IBJNews

Right-to-work boycott fines put on hold by Indiana high court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The state Supreme Court placed on hold Wednesday all legislative fines against Democrats who boycotted the Indiana House during the right-to-work battle until it rules on whether it's legal for those fines to be deducted from their paychecks.

The court directed in an order signed by Chief Justice Randall Shepard that none of the $1,000-a-day fines levied this year against boycotting Democrats can be collected and none of the fines deducted for last year's five-week boycott can be returned to Democrats despite an order from a Marion County judge.

Majority House Republicans fined most House Democrats $4,000 for their January boycotts that left the House with too few members on several days as they tried to slow action the right-to-work bill that gained final legislative approval last week.

Mark GiaQuinta, a lawyer for the House Democrats, said he was pleased the Supreme Court had decided to take on the case and deny a request by the state attorney general's office to immediately allow deduction of this year's fines to begin.

"The court agreed with us that the denial of this method of collection until the appeal is heard in full does not constitute an emergency," GiaQuinta said.

State Attorney General Greg Zoeller, a Republican, has maintained that handling of the fines isn't a matter for the courts.

"Under the constitutional separation of powers the legislative branch is where the dispute over legislative fines ultimately should be decided, but to redirect it there requires this necessary first step at the Indiana Supreme Court," Zoeller said.

The Supreme Court didn't immediately set any deadlines for legal filings or schedule any hearings in the case.

Last week, Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the right-to-work legislation, making Indiana the 23rd state to ban contracts between companies and labor unions that require all covered workers to pay fees.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Whaitaminit!
    Neither side should be ordering champagne just yet. The court has several choices: 1) agree that the fines are proper, but the collection method isn't (the original decision by the Marion Circuit court); The Legislature has the right and power to set its own rules, so quit whining, Dems; or something else. It's entirely possible that Justice Shepard and Friends could come up with something neither side would like - or that's even worse than a $1000/day fine... say, for example, that being a no-show for more than five continuous days constitutes a voluntary vacating of office, and a new Representative needs to be appointed or elected to fill the vacancy; meanwhile, the vacant seat(s) mean there are fewer Representatives needed to make a quorum! So, reserve judgement until Mr. Shepard rules.

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 IBJ 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT