ILNews

Dickson encourages compromise on House Democrat fines suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson implored litigants to resolve a lawsuit over the collection of fines levied on House Democrats who walked out of the Legislature in 2011 and 2012.

“Courts are not a political institution,” Dickson said at the close of oral arguments, after he noted Solicitor General Thomas Fisher’s opening observation that the case was about hardball politics. Dickson admonished “both sides to get together and settle this by compromise.”

Justices on Thursday 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.

Fisher argued that courts had 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.

“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 its 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 Democratic-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.

Attorney Mark GiaQuinta of Haller & Colvin P.C. in Fort Wayne argued on behalf of Democratic lawmakers 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. He said the seizure of lawmakers’ pay left them without access to due process that would have been provided in a garnishment proceeding.

“We’re proposing they follow the same procedure as any other employer,” he said.

GiaQuinta said Democrats who walked out of the session faced economic losses of $5,000 to $10,000, when fines and their impact on other benefits are tallied.

After Thursday’s argument, 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. “I would never fail to take the advice of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indiana,” he said. He said after Thursday’s arguments that he planned to talk further with Fisher.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, issued a statement after Thursday’s 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.”
 

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT