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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT