SB 226 – Suspension of state and local officeholders has passed the House as a study committee bill as opposed to the more substantive version that passed the Senate. It’s now in conference committee to see if the chambers can work out a compromise.
In its current form, it urges the legislative council to assign to a study committee the issue of the suspension from office of state elected officials and local elected officials who are charged with the commission of a felony. (Judges and Prosecutors are specifically exempted from the bill – on the theory that the Supreme Court can take action in those cases.) The Senate version had put forth a process for suspension.
The problem, I imagine, comes from the tension between a presumption of innocence on one hand, and a desire not to have known felons at the controls of government while the prosecution of the felony grinds along; potentially for a substantial portion of the officeholder’s term.
In Indiana’s long history, when has this hiatus been a problem? As I recall, the prohibition of an officeholder with a felony has existed only since the 1970s when it was discovered that William “Skinny” Alexander (who served only one term 1972-73) had a minor felony from his wild and wooly youth. Of course, the fact that Skinny was Black and an alcoholic had nothing to do with that new law against felonious officeholders, of course!
“In Indiana’s long history, when has this hiatus been a problem? ”
http://www.wthr.com/story/13003040/embattled-hancock-county-sheriff-wont-resign