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

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT