ILNews

No issue with all legislative logrolling

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The Indiana Supreme Court offered some clues recently about why it’s ignored repeated attempts to address the issue of legislative logrolling, where multiple unrelated changes are stuffed into one massive bill that becomes law.

In a June 29 decision in Andre Peoples v. State of Indiana, No. 79S02-0912-CR-549, the court inserted some language that could serve as a warning to anyone who might want to challenge non-budget items being inserted into large budget bills – something that has caused controversy in the past.

Justice Frank Sullivan wrote for the unanimous court and tackled the criminal case, involving legislation about how three unrelated felonies of any kind could be eligible for enhanced sentences for a habitual offender. The ruling touched on a special rule enacted during a budget bill conference committee in 2001 that limited the use of certain substance offenses in making those kinds of enhancements.

“Because the 2001 amendment was contained in the bill enacting the biennial state budget, the change may have reflected a concern over the fiscal impact of incarcerating drug offenders,” the court wrote, noting that the original law was written in 1977 and that “It is not surprising that the provisions do not mesh perfectly.”

Those references to logrolling and the language used in describing the legislative action indicates that the court found no problem with the unrelated statutory language found in the budget bill, and that it even found on its own initiative a valid reason as to why it may have wended its way in there. Some have interpreted this to mean that any future challenge about logrolling could be struck down if the court sees a valid reason for the resulting law.
 

Rehearing on "Finding focus in laws" IL Oct. 28-Nov. 10, 2009

ADVERTISEMENT

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