2009 bills update

February 23, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
This is do-or-die week for some bills in the legislature. The third reading deadline is Wednesday and those that don’t make it out in their current form will die. A few will be folded into other bills in an attempt to move along in their quest to become a law. Here’s a follow-up on the bills I’ve written about in First Impressions:

- House Joint Resolution 9 – the election of Indiana Supreme Court justices. It’s still stuck in the committee, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see this one rolled into another bill to try to get another chance at life.

- HJR 7/HJR 8 – the “Defense of Marriage” amendment. These also haven’t made it out of committee, and I can see these trying to sneak their way into another piece of moving legislation.

- House Bill 1108 – regulation of roadside memorials. This hasn’t moved out of committee.

- Senate Bill 248 – hypnosis laws. It’s moved out of committee. I guess it’s important that a hypnotist be able to perform in a group setting for self-hypnosis, sports enhancement, improvement in test-taking, to try to stop smoking or to lose weight.

- HB 1250 – We mentioned this topic before in a June blog post. It looks like this civil rights bill which would extend anti-discriminatory and civil rights statutes to include prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, among other criteria, is stalled in its current form.

Check out Indiana Lawyer’s complete Statehouse Report (http://www.theindianalawyer.com/html/detail_page.asp?content=3199) listed on our Web site this year. In updating this, I’ve come across some moving legislation I find interesting. A few bills are listed below:



- SB 296, which removes the requirement that executions occur before sunrise. If the legislation becomes law, it would do away with a specific time requirement for execution and would direct the Sentencing Policy Study Committee to study the issue of confining people on death row in a maximum security prison other than the Indiana state prison until a reasonable time before execution. I wonder why the time requirement is being done away with – to make it more convenient for those who want to protest for or against the execution?

- HB 1235, which would require the polls to stay open until 8 p.m. on Election Day. Given the turnout for the last election, this makes complete sense and would be a benefit to people who can’t get to the polls before work or by 6 p.m.

- SB 223/HB 1642, which makes trafficking with an inmate a Class C felony if the trafficked item is a cell phone. This is apparently a problem in jails and prisons across the country, as I’ve read several news stories about this issue.

One other random thought: I find it difficult to write about bills without getting the Schoolhouse Rock song “I’m just a bill” stuck in my head. Anyone else have that problem?
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
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT