DOCSLIB.ORG

Legislative Apportionment in Indiana: a Case History

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Legislative Apportionment in Indiana: a Case History Indiana Law Journal Volume 42 Issue 1 Article 2 Fall 1966 Legislative Apportionment in Indiana: a Case History Leon H. Wallace Indiana University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Legislation Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Wallace, Leon H. (1966) "Legislative Apportionment in Indiana: a Case History," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 42 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol42/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT IN INDIANA: A CASE HISTORY LEON H. WALLACEt I It may be prophetic of the impermanent solubility of the problem of apportionment in representative government that the first presidential veto by the first President of the United States was that of the first con- gressional apportionment act. As the two-thirds majority necessary to pass the bill over the President's veto could not be obtained, the bill failed.' While the problems of congressional apportionment are distinct and the federal analogy may not be apt to state legislative apportionment, the fact remains that the federal history has had its impact, and that congres- sional reasoning has influenced the judgments of state constitution makers, state legislatures, and state courts in dealing with state legislative apportionment, long before "equal protection" became a factor, and has even furnished the bases for state courts' interpretation and declaration of the requirements of their respective state constitutions. Washington's objection to the constitutional interpretation embodied in the vetoed bill impelled him to his action.2 The bill, after giving each state its constitutional one representative, would have allotted an addi- tional representative for each additional unit of 33,000 population and any major fraction thereof left over. After Washington's veto, the Congress passed a bill which rejected, in each state, any remainders which did not equal 33,000 persons.' Thus, the first method of congressional apportionment was that of "rejected fractions," which gave an advan- tage to the citizens of states with larger populations, because the rejected fraction represented a smaller percentage of the total population in the larger states than in the smaller. t Charles McGuffey Hepburn Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law. I wish to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of my wife in the preparation of this article; she prepared all the mathematical computations in the analyses of the various apportionment acts included in the appendixes, researched newspaper files, legis- lative journals, reports of state officers, and generally assisted in the preparation and organization of the materials. I wish also to recognize the work of my secretary, Mrs. Marie J. Mills, for much of the typing and correcting of the appendixes, and the work of Mrs. Ute Jansen in the preparation of the maps. 1. 3 ANNALS OF CONG. 540-41 (1792). 2. U S. CONST. art. I, § 2(3) provides that "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Repre- sentative .. " 3. 1 Stat. 253 (1792). LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT Forty years later, after the census of 1830, Daniel Webster renewed the fight to give a state an extra seat for a major fraction, but was un- successful both in his efforts and his arithmetic. The population base, however, was increased to 47,770." In 1842, the base was increased to 70,680, and the act specified "one additional representative for each State having a fraction greater than one moiety of said ratio,"' as it was then called. This adopted in prin- ciple the method of the vetoed bill of 1792, and of Webster's efforts ten years earlier. A refinement of this method was enacted in 1850 which has come to be known as the Vinton Method, because of its sponsor.6 The total na- tional population was divided by the number of members in the House of Representatives. This quotient was then divided into the population of each state, which gave the quota for each state. Each state was then as- signed its constitutional member, followed by an assignment of additional members for each whole number in its predetermined quota. The re- maining unassigned members were given to those states with the highest fractions remaining. Although in each succeeding apportionment the number of represen- tatives was increased until it reached 435 in 1911,' the Vinton Method was followed until 1941, when Congress amended the automatic reapportion- ment act of 1929,8 and changed the method to that of equal proportions,9 which still prevails. This method is applied so that the average population for each rep- resentative has the least possible variation between states. The Congress apportions to the states the number in the national House of Representatives, but the problem of exactly how much control either the Congress, or the federal judiciary, in imposing "equal protec- tion of the laws" under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, will exert over the states in the method, manner, and pre- cise requirements not spelled out in the Constitution itself still leaves some questions unanswered, even though intermittent efforts of the Congress and the courts on the requirements of districting, and contiguity, com- pactness, and equality of population thereof have been a matter of con- 4. 4 Stat. 516 (1832). 5. 5 Stat. 491 (1842). 6. 9 Stat. 432 (1850). 7. 37 Stat. 13 (1911). 8. 46 Stat. 21 (1929). 9. 55 Stat. 761 (1941). INDIANA LAW JOURNAL cern for the last century and a quarter. ° This federal background is particularly relevant to Indiana. In Parkerv. State ex rel. Powell" and Denney v. State ex rel. Basler2 (here- after referred to as Parker and Denney 3), the Indiana Supreme Court, interpreting Indiana's Constitution of 1851, took judicial notice of the history of congressional apportionment, Denney more extensively but less accurately than Parker. Both wove into the fabric of the Indiana Con- stitution the "major fraction" method. Both quoted Daniel Webster at some length, and Denney mentioned him by name twice more for good measure. Denney, out of the federal heritage, has imposed upon Indiana some state constitutional doctrine that would have been unsatisfactory if applied in 1896, and is untenable in 1966, but which has not been dealt with except by necessary inference. However, neither history nor analysis of Indiana reapportionment and redistricting would be complete or accurate without a brief backdrop of the federal history, apart from the "equal protection" element which has affected most of the states since the Supreme Court of the United States filed its opinions in Baker v. Carr" and, two years later, in Reynolds v. Sims, and its companion cases in which opinions were filed on the same day.15 II As far as Indiana is concerned, the first significant cornerstone of representative government was "An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio," passed by the Confederation Congress on July 13, 1787.10 The principle of representation was simple. It was to be based on 10. See 5 Stat. 491 (1842) ; 12 Stat. 572 (1862) ; 17 Stat. 28 (1872) ; 31 Stat. 733 (1901) ; opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter reviewing this development in Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946) ; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) ; Fortson v. Dor- sey, 379 U.S. 433 (1965). 11. 133 Ind. 178, 194, 32 N.E. 836, 33 N.E. 119, 13 L.R.A. 567 (1893). 12. 144 Ind. 503, 522, 524, 532, 42 N.E. 929, 31 L.R.A. 726 (1896). A third case, Brooks v. State ex rel. Singer, 162 Ind. 568, 70 N.E. 980 (1904), hereinafter referred to as Brooks, adds no new constitutional doctrine. 13. In the appellate briefs in Denney the name is correctly spelled Denny, the ap- pellant in Denney being William M. Denny, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Sullivan County, Indiana. This case is not to be confused with another, which also involved an interpretation of the Indiana Constitution, entitled It re Denny, 156 Ind. 104, 59 N.E. 359, 51 L.R.A. 722 (1901). It re Demy does not concern apportionment. 14. 369 U.S. 186 (1962). 15. 377 U.S. 533 (1964); WMCA v. Lomenzo, 377 U.S. 633 (1964) ; Maryland Comm. v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656 (1964); Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678 (1964); Ro- man v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695 (1964) ; Lucas v. Colorado General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713 (1964). 16. 32 JOURNALS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGREss 334-43 (Hill ed. 1936). LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT population, and was to represent local units. "So soon as there shall be five thousand free male inhabitants, of full age, in the district, upon giv- ing proof thereof to the governor, they shall receive authority, with time and place, to elect representatives from their counties or townships, to represent them in the General Assembly; provided, that for every five hundred free male inhabitants, there shall be one representative, and so on, progressively, with the number of free male inhabitants, shall the right of representation increase, until the number of representatives shall amount to twenty-five; after which the number and proportion of repre- sentatives shall be regulated by the legislature. ...." No thought was given, apparently, to the possibility of counties or townships being joined together to elect a single representative, for the last paragraph of the section reads: "The representatives thus elected, shall serve for the term of two years; and in case of the death of a repre- sentative, or removal from office, the governor shall issue a writ to the county or township for which he was a member, to elect another in his stead, to serve for the residue of the term." These representatives would nominate ten freeholders, residents of the district, from whom Congress would select five, who would constitute a legislative council.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Underwear SETS Till PACE for the OTHER STATES I M) I a X a It I : Ptrni.Ica
    4 THE OMAII.A DAILY BBB: THURSDAY, APRIIi 'JO, 15)00. Telephones CIS and COf. Dec, April 25, 1500. Resolutions endorsing that the service hns too valuable to largo i REPUBLICAN UNITY IN OHIO EXIT PNEUMATIC MAIL TUBE both tho national and state administrations business communities to bo dispensed with went through and wcro unanimously On motion by- - Moon of Tennessee the - 87 adopted,, .- house, to 50, voted to eliminate ,,f 4 j, j the entlro Muslin Henry C. Payne, vlll undoubtedly be paragraph, Bute Convention Doss Not Even Ballot for Ecandila Revealed Cants the House, to Vote chosen tobuccwd 4Hmserf'3s national com- Roberts' Smu'e'ssor Sworn In, Candidates, mitteeman for Wisconsin at tho Philadel- Againit It. At the opening of tho cf the houso phia convention. ucdon today William H. King, who served In the KItty-flft- h congress Underwear SETS Till PACE FOR THE OTHER STATES i M) i a x a it i : ptrni.iCA . s linh. CHARGES MADE BY CONGRESSMAN MOODY from tho state of Utah, was sworn Jn as a representative of that Mo Mlntitlttnsr the .llennlna of tUr I'lnt-forj- n, state to succeed Hrlgham H. Roberts, who Thi's muslin underwear is 'Aelilovriiientfi of Prrnlilpnt nml Adopted. Hp AssnlU Tulip was denied a cat. Ihr INDIANAPOLIS, ind., April 25. Like nn Piimiiintlc Company Party In ConnrrKN ItrvliMVdl avalanche, the' horde of delegates to the re- Afi'iist-- l.ntc Aftftlntnnt PoRtmiia-Ic- r ISiiiorHi-ne- y IIOIINIIS A(ilti:i: ON HAWAII 1111,1,. made just as tasteful women Riltinl to Kvery publican ntato convention swept Into Tom-llne- (imcrnl nml I'oriner Mem- In 1'iinI.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016
    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936
    [Show full text]
  • Prayer Practices
    Floor Action 5-145 Prayer Practices Legislatures operate with a certain element of pomp, ceremony and procedure that flavor the institution with a unique air of tradition and theatre. The mystique of the opening ceremonies and rituals help to bring order and dignity to the proceedings. One of these opening ceremonies is the offering of a prayer. Use of legislative prayer. The practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer is long- standing. The custom draws its roots from both houses of the British Parliament, which, according to noted parliamentarian Luther Cushing, from time ”immemorial” began each day with a “reading of the prayers.” In the United States, this custom has continued without interruption at the federal level since the first Congress under the Constitution (1789) and for more than a century in many states. Almost all state legislatures still use an opening prayer as part of their tradition and procedure (see table 02-5.50). In the Massachusetts Senate, a prayer is offered at the beginning of floor sessions for special occasions. Although the use of an opening prayer is standard practice, the timing of when the prayer occurs varies (see table 02-5.51). In the majority of legislative bodies, the prayer is offered after the floor session is called to order, but before the opening roll call is taken. Prayers sometimes are given before floor sessions are officially called to order; this is true in the Colorado House, Nebraska Senate and Ohio House. Many chambers vary on who delivers the prayer. Forty-seven chambers allow people other than the designated legislative chaplain or a visiting chaplain to offer the opening prayer (see table 02-5.52).
    [Show full text]
  • A Rare Campaign for Senate Succession Senate President Pro Tem Sen
    V23, N25 Tursday, Feb. 15, 2018 A rare campaign for Senate succession Senate President Pro Tem Sen. Ryan Mishler in Kenley’s appropria- Long’s announcement sets up tions chair, and Sen. Travis Holdman in battle last seen in 2006, 1980 Hershman’s tax and fscal policy chair. By BRIAN A. HOWEY Unlike former House INDIANAPOLIS – The timing of Senate minority leader Scott President Pro Tempore David Long’s retirement Pelath, who wouldn’t announcement, coming even vote on a suc- in the middle of this ses- cessor, Long is likely sion, was the big surprise to play a decisive on Tuesday. But those of role here. As one us who read Statehouse hallway veteran ob- tea leaves, the notion served, “I think Da- that Long would follow vid will play a large his wife, Melissa, into the sunset was a change and positive role in of the guard realization that began to take shape choosing his succes- with Long’s sine die speech last April. sor. That’s a good For just the third time since 1980, this thing in my view. sets up a succession dynamic that will be fasci- He is clear-eyed and nating. Here are several key points to consider: knows fully what is n Long is taking a systemic approach to Senate President Pro Tem David Long said Tuesday, required of anyone reshaping the Senate with the reality that after “No one is indispensible” and “you know when it’s in that role. And ... November, he, Luke Kenley and Brandt Hersh- time to step down.
    [Show full text]
  • HPI Power 50: Can We Figure It Out? the ‘Rubber Match’ in 2012 Comes As Real Doubt Festers on the Political Process by BRIAN A
    V17, N18 Thursday, Jan. 5, 2012 HPI Power 50: Can we figure it out? The ‘rubber match’ in 2012 comes as real doubt festers on the political process By BRIAN A. HOWEY in Indianapolis and MARK SCHOEFF JR. in Washington The 2012 Howey Politics Indiana Power 50 is the most troubling compilation this publication has brought into the public purview in the 18 years we’ve existed. The political process is so utterly broken, we are not sure the nation can survive in a way we know and recognize it today. We’ve read a steady stream of commentary - ranging from Gov. Mitch Daniels and President Obama shake hands, then talk in May at the sober Mitch the Indianapolis International Airport. The two could still be on opposite Daniels, to the tickets in what could be an epic election this November. wild-eyed Pat Buchanan, to the globe-trotting thers and grandmothers - to the stewardship of my g-g-g- Thomas Friedman - warning of a financial cataclysm that generation, the Baby Boomers. will leave a very different America for our children and grandchildren. We’ve gone from a nation created by the Continued on page 4 “Greatest Generation” - our father and mothers, grandfa- An open letter to Dan Parker By SHAW R. FRIEDMAN LaPORTE - This is an open letter to Indiana Demo- cratic Chairman Dan Parker. Dear Dan: “We refuse to let the most It’s clear you’re going to be around this year and those of us who desperately wanted a controversial public policy bill change in state party leadership and those who were satisfied with the sta- of the decade be railroaded tus quo are going to have to find a way through and the public denied a to “peacefully co-exist” if we are going to elect a Democratic governor in 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana House of Representatives
    Indiana General Assembly Contact Info: All Indiana House of Representatives District First Last Phone Legislative Assistant Legislator's Email Twitter House Democrats @inhsedems House Republicans @inhouseGOP HD 01 Carolyn Jackson 317.232.9875 Peter Okeafor [email protected] HD 02 Earl Harris 317.234.9048 Luis Nino [email protected] @Earl_Harris_Jr HD 03 Ragen Hatcher 317.234.3101 Jalen Jones [email protected] HD 04 Ed Soliday 317.234.9450 Rachel Swartwood [email protected] HD 05 Dale DeVon 317.232.9769 Hannah Joy Alte [email protected] @DaleForStateRep HD 06 Maureen Bauer 317.234.3101 Jalen Jones [email protected] @Maureen4Indiana HD 07 Jake Teshka 317.232.9643 Elias Arnett [email protected] @jaketeshka HD 08 Ryan Dvorak 317.232.9671 Ian McDaniel [email protected] @ryandvorak HD 09 Pat Boy 317.233.5248 Shelby Baumgartner [email protected] @pat4indiana9 HD 10 Chuck Moseley 317.232.9987 Kyle Donohue [email protected] HD 11 Mike Aylesworth 317.324.9447 Connor McCarthy [email protected] HD 12 Mike Andrade 317-232-9628 Samantha Lozano [email protected] @MikeAndradeIN HD 13 Sharon Negele 317.232.9816 Lewis Ostermeyer [email protected] HD 14 Vernon Smith 317-232-9976 Anne Hancock [email protected] HD 15 Hal Slager 317.232.9833 Matthew LoPrete [email protected] HD 16 Douglas Gutwein 317.234.9139 Jake Carrico [email protected] HD 17 Jack Jordan 317.232.9753 Josh Bain [email protected] HD 18 Craig Snow 317.234.9028 Evan Petty [email protected] HD 19 Julie Oltoff 317.232.9620 Andrew Alvarez [email protected] HD 20 Jim Pressel 317.232.9850 Jackson Thomas [email protected] HD 21 Tim Wesco 317.232.9753 Josh Bain [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Varney-Porter Family Papers, 1756-1939 (Bulk 1808-1922)
    Collection # M 0639 OM 0297 VARNEY-PORTER FAMILY PAPERS, 1756-1939 (BULK 1808-1922) Collection Information 1 Historical Background 2 Scope and Content Note 3 Contents 4 Processed by: Paul Brockman 7 October 1993 Updated 11 May 2004 Manuscript and Visual Collections Department William Henry Smith Memorial Library Indiana Historical Society 450 West Ohio Street Indianapolis, IN 46202-3269 www.indianahistory.org COLLECTION INFORMATION VOLUME OF 9 manuscript boxes, 2 oversize manuscript folders, 2 photograph COLLECTION: boxes, 3 OVA photograph folders COLLECTION Inclusive 1756-1939; Bulk, 1808-1922 DATES: PROVENANCE: Barbara A. Walters for the estate of Constance Varney Cannon Van Devanter, Burnsville, North Carolina, 26 August 1991 RESTRICTIONS: None REPRODUCTION Permission to reproduce or publish material in this collection must RIGHTS: be obtained from the Indiana Historical Society. ALTERNATE None FORMATS: RELATED Albert Gallatin Porter Collection (M 0396) HOLDINGS: ACCESSION 1991.0692 NUMBER: NOTES: Indiana Historical Society Varney-Porter Page 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND This collection primarily consists of the papers and photographs of several individuals connected with the Varney and Porter families: Thomas Randolph (1771-1811) was born in Richmond, Virginia, attended William & Mary College, studied law, and came to the Indiana Territory in 1807. Shortly after his arrival, Randolph was appointed Attorney General for the territory by Governor William Henry Harrison. In 1810 he married Catherine Lawrence, a stepdaughter of General James Dill. Randolph was the Virginia, or pro-slavery, party's choice for Congress in 1809, but he was defeated by Jonathan Jennings in the election for Territorial Representative by thirty-nine votes. Randolph contested the election, but his appeal was denied by the election committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Advocacy Guide
    Advocacy Guide There are many ways to make a difference as an advocate for people with disabilities. Let Your Local Officials Hear Your Opinion As a citizen, your opinions help elected officials decide how to vote on issues. Let your elected officials know your opinions through letters, e-mails, phone calls, etc. Remember, they are very busy and you want your message to have as much impact as possible. For the most impact, your communication should be brief, clear and focused on just one issue. Attend Public Meetings Meetings of the city council, county council, Indiana General Assembly, school board, etc. are open to the public. Attending these meetings helps keep you informed of the way public business is transacted and how the various elected officials interact. In addition, public meetings give citizens a good opportunity to give their opinions by speaking during the public feedback section of the meetings. Nearly all elected officials host public meetings. They are at schools, libraries, churches, etc. This is your opportunity to hear from your elected official what they are working on and to give your input on issues. Letters to the Editor Writing a letter to the editor is an effective way to publicly discuss an issue and influence the decisions of local officials. Every newspaper has different requirements for letters to the editor. In general, as with letters to elected officials, it is important to be brief, clear, and concise and focus on just one issue. Join an Advocacy Group Joining an advocacy group is one way to increase your awareness to elected officials.
    [Show full text]
  • And Others Indiana Studies: Hoosier History, Government, and Peop
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 293 774 SO 019 062 AUTHOR Barger, Harry D.; And Others TITLE Indiana Studies: Hoosier History, Government,and People. Teacher's Guide. INSTITUTION Indiana Council for Social Studies. SPONS AGENCY Lilly Endowment, Inc., Indianapolis, Ind. PUB DATE 85 NOTE 71p.; For instructional units 1-6,see SO 019 056-061. PUB TYPE Guides Classroom Use Guides (For Teachers) (052) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Citizenship Education; *Information Sources;Resource Materials; Secondary Education; Social Studies; *State Government; *State History; Teaching Methods IDENTIFIERS *Indiana ABSTRACT This teacher's guide accompanies the IndianaStudies: Hoosier History, Government, and People series,units 1-6, designed to be taught in Indiana secondary schools. The guidesummarizes the main points that the teacher should emphasize ineach chapter of each unit, and suggests resource materialto accompany the chapter. Suggested teaching proceduresare outlined for each chapter. Topics within each chapter that might allowstudent research projects are indicated and the use ofany special materials included in units such as maps or charts is emphasized. Each unit concludes witha unit test, and a list of sources. Topics for extra-creditassignments, and answers to chapter activities are provided where relevant. (SM) **************************,.******************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRSare the best that can be made * * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** TEACHER'S GUIDEFOR INDIANA STUDIES: HOOSIER HISTORY,GOVERNMENT, AND PEOPLE AUTHORS Harry D. Barger Forest Park ElementarySchool, Fort Wayne Lida Barker Roosevelt High School,Gary Don R. Evans Northside Junior High School,Fort Wayne Patricia A. Gunkel formerly of Brown CountyHigh School, Nashville and currently at Frisco,Colorado Joseph T. Krause West Lafayette High School,West Lafayette .
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Law Review Volume 52 2019 Number 3
    Indiana Law Review Volume 52 2019 Number 3 NOTES PUBLIC BUSINESS IS THE PUBLIC’S BUSINESS: KOCH’S IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIANA’S ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT COURTNEY ABSHIRE* INTRODUCTION “Public business is the public’s business. The people have the right to know. Freedom of information is their just heritage. Without that the citizens of a democracy have but changed their kings.” – Harold L. Cross1 In 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court faced the question of whether records requested pursuant to the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) could be withheld on the basis of the legislative work product exemption in APRA, and the Court held for the first time that APRA applied to the Indiana General Assembly.2 But the Court declined to review the question of whether the Indiana House Republican Caucus properly denied the requested records out of concern that doing so would violate the distribution of powers provision in the Indiana Constitution.3 The Court principally relied on two precedent cases involving the Indiana Constitution’s distribution of powers provision, Masariu v. Marion Superior Court and Berry v. Crawford, to formulate its holding in Citizens Action Coalition v. Koch.4 Shortly after the Indiana Supreme Court decided Koch, the Indiana Court of Appeals heard a case involving nondisclosure of records by the Governor’s *. J.D. Candidate, 2019, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law; MPA 2016, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis – Indianapolis, Indiana; B.A. 2012, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis – Indianapolis, Indiana. I would like to thank Professor Cynthia Baker for her continued guidance and support throughout the Note-writing process.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2019 Political Contributions.Xlsx
    WalgreenCoPAC Political Contributions: FY 2019 Recipient Amount Arkansas WOMACK FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE 1,000.00 Arizona BRADLEY FOR ARIZONA 2018 200.00 COMMITTE TO ELECT ROBERT MEZA FOR STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 200.00 ELECT MICHELLE UDALL 200.00 FRIENDS OF WARREN PETERSEN 200.00 GALLEGO FOR ARIZONA 1,000.00 JAY LAWRENCE FOR THE HOUSE 18 200.00 KATE BROPHY MCGEE FOR AZ 200.00 NANCY BARTO FOR HOUSE 2018 200.00 REGINA E. COBB 2018 200.00 SHOPE FOR HOUSE 200.00 VINCE LEACH FOR SENATE 200.00 VOTE HEATHER CARTER SENATE 200.00 VOTE MESNARD 200.00 WENINGER FOR AZ HOUSE 200.00 California AMI BERA FOR CONGRESS 4,000.00 KAREN BASS FOR CONGRESS 3,500.00 KEVIN MCCARTHY FOR CONGRESS 5,000.00 SCOTT PETERS FOR CONGRESS 1,000.00 TONY CARDENAS FOR CONGRESS 1,000.00 WALTERS FOR CONGRESS 1,000.00 Colorado CHRIS KENNEDY BACKPAC 400.00 COFFMAN FOR CONGRESS 2018 1,000.00 CORY GARDNER FOR SENATE 5,000.00 DANEYA ESGAR LEADERSHIP FUND 400.00 STEVE FENBERG LEADERSHIP FUND 400.00 Connecticut LARSON FOR CONGRESS 1,000.00 Delaware CARPER FOR SENATE 1,000.00 Florida BILIRAKIS FOR CONGRESS 1,000.00 DARREN SOTO FOR CONGRESS 1,000.00 DONNA SHALALA FOR CONGRESS 1,000.00 STEPHANIE MURPHY FOR CONGRESS 1,000.00 VERN BUCHANAN FOR CONGRESS 2,500.00 Georgia BUDDY CARTER FOR CONGRESS 4,000.00 Illinois 1 WalgreenCoPAC Political Contributions: FY 2019 Recipient Amount CHUY GARCIA FOR CONGRESS 1,000.00 CITIZENS FOR RUSH 1,000.00 DAN LIPINSKI FOR CONGRESS 1,000.00 DAVIS FOR CONGRESS/FRIENDS OF DAVIS 1,500.00 FRIENDS OF CHERI BUSTOS 1,000.00 FRIENDS OF DICK DURBIN COMMITTEE
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana General Assembly Report Week Nine the Final Committee Hearings on Bills Took Place on Monday in the House. the Balanc
    Indiana General Assembly Report Week Nine The final committee hearings on bills took place on Monday in the House. The balance of the week was dedicated to House and Senate floor action on 2nd and 3rd Readings. The Senate completed work on 3rd readings Tuesday and the House finished 3rd readings Thursday. A number of concurrence and dissent motions also progressed, sending a handful of bills to the Governor. On Wednesday, the Senate honored seven members who are retiring along with Lieutenant Governor Ellspermann, who resigned her office on Wednesday. Former GOP State Chair, Eric Holcomb, nominated by Governor Pence as Ellspermann’s replacement, was approved as the new Lieutenant Governor by both chambers on Thursday. In an effort to adjourn earlier in the week next week, both the House and Senate were in session Friday, which is typically a day legislators are back home. On Tuesday in the Senate, Senate Bill 383 received a 49-1 vote on the motion to concur with changes made in the House. As a reminder, SB 383 creates a new tracker for water utilities to use for infrastructure improvements and repairs with some important “first of its kind” accountability measures imposed on the utility. Additionally, SB383 includes a new policy statement from the legislature, which is applicable to all public utilities, declaring that utility bills should be affordable for current and future generations. CAC offered strong support for this important policy direction from the legislature. SB383 is authored by Sen. Ed Charbonneau (R- Valparaiso) and proceeds to the Governor for further action. On Friday SB15, a concurrence motion to study food desert challenges, received the Senate’s support with a vote of 36-9.
    [Show full text]