ILNews

Session nears end, may finish early

IL Staff
February 26, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


This session of the Indiana General Assembly is scheduled to end March 14, but legislators are working to try to finish the session early. It's not known for certain when the House and Senate will wrap up, but both sides have the goal to possibly end by March 7, one week before the constitutionally scheduled deadline.

March 3 is the scheduled last day for reading Senate and House bills before the other chamber, but the last day for second reading in the House ended up being Wednesday. The last day for third reading in the House was Thursday.

- Senate Bill 36, a magistrates' bill, offered an amendment on second reading that weaved judicial-mandate language into the bill, but the amendment failed to pass. The bill passed unanimously on third reading Thursday and is ready for enrollment.

- SB 163, a child support bill with the controversial provision allowing for garnishment of back child support from casino winnings, was returned to the Senate with amendments. - Amendments to the grandparent visitation bill, SB 59, including one that would give children more of a voice as they get older regarding visitation, failed to pass on second reading. The bill died on third reading Thursday.

- SB 307, on Bartholomew, Clark, and Floyd courts, was returned to the Senate with amendments, including one on making new infraction judgments "advisory." The bill is now in conference committee.

- SB 149, regarding Department of Child Services matters, including out-of-state placement, passed by a vote of 83-16 on third reading. 

SB 224, an electronic dissemination of indecent material and sex offender registration bill; SB 394, regarding attorney general matters; and SB 399, on fines for moving violations all passed second reading without amendments as of Indiana Lawyer deadline. In the Senate, three bills of interest to the legal community moved back to the House with amendments: House Bill 1154, on Marion County courts converting commissioners into magistrates; HB 1271, on problem-solving courts; and HB 1276, which includes Judicial Technology Automation Committee matters. 

HB 1154 now has a stipulation that traffic infraction money doesn't revert to the county general fund or state general fund for general use, and the money can only be used to compensate commissioners or pay guardian ad litem costs. HB 1271 was amended so that mental-health records of a patient may be disclosed to the court without consent. Five amendments to HB 1276 failed on second reading, including one that required a program to collect domestic violence data and report it to the FBI; the only one to pass dealt with the kinds of medical records that should be available for public inspection.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT