ILNews

House Republicans vote to fine absent Democrats

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana House Republicans passed a motion Thursday fining the Democrats who fled to Illinois last week $250 a day until a quorum is present.

The motion was brought up after Speaker of the House Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, took roll call and noted that only 60 representatives were present so there was no quorum to move forward with legislative business.

The motion says the absence of the Democrats has cost taxpayers $250,000 and disenfranchised residents. Any representative who doesn’t return to the House on March 7 will be fined $250 a day from their session allowance or annual salary until a quorum is present.

Rep. Jerry Torr, R-Carmel, said the Republicans are hesitant to censure the absent Democrats because that would stay in the record books. They hope that the amount of the fine will make the Democrats think of the need to be home and represent Hoosiers.

“Without a quorum, none of us can conduct the state’s business,” he said.

Reps. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, and Kreg Battles, D-Vincennes, spoke out against the motion. Brown questioned where the fine will come from as Democrats have stopped taking their per diem since going to Illinois. Battles said the fine just creates a headline or a story and tries to cover up deeper issues. He wants both sides to address the chasm and for people to reach out and have discussions.

Brown took the floor again later to speak for the Democrats, saying they don’t want to come back to vote until some issues have been addressed. After he said that the fines mean absolutely nothing and they will disappear, Bosma interjected “I wouldn’t count on that,” leading Brown to become upset that Bosma interrupted him. Bosma apologized.

Less than an hour after the House reconvened for the day, the representatives passed the motion by a voice vote to fine the absent Democrats.

Before addressing the motion to fine missing Democratic representatives, Bosma announced that the deadlines for the second and third reading of bills has again been pushed back. The deadline had already been extended by a week and was set to expire today. The new deadline would be March 9 and is contingent upon a quorum being present to vote on the matter. Bosma said it would be the first order of business for the House once a quorum is present.

The House adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT