ILNews

Last day for legislators to file bills

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Today is the deadline for state senators to file Senate bills to be considered during the 2011 session. State representatives’ deadline for filing House bills was Tuesday and they have until today to file vehicle bills.

Several bills filed in the past week may be of interest to the Indiana legal community.

Senate Bill 344 proposes to eliminate the death penalty in Indiana. The bill would commute the sentence of anyone currently on death row to a sentence of life in prison without parole. SB 413 establishes the Office of the Child Advocate, and its duties would include taking all possible action to ensure the legal, civil, and special rights of children. The governor would appoint the child advocate. The office would also be required to create an annual report on its activities and the status of children in Indiana.

In the House of Representatives, House Bill 1153 tackles two issues: problem-solving courts, and judges carrying handguns. The bill expands the types of people that may participate in court-established alcohol- and drug-services programs and the procedures to be used to end a person’s participation in these kinds of programs. The bill also says a judicial officer who isn’t required to have a license to carry a handgun may not be prohibited from possessing a handgun on land or in buildings or other structures owned or leased by the state or political subdivision of the state; or in or on school property or property that is being used by a school for a school function, or a school bus.

HB 1215 provides that for purposes of a hearing concerning the admissibility of certain statements or videotapes made by a protected person, that person may attend the hearing through the use of closed-circuit television.

HB 1266 establishes a unified Circuit Court for Clark County.

HB 1332 deals with bias crimes and also requires law enforcement officers to receive training in identifying, responding to, and reporting bias crimes.

HB 1335 requires the Indiana Tax Court to try de novo appeals from final determinations of the Indiana Board of Tax Review and the distressed unit appeal board.

Senate Joint Resolution 13 defines marriage between one man and one woman. This proposed constitutional amendment must be adopted by two consecutive General Assemblies and be ratified by a majority of the state’s voters to become effective. It has not been previously agreed to by a General Assembly.

A complete list of legislation is available on the state’s website

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT