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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT