Senator taking bar, may miss vote on own bill

February 22, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Here’s an interesting tidbit from the Associated Press today: Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, author of the controversial immigration bill, won’t be there to vote on the bill if the Senate votes on it today or tomorrow. Why? He’ll be taking the bar exam.

Law school graduates are taking the bar exam today and Wednesday. In that group of recent grads – Delph, who is an author of an “Arizona-style” bill that looks to crack down on illegal immigration.

Delph expects one of the bill’s co-authors to call the proposal for a vote today.

The man who has proposed one of the more controversial bills this session won’t even be there to vote on it. Although unlikely, what if the bill didn’t pass by one vote – the vote Delph would have cast if he had been present? What about the other bills that may come up for vote when he’s gone? I’m not sure why a legislator would schedule to be away from session for two days, especially right around the deadline for bills to make it out of the Senate.

Here’s another interesting tidbit – there’s a chance Delph could have voted on this bill had the winter storm that hit in early February not shut down the General Assembly for two days. The original committee hearing was scheduled for Feb. 2, but it got pushed back to Feb. 9.

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. 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