« Ind. Courts - Check out newest summaries of bills of interest to the judiciary | Main | Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next »

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Ind. Courts - "Courting controversy: Judges to have a say in range of policy matters"

A very long and essential editorial today by Tracy Warner of the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette surveys the important Indiana legal/policy issues before Indiana's state and federal courts:

Courts have always played a major role in painting political landscapes, but the importance of the judiciary in determining public policy – and thereby influencing politics – seems particularly intense now.

The Indiana Supreme Court recently intervened in no less than three cases, determining they are so important that the public is best served by the state's top court bypassing the regular appeals process to expedite a final decision. In coming weeks, the justices will decide:

  • Whether the way the Indiana House leadership docked the pay of Democratic state representatives meets legal muster.

  • Whether Democrat Vop Osili or a Republican appointed by Gov. Mitch Daniels will replace Charlie White as secretary of state.

  • Whether Daniels is compelled to testify in the lawsuit between the state and IBM over the canceled contract to privatize some elements of the welfare department.
In addition, a decision on the constitutionality of Indiana's new school voucher plan is winding its way through the courts, and an Allen County case regarding selling unused school buildings could end up at the high court as well.

If that's not enough, Indiana is playing important roles in federal lawsuits regarding President Obama's health care plan and public financing for Planned Parenthood programs.

Though the judiciary is an equal branch of government, some Americans accuse judges of overstepping their bounds when striking down laws the legislative branch enacted and the executive approved. The public largely accepts the powers of the executive branch (presidents and mayors) as well as the legislative (Congress, state legislatures and city councils). But when the third equal branch makes rulings some people oppose, the complaint is often heard that judges are "legislating from the bench."

Here are some of the key cases pending before the courts.

Vouchers

The issue: Whether Indiana's constitution permits the state's expansive school voucher system.

What's at stake: The future of the voucher program. Though it's possible the courts could issue a ruling requiring changes to the current law, it's more likely that the final ruling will be either up or down, permitting or disallowing taxpayers to finance tuition at private schools.

Status: A Marion County judge has upheld the voucher program as constitutional, and his ruling has a good chance of standing. Voucher opponents have appealed to the state Court of Appeals, and the case could well go to the state Supreme Court.

Charlie White

The issue: Whether the Indiana Recount Commission erred in ruling that White was a legally qualified candidate to appear on the 2010 ballot despite residency questions.

What's at stake: Which party gets control of the secretary of state's office, which has implications for later elections and on ballot placement for all elected offices. If the court upholds the Recount Commission decision, then White was a legally elected candidate who had to step down following his felony conviction, meaning Daniels appoints a Republican to replace him. If the court decides the Recount Commission was wrong, then White should not have been on the 2010 ballot, and the runner-up – Democrat Vop Osili – is awarded the office.

Status: A Marion County judge ruled the commission was wrong and ordered it to install Osili as secretary of state. But that decision is on hold, and the state Supreme Court will hold a hearing on the case Feb. 29. A decision is likely in March.

Legislative fines
The issue: Whether the Indiana House Republican leadership can withhold fines from the paychecks of Democratic state representatives without first getting a court order.

What's at stake: A ruling against the Republicans would make it harder to issue fines, which is the main weapon to discourage Democrats from walking out and depriving the House of a quorum. But there are other issues: In addition to the fines, Republicans withheld the per diem pay lawmakers receive, and the smaller paychecks could affect lawmakers' pensions.

Status: A Marion County court ruled that the Republicans improperly collected the fines and ordered the state to stop deducting the fines from lawmakers' paychecks. The Indiana Supreme Court decided last week to step in and take over the case. Until it reaches a final decision, the court told the state not to return money already deducted but not to make additional deductions.

Local school
The issue: Whether Fort Wayne Community Schools legally decided to sell the unused Pleasant Center School building to the Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Authority or should sell it to a charter school for $1. Separate state laws appear to support each argument.

What's at stake: The case may cause the General Assembly to amend the law to make clear which requirement is the priority. The decision could well determine whether local school districts have options or must sell unused buildings to charter schools, which in some cases could be a boon for the charters.

Status: Dueling lawsuits have been filed in Allen Superior Court, and if the losing side appeals, the cases could well be in the Indiana court system for a few years.

Planned Parenthood [federal court]
The issue: Whether the General Assembly was legally justified in cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood or whether only the Medicaid program can make that decision.

What's at stake: This case has significant national implications.

If the General Assembly's action is upheld, other states could well take the same action, and Planned Parenthood will lose millions of dollars in federal money directed toward health care screenings and tests. Planned Parenthood is already prohibited from using any of the money for abortions.

Status: Both sides presented their arguments at the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals last September. While the court likely will rule soon, the losing party is likely to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Health care [federal court]
The issue:

What's at stake: The individual mandate is a crucial part of making the health care act work financially, and if it is ultimately struck down, the entire health care reform law would be gutted.

Status: Indiana joined 25 other states last fall in asking the Supreme Court to accept the case quickly, and the court agreed, scheduling an unprecedented three-day hearing for March 26-28. Attorneys with the Indiana attorney general's office are directly involved because they had already exhaustively researched the issue before Congress approved the law.

ILB: And one more case to add to the list is State of Indiana v. IBM, being argued tomorrow before the Supreme Court and involving questions of executive authority and separation of powers.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 12, 2012 04:19 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts