Walkout creates uncertainty in House

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

It’s been a controversial week at the Indiana General Assembly with the walkout by many Democrats in the House of Representatives killing several bills in their current forms as legislative deadlines hit.

The flight of the House Democrats to Illinois has caused Speaker of the House Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, to adjourn until Monday. There is still uncertainty as to when the Democrats may return and if the House would be able to change the rules to move deadlines back a week. The House Rules Committee approved pushing back the deadline for the second and third reading of bills, but the proposal needs to be approved by a quorum on the floor, something that can’t happen until Democrats return.

The walkout hasn’t affected the Senate yet and work continued in that chamber. Several bills of interest to the legal community are now before the House. If the walkout continues, those bills could be affected. Wednesday was the last day for third reading of Senate bills.

Senate Bill 561, which deals with sentencing reform and made it out of the Senate Tuesday, looks to require violent criminals to serve more of their prison sentences. The bill’s “truth in sentencing” provision would ensure violent felons serve 85 percent of their assigned prison time. Right now, it’s only required that those charged with nine specific crimes – including Class A felony battery, rape, or child molesting – serve only 50 percent of their time.

The bill also encourages communities to house those convicted of D felonies and of minor crimes in local jails or work-release facilities. The goal is to avoid an overflow of inmates in the Department of Correction.

Another provision in the bill would require implementation of a better export program for dissemination of case information to clerks. Author Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, said the current case management system doesn’t allow the download of bulk information.

Senate Bill 463, which would repeal or remove provisions that establish a mandatory retirement age for Superior and County Court judges, passed the Senate Feb. 17. Author Sen. Jim Buck, R-Kokomo, described the current law as discriminatory and outdated and said Indiana can’t keep losing valuable members of the judiciary to the statute.

“Allowing judges to serve past 70 helps preserve institutional knowledge and keep experienced courtroom managers on the bench. I look forward to working with House members on this important piece of legislation,” he said in a statement.

Senate Bill 97, on the funding of lawsuits, also passed the Senate last week. The bill deals with consumer legal funding. It has not yet been assigned to a House committee.

Also passing the Senate:
-    Senate Bill 96 that would add another deputy prosecutor in Cass County paid for by the state;
-    Senate Bill 212 on trial court jurisdiction;
-    Senate Bill 214 that would require the attorney general to make certain determinations before entering into a contingency fee contract with a private attorney;
-    Senate Bill 301, an automated record keeping fee, which proposed an increase in the fee to fund a statewide case management system. An amendment decreased the fee after July 1, 2011;
-    Senate Bill 346 on the statute of limitations for an environmental legal action;
-    Senate Bill 520 on application of foreign laws;
-    Senate Bill 530 on merging the offense of criminal deviate conduct into the crime of rape;
-    Senate Bill 540 on the discharge of long-term inmates; and
-    Senate Bill 590 on various immigration matters.
On Feb. 17, the House passed House Bill 1266 that would establish unified Circuit courts in Clark and Madison counties. The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Legislation has started making its way to Gov. Mitch Daniels. By Friday, he had signed two bills into law – SEA 32 on vote centers; and HEA 1450 on unemployment insurance.

A complete list of bills is available on the General Assembly’s website.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?