ILNews

General Assembly ready for new session's business

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

With a new legislative session on the horizon, the Indiana General Assembly is going to be one to watch as it likely tackles a multitude of issues influencing the state’s legal community.

Lawmakers returned Nov. 16 for the mostly celebratory Organization Day, kicking off the session that means a return to power for Republicans in the House of Representatives and supermajority for that party in the Senate. Two lawyer-legislators will be leading those houses and setting the agenda while deciding what bills will make it to the respective floors for a vote.
 

long-david-mug Long

In the Senate, President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, was again chosen to head his party’s 37-13 supermajority, meaning Republicans will be able to conduct business without any Democrats being present.

In the House, the Republicans took a 60-40 majority and Indianapolis lawyer-legislator Rep. Brian Bosma regained the position of house speaker that he’d held in 2005 and 2006. Democrats have controlled the House for the past four years.

Both the House and Senate opened with a legislative prayer invoking Jesus Christ, an issue that had sparked a federal lawsuit in 2005 when Bosma last held the speaker seat. An Indianapolis judge ruled that historic practice wasn’t constitutional, but the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the suit on procedural grounds without addressing the merits. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana continues to watch the issue, but no more suits have been filed.


bosma-brian-mug Bosma

Typically, Indiana’s Secretary of State calls each house to order. But Secretary of State and Congressman-elect Todd Rokita found himself in Washington, D.C., for new member orientation on organization day, paving the way for Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard to assume those duties. State law dictates that the chief justice should step in if the secretary of state is unavailable, though it has never happened in Indiana before.

“Normally, this is the moment when the secretary of state introduces the chief justice,” he said, garnering laughter and a standing ovation. “You didn’t have to do that. I just invite you to raise your hand and repeat after me.”

The chief justice administered the oaths to lawmakers, and in the House Bosma publicly outlined his priorities for the coming budget-setting session. He said kitchen-table analysis was needed in a time when state revenues are at 2005 levels, and Bosma encouraged more transparency in state government by promising that all House committee meetings would be broadcast online, that financial restraint and educational protections would be priorities, and he mentioned that redistricting will be a priority.

Bosma also encouraged bipartisanship and took action that he described as a first for the state – naming two Democrats to fill committee chair slots that would ordinarily go to the majority party. He named Rep. Steve Stemler, D-Jeffersonville, to chair the House Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development Committee; and named Rep. Chet Dobis, D-Merrillville, to lead a new government reduction committee that is tasked with identifying business regulations, state statutes, and agencies and commissions Indiana could do without.

That committee could not only examine state statutes that govern how Indiana attorneys practice law and the state’s judges interpret them, but it could also put more attention on reforms that have been outlined since the Kernan-Shepard report was released in 2007. One of those issues has been court reform, which the Hoosier judiciary supports in order to create more simplicity in how courts operate statewide. Condensing the number of city or town courts and changing jurisdictions of Circuit and Superior courts may be an issue on the committee’s agenda.

Earlier this fall, the Commission on Courts supported the concept of standardizing state trial court jurisdictions but didn’t draft any legislative language. The change would make reassigning workload between courts easier and wouldn’t require judges to seek proposed legislative changes for new judicial resources, according to Marion Superior Judge Mark Stoner, who has been a part of a larger court reform plan addressing this issue. If centralized state funding for trial courts materializes in the future, this would be a step toward easing into that, he said. That legislative proposal came along with another that the commission supported by a 7-1 vote (with Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson, opposed) - recommending that all city and town court judges be attorneys starting with 2011 elections.

The Indiana State Bar Association and other bar associations say they will continue watching judicial selection, although no recommendations or proposed legislation have been made thus far this year, as well as keeping tabs on a possible legal services tax – something that’s been pondered in past years and might be more popular as lawmakers focus on budget-setting in the throes of a battered economy.

Attention will likely focus on the Judicial Automation and Technology Committee as it has in recent years, specifically as that committee considers the costs of a statewide case management system for all 92 counties. That proposal has been making progress since late 2007. The Commission on Courts approved draft legislation that would increase the Automated Record-keeping Fee that largely pays for the Odyssey system’s implementation from the current $7 to $10 beginning July 1, 2011, and then lowering it back to the existing level June 30, 2015. The commission voted 7-1 to recommend the proposal to legislators, which it has done in the past but has failed to get further support.

The Indiana Attorney General’s Office also has some key topics on its legislative radar that have financial and economic implications, such as transparency in local economic development agreements regarding casino revenue and issues involving mortgage foreclosure and Medicaid fraud.

Though legislators return to the day-to-day Statehouse work on Jan. 5, they can now introduce legislation for consideration in the coming session. Bosma has capped the number of bills each legislator can sponsor at 10.

“If you can’t forward your legislative agenda with a 10-bill limit in the long session, then maybe your agenda is too long,” Bosma said.

This is a long budget-setting session with lawmakers shooting to finish the state’s business by the end of April, in order to avoid a special session as was the case in 2009.•

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT