ILNews

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penalties when someone displays intent to physically meet with a child in person or by a computer; that bill was withdrawn because of its fiscal impact, but Sen.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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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