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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT