ILNews

Democrats' walkout leads to another 'fines' mess

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Before the Indiana General Assembly convened Jan. 7, some unfinished business was debated in the Statehouse: whether Republican House leaders went too far in seizing fines from Democrats who walked out of the Legislature in 2011 and 2012.

The Indiana Supreme Court on Jan. 3 heard oral arguments in Tim Berry, et al. v. William Crawford, et al., 49S00-1201-PL-53. At issue is whether the Legislature had the power to withhold from Democratic lawmakers’ per diem payments the fines that were assessed when the minority bolted from the House in an effort to prevent votes on right-to-work legislation.
 

giaquinta GiaQuinta

Attorney Mark GiaQuinta of Haller & Colvin P.C. in Fort Wayne argued on behalf of Democratic lawmakers and told the court they had no due process. “We’re proposing (the Legislature) follow the same procedure as any other employer,” he said, which would involve a judgment and garnishment order from a court. He said House members suffered losses of $5,000 to $10,000 in per diems and related benefits.

Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher opened his defense of the Legislature’s powers by telling the court, “This case is about hardball politics, pure and simple.” But Chief Justice Brent Dickson closed the arguments with a plea for both sides to compromise and settle the dispute, and he referenced Fisher’s opening by saying, “Courts are not a political institution.”

Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Luis Fuentes-Rohwer observed that the justices seemed uneasy intervening in a separation-of-powers case that he said nonetheless “is no different than millions of other cases.


fuentes Fuentes-Rohwer

“This is a classic, classic case. You can see (the justices) puzzling, you can see them struggling,” said Fuentes-Rohwer, whose areas of expertise include judicial independence and accountability and democratic theory. “They know there ought to be limits.”

GiaQuinta argued before the justices that there is little court precedent for the seizure of lawmakers’ pay besides Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), in which a scandalized lawmaker was seated but fined $25,000. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress may not develop qualifications for members beyond those in Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.

“No other case we can find other than Powell v. McCormack involves the seizure of legislative pay,” GiaQuinta said.


fisher Fisher

Fisher argued that courts have very limited grounds to intervene in House discipline under its rules, but several justices questioned him regarding how far the Legislature could go in collecting the fines it assesses. Among the hypotheticals: Could it impose fines if members voted a particular way? Could it burn down a disobedient lawmaker’s house as discipline?

“Is there any limit on the ability to collect fines?” Justice Loretta Rush asked, after which Fisher said the General Assembly should have the ability to collect without judicial interference as long as it was within House rules.

“How far do you push the non-intervention of the court based on the conduct of the General Assembly?” asked Justice Robert Rucker, the lone Democrat-appointed member of the court. “It is the collection piece that still bothers me.”

Fisher replied that fines and their collection have been the province of legislatures since colonial times. “This is something legislatures have done over centuries,” he said.

After oral arguments, Rep. William Crawford, D-Indianapolis, said the case was about fairness. “Why should they treat me any differently because I happen to be a legislator?”

GiaQuinta, meantime, said Dickson had made his point regarding compromise. “I would never fail to take the advice of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indiana,” he said. GiaQuinta indicated after the arguments that he planned to talk further with Fisher.

House Minority Leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, also embraced Dickson’s call for the House to settle its own business.

“We’re always open to discussing what is best for the institution not just for today, but for twenty years in the future or a hundred years in the future,” Pelath said in a statement. “The structure of government and limitations of its power must endure the political winds and transcend the passions of the moment.” 

But House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, issued a statement after the argument that sounded like compromise was off the table.

“I appreciate the attorney general’s continued defense of the separation of powers doctrine clearly mandated by our state’s Constitution, and continue to hold that our court system has no jurisdiction to review or overturn the internal workings of the Indiana General Assembly,” Bosma said.

“I look forward to the Supreme Court confirming the limitation of judicial authority over the legislative branch, and to getting the activities of the 2013 session under way.”

Neither Bosma nor Pelath responded to subsequent requests for comment.

Fuentes-Rohwer said Bosma’s comments after the arguments “sent a shot across the bow” directed at the court. “‘Remember, we’re watching,’ is basically what he said.”

Despite the court’s seeming displeasure in arbitrating the case, courts intervene frequently in issues involving powers of other branches of government, Fuentes-Rohwer said, from redistricting disputes to the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore.

“It’s not a question of law, it’s a question of judicial will: are they really going to step in here?,” he said. “Anybody who thinks the court doesn’t play politics isn’t paying attention.”

But Fuentes-Rohwer said the case also is about the court’s willingness to establish limiting principles on the Legislature. He predicted the court would determine that the Legislature is subject to certain limiting principles that can be imposed by the court, but that the instant case isn’t one in which they apply.

“My guess would be that (justices) say this is the traditional purview of the Legislature,” he said. “I would be surprised if they were to stand in the way of the Indiana Legislature.”•

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT