WIBC has posted Judge Dreyer’s decision (pdf) requiring the House Democrats to be paid back the withheld walkout fines and enjoining the State Auditor and Clerk of the House of Representatives from further withholding such fines. (See a previous post on the matter here.)
The question at issue is not whether the House Democrats can be fined; Judge Dreyer has held that that’s not for the courts to decide — the Indiana legislature is to resolve such matters internally. Rather, it’s how the money is allowed to be collected. The issue of collection involves not just the House or the Senate, but the State of Indiana as a whole — because it’s not the House cutting the checks, it’s the State Auditor. At that point, you’re beyond an internal legislative matter and into something the courts can decide.
The court found that the House Democrats are State employees for the purpose of compensation. The are paid a salary, they are members of the state insurance and pension plans, and they get W-2s from the State. It also found that, under the Wage Payment Statute, the House Democrats are employees, that the Wage Payment Statute did not exclude government officials, and that IC 22-2-6-2 precludes the State from withholding the House Democrats’ wages. The court also referenced IC 22-2-8 which says, “It is unlawful for any employer to assess a fine on any pretext against any employee and retain the same or any part thereof from his wages.”
The trial court also found that such a withholding was a violation of due process. I’m not sure I agree with that. Seems like the discussion on that goes more toward the imposition of the fine in the first place and beyond the question of collection.
I don’t understand the whole “The courts can’t tell us what to do because we’re a separate branch of government and can make our own internal rules” argument and how it practically works. First, don’t the courts always get the right to keep the legislative powers in check? Secondly, if the House passed a law saying that any legislator who breaks quorum would be subjected to the firing squad, couldn’t and shouldn’t the court step in to say that’s not legal?
Lastly, and most importantly, I hesitate to use the firing squad scenario because I don’t want to give Brian Bosma any ideas….
“First, don’t the courts always get the right to keep the legislative powers in check? ”
Not when it involves the internal operations of the legislature. It’s the same reason why legislature can’t pass laws telling judges how they’re going to run their courts.
I’m still of the “why” that is that way. Plus, it still just doesn’t make sense. If the legislature decided to sell its interns into sex slavery they are allowed to do it because it’s an internal working of the legislature?
If the Constitution spells out what makes a quorum, then isn’t the question of quorum a constitutional issue (and thus in the purview of the courts) and not an “internal” matter of the legislature?
Provided the rule in question is legal (i.e. no they can’t sell their aides into sex slavery, as that is illegal) the courts have to stay out of the way of the legislature.
This is basic checks and balances, Civics 101.
I enjoy reading your blog. You do a good job summarizing this most interesting, and complex case. Keep up the good work
Thanks!
Paulas and Jackson: Read the case, Powell vs. McCormack and then read them oral argument preserved by the Oyez project. You can find it on Google. Lastly, read our brief filed in response to the state’s Motion to dismiss.
Sorry about the tips in last entry. Still learning to swype!