IBJNews

Legislative safeguards can't keep state from court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana conservatives appeared to win major national victories with a trio of laws passed this year cracking down on illegal immigration, defunding abortion clinics and paying for children to attend private schools.

But rebukes from a pair of federal judges and a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state's sweeping new school voucher law have raised questions about how proposed laws are vetted for legal issues before they get to a vote in the General Assembly.

Lawmakers ultimately decide how Indiana handles hot-button issues, but legislative staff try to raise red flags about clear constitutional violations or other possible missteps along the way, said Jeff Papa, chief of staff to Senate President Pro Tem David Long.

"It's not a hard science," he said.

A pair of federal judges placed temporary holds last month on two key victories for Republicans who control the General Assembly: a plan to block funds to Planned Parenthood of Indiana and portions of a new law that would have broadened police officers' ability to arrest illegal immigrants and blocked the use of foreign identification cards.

In granting a temporary injunction blocking part of the state's new immigration law, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker said the state's efforts "have proven to be seriously flawed and generally unsuccessful."

The Indiana State Teachers Association filed the most recent challenge to a state law at the start of the month, saying the plan to pay for students to attend private schools violates a clause in the state constitution mandating the state provide a "general and uniform System of Common Schools."

"Sometimes I wonder if you find legislators who just want to push the boundaries on something like that," said Doug Masson, a Lafayette lawyer and veteran observer of Indiana politics.

Masson used to work for Indiana's Legislative Services Agency, which does the grunt work of translating lawmakers' ideas and goals into legislation. LSA lawyers typically alert lawmakers if they spot something that is either unconstitutional or would violate federal law, he said.

Their job, Masson said, is not to make political judgments of whether an idea is good or bad, but to give lawmakers the lay of the land and let them decide whether to proceed from there.

In the past, moderate Republican leaders like Bob Garton, who used to head the Indiana Senate, would often keep hot-button issues like abortion locked away in committees, rather than put lawmakers through a grueling debate or get the state locked up in court, he said.

But supporters of Indiana's controversial new laws say decisions should not be made based on political expediency.

"For many there would be a moral imperative here," said Sen. Greg Walker, R-Columbus, who supported the defunding of Planned Parenthood this last session. Walker unseated the more moderate Garton in 2006.

In the Planned Parenthood case, pro-choice advocates and the Obama administration have argued that the new law clearly violates federal law regulating how billions in Medicaid dollars can be used.

But for people who believe strongly about an issue like abortion, abridging a man-made construct like a federal law is a low hurdle, Walker said.

"What position am I left with other than to say, 'Who gives you the right?'" Walker asked.

Both parties in the Indiana House and Senate maintain their own legal counsel, who guide lawmakers on legal questions and often provide spot answers during contentious debates.

Working in conjunction with the LSA lawyers, the Republican and Democratic advisers try their best to catch obvious mistakes or possible pratfalls, Papa said.

But in the end, whether to pass a law is a political decision made collectively by the state's lawmakers, Papa said.

"They could ask for anything in the world to be drafted, whether it's a good idea, a constitutional idea, or a bad idea," he said. "Then it's up to the political process where you go from there."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Moral imperitive???
    Until legislators quit legislating with a bible in their hands, we will not only be paying their salaries but wasting precious dollars on outrageous attorney fees to defend their "moral" causes. It's a shame that David Long doesn't have the same gumption of Bob Garten. Long coupled with Brian Bosma made the 2011 session a mess for which we still continue to pay. Stop trying to inflict your definition of "moral" on us and get back to what Republicans should be - fiscally conservative and less intrusive government.
  • Judges?
    Our politicians get paid to make the laws....Judges get paid to interpret...Activist judges get paid to act like God.
    IN Supreme Court can't interpret the 4th amendment (Police/State can enter your home at anytime)
    US Supreme Court can't interpret the 4th amendment (Warrantless searches legal for everyone)

    We need better judges....
  • legistrativesafeguard
    What are these politians doing,they get paid to know the laws.If these bills are unconstitutional,we need new legislators,and a new governor.

    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. I still don't understand how the FBI had any right whatsoever to investigate this elderly collector. Before the Antiquities Act it was completely legal to buy, trade or collect Native American artifacts. I used to see arrow heads, axes, bowls, corn grinders at antique shops and flea markets for sale and I bought them myself. But that was in the late 60's and early 70's. And I now know that people used to steal items from sites and sell them. I understand that is illegal. But we used to find arrow heads and even a corn grinder in our back yard when I was a child. And I still have those items today in my small collection.

    2. I lived in California and they had many of the things noted in the proposed suggestions from the "Blue Ribbon Panel". California is near financial collapse now. Let's not turn the great state of Indiana into a third world dump like California.

    3. The temporary closure of BR Avenue will get a lot of attention. But, one thing reported by the IndyStar really stands out to me, and is extraordinarily depressing: “Police also have agreed to crack down on noise violations, traffic violations and public intoxication.” In other words, the police have generously agreed to do their jobs (temporarily, at least), instead of just standing around waiting for someone to call 911. When is someone in this department going to get off their fat arse (looking at you, Chief), get their minds out of 1975-era policing and into 2014, and have his department engage in pro-active work instead of sitting around waiting for someone to be shot? Why in the hell does it take 7 people getting shot in one night in one of the city’s biggest tourist destinations, to convince the police (reluctantly, it would appear) that they actually need to do their f’n jobs? When is the Chief going to realize that there’s a huge, direct, proven correlation between enforcing the law (yes, all laws, especially those affecting quality of life) and preventing larger crimes from occurring? Is it racial BS? Is that what this extraordinary reluctance is all about? Is the department and the city terrified that if they do their jobs, they might offend someone? Whom, exactly? Will the victims of violence, murder, assault, rape, robbery, and theft be offended? Will the citizens who have to tolerate their deteriorating quality of life be offended? Will the businesses who see their customers flee be offended? Or, is it simple ignorance (maybe the Chief hasn’t heard about NYC’s success in fighting crime - it’s only the biggest g*&#am city in the country, after all)? Either way, Chief, if you don’t want to do your job, then step down. Let someone who actually wants the job take it.

    4. I thought Indiana had all the funding it needed for everything. That's why the state lottery and casino gambling were allowed, as the new tax revenue would take care of everything the state wanted to do.The recommendations sound like they came from California. Better think about that. What is the financial condition of that state?

    5. I was a fan of WIBC in the morning, Steve was the only WIBC host that I listened too, he gave the news with so much flare that I enjoyed listening to him on my way to work. Katz is no Steve. Sadly, I will not be listening to WIBC anymore.

    ADVERTISEMENT