This session is marching to the beat of a different drum
The Governor’s State of the State address on Wednesday falls a mere five “session” (or committee) days before the committee report deadline in each chamber . . . so it’s probably for the best in practical terms this year that he served up no surprises, much less new major proposals for lawmakers to tackle before February 27 (and we’re taking the “under” line on the date for adjournment sine die).
This has been a busy week, with 15 committee hearings Wednesday, including some hastily (at least as much as allowed under posting rules) convened and starting just a few minutes before lawmakers were to be seated for the State of the Judiciary address Wednesday late afternoon. We believe that’s the earliest we’ve ever had so many hearings at this point in any January.
Bill authors and members have been forced to undertake lots of jockeying to accommodate the compressed number of days remaining and legislation that members believe can’t – or shouldn’t – wait (and not just the tenderloin bill!).
What this has also meant is that a lot of ideas didn’t quite get translated into the precise language that authors might have intended. Given what seems to be a particular collective conscious decision this session to avoid recommitments of measures to the fiscal panels or even other committees with concurrent jurisdiction, the limited committee time means that lots of bills will end up being largely drafted on the fly on the floor of both chambers in the form of Second Reading amendments.
We’re seeing this phenomenon even as bills hit committee in what feels like omnibus form (or, as social media commentators less delicately frame them, kitchen-sink bills), with many featuring assorted topics that in other sessions might have been separated into individual bills. Still, there has been resistance on the floor (at least in the House) to add non-germane amendments even though the bigger bills may have effectively the same outcome (rules are rules).
From “I’d like to explain my vote” comments during committee roll calls, there may be more than the usual share of measures being – reluctantly – voted out of committee for major surgery on the floor to either avoid recommitment or because there was insufficient time to address an overhaul with already prepared amendments. Indeed, there seemed to be an unusual amount of comments by committee members and those testifying about shortcomings in bills that appear not to have been considered by the author, likely because of a rush to simply get bills drafted.
All of this (and more) also raises questions about why some committee chairs chose to hear some of these measures in the first place, given the imperative to save time and advance legislation that would not require much, if any, committee time in the second chamber or conference deliberation.
Bearing all of this in mind . . . here’s what to watch for this week: the measure on bringing Indiana into conformance with federal tax law as amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (an whether the December revenue collection forecast may have opened the door for more federal changes being adopted at the state level) . . . the train wreck of a bill that would – unintentionally – overhaul state lobbying laws at every turn (despite seemingly only being aimed at disclosure of who might be a paid “protestor” at rallies); there is seemingly too much to overhaul to see this move to the House . . . what happens on a casino license transfer after the House advanced a bill authorizing iLottery without recognizing so-called sweepstakes operations, iGaming, or video gaming terminals . . . the fate of township consolidation and utility rate reduction measures (both carried by Rep. Alaina Shonkwiler (R) in only her first short session), concepts that had always proven controversial until this session, but now seem like the timing is ripe . . . and the Indianapolis Public Schools governance and operations proposal our sister Hannah News Service newsletter INDIANA EDUCATION INSIGHT has been following in detail.
While no one looking in from the outside was expecting any heavy lifts to progress very far this session, we now seem to be poised for a productive (cathartic?) two months after a tension-wracked two weeks of highly politicized debate in early December . . . although any – or all – of these items could collapse of their own weight or by some procedural issue at the end of February.
Unlike the chaos that marked the end of the 2018 session, any odd blowup this year will certainly not result in a special session, given how eager supermajority lawmakers are to avoid political damage and simply get home to campaign in what portends for many to be an ugly primary season.