ILNews

Abrams: The Indianapolis Bar Association and HJR-3

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

jeff abrams ibaAs you know, the Indianapolis Bar Association issued the following press release on Monday, January 27, 2014 prior to the Indiana House of Representatives voting to remove the second sentence of the proposed Constitutional Amendment.

The Indianapolis Bar Association today announced its opposition to HJR-3, the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, and HB1153, its companion legislation. Last week, the Indianapolis Bar Association surveyed its members regarding their position on HJR-3. 2,196 members responded to the survey, which reflects a 47.4% response rate from the members receiving the survey; this is the highest survey response rate on record for the association. The results of the survey revealed that 73.1% of the respondents were in favor of publicly opposing HJR-3, 20.1% favored taking no position on the measure, 5.4% were in favor of supporting HJR-3, and 1.5% had no opinion.

Considering these survey results and the Board’s review of the proposed amendment and companion legislation, the Indianapolis Bar Association opposes passage of the proposed amendment and legislation. First, based on Indiana constitutional history and precedent, the content of this amendment stands out as inappropriate. In the 163 year history of the State’s constitution, it has been amended on subjects such as term limits, taxation, governmental structure, elections, and courts. Prior amendments dealt with what government could and could not do, and how the government is to be formulated and operated, not the regulation of its individual citizens. Second, members of the Indianapolis Bar Association expressed great concerns about the unintended consequences upon potentially hundreds of Indiana laws if HJR-3 is passed and ratified, including those in the areas of family law, criminal law, employment law, health care law, and tax law. This uncertainty would likely lead to an interruption in the administration of justice, years of litigation and significant expense for individual citizens and Indiana businesses.

The Indianapolis Bar Association is a voluntary membership organization comprised of 4,928 attorneys, judges, paralegals and law students. Founded in 1878, the association’s mission is to serve its members, promote justice and enhance the legal profession. The association is governed by a 32 member Board of Directors.

The IndyBar has historically weighed in on matters that affect laws and the practice of law. Our legislative committee meets every year at this time to review proposed bills and if needed, provide comments to committee members as to the affect the proposed bills may have on attorneys or the practice of law. This is done every year. We also have our mission statement which provides we are to serve our members, promote justice and enhance the legal profession. One issue discussed was the conflict presented by HJR-3 in trying to meet all three of those objectives.

We had several members of the IndyBar, including some board members, ask us to consider adopting a response to HJR-3 for various reasons. After two separate board meetings and hours of discussion at each one, it was clear that emotions were running high on the proposed amendment. We had outstanding discussions with input from every single board member. I am very proud of the approach, candor and intense yet respectful discussions the board had during the process.

Ultimately, it was determined that the best approach was to solicit information from our membership so we clearly were speaking for our members and not just what we believed our members wanted. Thus, the survey. As a result of the survey and more hours of discussion, the press release was generated. We reviewed previous Indiana Constitution amendments as well as the summary of the laws prepared by the IU Maurer School of Law that may be affected by the amendment. You will note that we opposed it primarily on how it may affect lawyers and the practice of law. We also discussed the need to provide education, and we will continue to discuss how that can be achieved.

The board knew that when taking this public position, not all of our members would agree. We respect our members’ views on these important matters even if they weren’t the views of the majority of members. However, the board felt comfortable taking this position as a result of the strong statement from our members in the survey overall. I hope that all members will appreciate the time spent to clearly understand exactly the opinions of our members and to draft a response appropriately, even if it did not conform with the view of all 4,928 of our members.

The House and Senate will continue to debate this issue and since the time that I delivered this article to the staff for the Indiana Lawyer, I am sure that more discussions, protests and statements will have been made for and against the amendment. I would only ask that all of our members clearly understand why the board took the position it did, respect the process that we went through and ultimately the decision we made. Many members of the board received emails from IndyBar members expressing their opinions on the issue, and I encourage those emails and discussions to continue so that we may continue to better serve our membership. Ending this article with a poem has been a challenge, but here goes.

HJR-3 has been a challenging topic for your IndyBar board.

If any of you have a secret solution acceptable to all, I would surely pay a HUGE reward.

I can assure you, all comments have been considered and certainly not ignored.

Please give the IndyBar some time, so any waning support is clearly restored.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT