ILNews

Committees wrapping up business

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

With legislative deadlines fast approaching for the Indiana General Assembly, lawmakers have reached crunch time in moving legislation through for consideration before the short session comes to a close.

Legislative committees must move legislation on by early next week in order for it to survive and be considered for final passage. In anticipation, key committees have been doubling up on some meeting times to consider issues that may impact the state's legal community.

The Senate Judiciary Committee conducted two meetings this week to discuss various bills and issues, such as problem-solving courts. The House Public Policy Committee also had two meetings this week - the first focusing on a bill that would require casinos to check a state child-support collection database before allowing anyone to receive large wins. Despite objections from the state's gaming industry, the committee voted unanimously to send it to the full House for consideration.

At the House Judiciary Committee meeting Tuesday, lawmakers delved into various bills - including two that involved the Indiana Attorney General's Office. One allows the solicitor general to be notified of any constitutional challenges filed in state courts and to be an amicus party on those cases if wanted. The committee passed that 5-2 and sent it to the full House for consideration.

The other is SB 224 that involves "sexting," a topic that is being referred to a study committee for further review. But an amendment offered and being discussed specifically relates to the Indiana Supreme Court ruling last year in Wallace v. State, No. 49S02-0803-CR-138, involving who must be placed on the state's sex offender registry if crimes were committed before laws changed and subsequently would have required them to register. Since that ruling, the Department of Correction has required offenders to get a court order before being removed, while local sheriffs' have interpreted the ruling to mean all pre-1994 offenders should be removed at the onset. An amendment introduced to SB 224 this week would require the court-order method, and while it's been sent back for revisions, the amendment is expected to be introduced Monday.

Lawmakers have through March 3 to cast final votes on legislation before returning bills to their house of origin where amendments or legislation will again be reviewed. The session is slated to end March 14.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT