward Lowry, private practitioner and
former mayor of Paradise Valley; and the author, Barbara Atwood, a professor of law at the University of Arizona College of Law.
2. See WALTER P. ARMSTRONG, JR., A CENTURY OF SERVICE–A CENTENNIAL
HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM
STATE LAWS 12 (West 1991).
3. For civil procedure buffs, an interesting link exists between the UCC and the
Erie doctrine. Justice Story, who wrote the opinion in Swift v. Tyson, 42 U.S.
1 (1846), holding that federal courts in diversity of citizenship cases could
formulate principles of general commercial law, was a strong believer in the
need for uniformity in the commercial world. When the Supreme Court in
Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 421 (1938), overturned Swift, the holding
left a vacuum that was soon filled by the Uniform Commercial Code.
4. The UCC was a collaborative project with the American Law Institute. The
reporters, well-known scholars Karl Llewellyn and Soia Mentshikoff, later
32
A R I Z O N A AT T O R N E Y A P R I L 2 0 0 9
married, perhaps the only romance to have been engendered by the
Conference. ARMSTRONG, supra note 2, at 76.
5. The UCCJA was replaced by the more comprehensive Uniform Child
Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act in 1997. At present, 47 states
and the U.S. Virgin Islands have enacted the UCCJEA.
6. A complete listing of Arizona commissioners from 1900 to 1990 can be
found in ARMSTRONG, supra note 2, at 180 (Appendix F).
7. Id. at 153 (Appendix A).
8. Id. at 1 (Foreword).
9. H.B. 2785, Ariz. House of Representatives, 48th Leg., 1st Sess. (2007)
(repealing A. R. S. §§ 41-1306, 41-1307, and 41-3010.11).
10. Executive Order 2007-16 (establishing the Arizona Uniform State Laws
Commission).
11. At present, Commissioners are responsible for their own costs in attending
the annual meeting. The ULC dues owing from the Arizona Commission,
totaling approximately $37,000 annually, have gone unpaid since the
repeal of the legislative appropriation.
12. See Tim Berg, Growing Indian Economies: The Model Tribal Secured
Transactions Act, ARIZ. ATT’Y, March 2006, at 30.
w w w . m y a z b a r. o r g / A Z A t t o r n e y