ILNews

What the ACLU of Indiana is tracking

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This story was published in Capitol Watch, a supplement to Indiana Lawyer daily.

The ACLU of Indiana is keeping an eye on bills that have been introduced this session and is anticipating others that could be introduced, including those that will affect due process, First Amendment rights, reproductive rights, voting rights, Second Amendment rights, and rights based on gender identity and sexual orientation, among other issues covered by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

While only four bills were on their watch list as of Wednesday, Executive Director Gilbert Holmes said he anticipated more would be introduced in the coming days and weeks.

Of the four bills the ACLU of Indiana is watching, it supports three and is monitoring one.

The organization supports HB 1003, contracting of public assistance eligibility. This bill would prohibit various state offices from contracting "with another person to administer or process eligibility intake for specified programs." That bill moved out of committee Tuesday.

The organization also supports two Senate bills, including SB 64, regarding the display of political signs. This bill "prohibits a homeowners association from adopting or enforcing certain restrictive covenants or homeowners association rules concerning the display of political signs." This bill's first reading took place Tuesday, and it was referred to the Committee on Elections.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the ACLU of Indiana filed a federal suit on behalf of a Plainfield homeowner who was told to take down a political sign because he was displaying the sign outside of the time limits the town implemented. That and two similar cases the ACLU of Indiana filed in 2008 have since been settled. Plainfield, along with Highland and Lebanon, have since dropped their restrictions on political signage as it relates to private homeowners and time limits, as reported in the Jan. 21-Feb. 3, 2009 edition of Indiana Lawyer.

SB 83, public inspection of provisional ballot materials, regards election material related to provisional ballots. The bill's first reading took place Tuesday, and it was referred to the Committee on Elections.

The ACLU of Indiana has closely been involved with lawsuits involving the need for identification at the polls and other voting rights issues in past legislative sessions.

The organization is also monitoring a Senate bill, SB 71 because it relates to reproductive rights. That bill would make it an act of criminal recklessness if someone caused the termination of a pregnancy in the act of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, or through other reckless behavior. The bill's first reading took place Tuesday and it was referred to the Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters.

During the session, the ACLU of Indiana will have a list of bills they are tracking on their Web site and information as to why they are interested in particular bills.

A list of 2009 bills the ACLU of Indiana watched, including voting records of state senators and representatives, is available on their Web site.

An in-depth profile of Holmes, the group's new executive director, and the organization will appear in the Jan. 20-Feb.2 edition of Indiana Lawyer.

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
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