Court upholds Indiana legislative boycott fines

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld fines levied by House Republicans against Democratic lawmakers for their 2011 walkout and 2012 boycotts in a series of bitterly partisan fights over right-to-work legislation.

The court, split 3-2, found that the constitutional separation of powers bars the courts from interfering in internal legislative decisions. The state's highest court approved a request that the case be dismissed.

Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote for the majority that it is not the court's role to assess punishments within the legislative branch of government.

"We hold that when, as here, the Indiana Constitution expressly assigns certain functions to the legislative branch without any contrary constitutional qualification or limitation, challenges to the exercise of such legislative powers are nonjusticiable and the doctrine of separation of powers precludes judicial consideration of the claims for relief, and the defendants' request for dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims should have been granted in full," Dickson wrote.

Justices Loretta Rush and Robert Rucker dissented, saying the House's "discretion to punish its members" doesn't include the ability to withhold pay. Rucker said the high court's decision to set a broad hands-off test for staying out of legislative matters could stretch well beyond internal fights.

"We have never adopted such a test, which in my view would effectively preclude review of almost any legislative act," he wrote.

Majority House Republicans ordered the state auditor to withhold the fines from Democrats who spent weeks at an Illinois hotel to protest sweeping changes in the state's education system and a ban on mandatory union fees, via right-to-work measures. Although Indiana state lawmakers lack a filibuster, Democrats were able to block action by denying the Republicans the numbers needed to achieve a quorum.

Then-Rep. Bill Crawford, D-Indianapolis, filed suit after the state withheld $3,000 from his paycheck. Republicans later assessed $1,000-a-day fines on Democrats who boycotted the Legislature in 2012 in opposition of a right-to-work ban on mandatory union fees.

Mark GiaQuinta, lawyer for the House Democrats, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. House Minority Leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, declined comment through a spokesman. Pelath won his new seat leading the minority Democrats following the ouster last year of then-House Minority Leader Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said he considers the issue settled with Tuesday's ruling.

"I am very pleased that the Supreme Court properly respected the separation of powers and the rights of the legislative branch to manage its own internal affairs without interference from the judicial branch," he said in a statement. "I consider this a victory for the Indiana Constitution and the proponents of limited government, and consider the matter closed."


  • Fines Circumvent the Minority's Implied right to Deny Quorum
    The state constitution also does not say that the majority has a right to quorum, nor that the minority is required to allow them quorum. In fact, denial of quorum has been a parliamentary maneuver since the establishment of the first parliaments in the early 1600s. The right to deny quorum (and the requirement fore quorum) are to prevent exactly what happened in Indiana: A tyrannical majority pushing through odious, objectionable legislation. Denial of quorum is totally legitimate, and lest we forget, a tactic the GOP has employed many, many times to ensure their issues weren't given short shrift. By allowing the majority to impose "fines" on the minority for exercising the authority the constitution grants them (to deny quorum,) they are violating the constitution.
  • What a bunch of whiners.
    The fact is that fining members who refuse to attend isn't mentioned in the Indiana Constitution at all, so it is hardly unconstitutional. Would you pay an employee if he or she unilaterally up and decided to take a month's vacation? These people are OUR employees. They were AWOL and they should not be rewarded for being so.
    • These Fines are Unconstitutional
      As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.
    • Dupree
      The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.
    • Then in theory, Republicans can randomly fine Democrates for being Democrates?
      This is a poor decision. The right to protest, from per-revolunatary tea parties through Vietnam "conflict" need protection from government officials who want to fine and jail all those who don't follow their marching orders. In this case, we had an elected governor who campaigned that he did not see a need for anti-worker (given the name "right to work") legislation. After the election, Mitch sold out to chamber of commence and business requests. Fighting for the voters and honest government is a justifiable act by those who walked out. Sadly, our courts also follow only the requests of big business. Too many elitist appointed by Mitch.

    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 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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

    2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

    3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

    4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

    5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.