Key Senate committees meet during first week

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This story was published in Capitol Watch, a supplement to Indiana Lawyer daily.

In the first week after the Indiana General Assembly returned, lawmakers addressed several bills during two key committee meetings particularly relevant to the state's legal community.

On Tuesday, the Senate Corrections, Criminal and Civil Matters committee met for the first time and discussed four bills:

- SB 26, targeting the child solicitation penalties when someone displays intent to physically meet with a child in person or by a computer; that bill was withdrawn because of its fiscal impact, but Sen. Randy Head, R-Logansport, plans to reintroduce it this session.

- SB 29, which protects county clerks from being personally liable for acts or omissions occurring while they're doing their duties, as long as negligence or intentional disregard for their responsibilities wasn't in play. The committee passed it 10-0 and sent it to the full Senate for consideration. 

- SB 71, which targets the unlawful termination of a pregnancy in cases where someone operates a vehicle while intoxicated and causes the fetus' death. Senators unanimously referred the bill to the Corrections and Criminal Matters subcommittee for further review.

- SB 81, which creates a 20-member Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee that would take effect in July to replace the current Sentencing Policy Study Committee set to expire at the end of 2010. The bill passed 7-3, though Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, didn't attend to vote, and Sens. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis, Michael Delph, R-Carmel, and Brent Waltz, R-Indianapolis opposed it. They expressed concerns about how much authority the governor should have in appointing some committee members, such as judges who might sit on the panel.

On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee met for the first time this session and discussed at length one single piece of legislation: SB 163, a catch-all bill aimed at tweaking state statutes on the child support collection process. Several components include matching state statute with what federal law says on income withholding and participating in family assistance programs.

The bill also addresses medical costs in relation to how child support is calculated, and allows various state agencies or boards to suspend licenses if payments aren't made. Most aspects involve the Indiana Department of Child Services. Of the various provisions, the most controversial aspect of the legislation involves a "gaming interference" provision that would allow the state to seize delinquent child support on certain larger casino wins. The bill would put casinos in charge of checking gamblers with single-game winnings of at least a certain amount - possibly ranging from $1,200 to $1,500 - against a list of parents who are at least $2,000 behind in child-support payments.

Currently, about 165,000 noncustodial parents fit that description and owe more than $2 billion in back child-support payments, according to the state agency handling most of the child support collection task.

DCS Director James Payne told lawmakers that the legislation would be a similar setup to how all banks are currently required to do periodic checks against a database for anyone who owes child support, and how the insurance industry voluntarily participates in a similar check when handling insurance award payouts. Other states, such as Colorado, use this method, and lawmakers questioned whether this would be beneficial to the state or overly burden the gaming industry.

"We recognize this could be a burden on the gaming institutes... but this is important to make sure these kids get the support legally owed to them," Payne said.

The Casino Association of Indiana feels the legislation unfairly targets the state's gaming industry and would cause a 2-minute delay on casino floors while names of winners are checked against an electronic list of people who owe child support. That could mean more than 13,000 work-hours annually, just for the checks. This would result in widespread waits and could cause gamblers who might be impacted by this bill to go outside Indiana to gamble, according to the group's director Mike Smith.

"With our tax burdens, we are paying our fair share to have the privilege of operating in Indiana," he said. "We just ask not to be additionally burdened."

Some lawmakers suggested increasing the amount of winnings that would trigger a database search. Sen. Bray said he wants to get this legislation to the floor for consideration as soon as possible, though it's currently scheduled for more discussion at the Jan. 13 meeting.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  2. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  3. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  4. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

  5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."