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.


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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.