Latest news with #SenateJointResolution21
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Call for congressional term limits clears final hurdle, pregnancy centers debated
Rep. Dave Hall, R-Norman, was the House sponsor for Senate Joint Resolution 21 — an application for a convention to propose constitutional amendments. He is shown on the House floor in January 2025. (Indiana House Republicans) Indiana on Monday became the 11th state to issue an identical call for a convention to amend congressional term limits into the United States Constitution — after five years of attempts. Meanwhile, a separate resolution supporting pregnancy centers drew emotional testimony. The House also concurred with Senate changes to a gun records measure as an inter-chamber debate over carbon dioxide funds continues. 'For too long, career politicians in D.C. have remained in office for decades, prioritizing re-election over results,' Rep. Dave Hall, R-Norman, told colleagues from the House floor. He was the House sponsor for Senate Joint Resolution 21, which representatives approved on a 66-30 vote. About a dozen members of each party defected during the vote, with some Republicans opposing the joint resolution and some Democrats voting in support. The measure doesn't need the governor's signature. Indiana call to amend congressional term limits into Constitution gains ground The joint resolution is an application for a convention to propose amendments under Article V of the Constitution. It uses language from U.S. Term Limits, an organization that in 2016 launched a national campaign for identically worded applications focused exclusively on congressional term limits. Ten other states have already signed on, according to USTL: Florida, Alabama, Missouri, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Dakota. Applications from 34 states are needed to trigger a convention, while 38 must ratify the changes resulting from a convention. The USTL application specifies that the convention should be a 'limited' one, just for amendments restricting the number of times U.S. House and Senate members can be elected to their posts. It describes how it should be aggregated only with same-subject applications and separately, sent to other state legislatures as an 'invitation to join in this call.' 'As more states pass resolutions, Congress will be pressured to take action before the convention is convened,' Hall said. 'The reality is, an Article V convention is highly unlikely, not because term limits lack support, but because Congress will never allow the process to be taken out of its hands.' That hasn't halted fears of a 'runaway convention' among lawmakers — particularly in the Senate — and other stakeholders. Legal scholars differ on whether a convention can be limited to a single topic, or if such a meeting could risk existing freedoms codified in the Constitution. House lawmakers aired other complaints Monday. Rep. Chris Judy, R-Fort Wayne, opposed the joint resolution because 'the real issue is the 17th Amendment,' which provided for the direct election of U.S. senators. Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, argued voters already impose term limits via elections. He also implied it's hypocritical to advance the resolution but not limit state-level tenure. 'I will not have to explain to my constituents why I'm not voting for term limits on myself when I'm voting on it for the congressional members. The rest of you can enjoy yourselves making that explanation,' DeLaney said. In the Senate, a legislative resolution recognizing pregnancy care centers drew heated discussion, with Republicans maintaining that such facilities fill critical care gaps for women 'during the most precious time in their lives.' Democrats, however, decried the controversial history surrounding the anti-abortion practices of some centers and questioned how the 'unregulated entities' spend millions of taxpayer dollars received through the state budget. Senate Concurrent Resolution 24 author Sen. Jeff Raatz, R-Richmond, maintained that pregnancy care centers are staffed by volunteers that 'help guide women in the direction … they need to go.' The measure advanced from the chamber 39-9 along party lines. 'We know we struggle with access to care. … We can't produce enough OB-GYNs quick enough to fill the openings we have. So if we just let it go like this, people (won't) have access to someone in the community that can give them practical advice about clothing and other things that they might need to be able to bring this baby to life,' Raatz said Monday. 'We have hospitals in rural Indiana with no OGBYNs. Why not have an innocent individual stand alongside these women and help make decisions and connect them with resources?' The concurrent resolution asserts that 'the Indiana General Assembly strongly supports pregnancy care centers in their unique, positive contributions to the individual lives of women, men, and babies — both born and unborn.' These non-medical entities go by many names, including: pregnancy care centers, crisis pregnancy centers and pregnancy resource centers. Raatz's measure claims there are more than 2,500 such centers nationwide, offering resources such as pregnancy tests, peer counseling, parenting classes, prenatal information, ultrasounds and referrals to other services. However, some centers have been criticized for misrepresenting themselves as medical facilities, despite offering little-to-no health services. Minority Leader Sen. Shelli Yoder, D-Bloomington, said the concurrent resolution goes further than thanking center volunteers. The proposal includes an appeal to federal and state agencies to support the centers, which largely run on donations and volunteers, 'in a manner that does not compromise the mission or religious integrity of these organizations.' It specifically mentions funding for medical equipment, such as ultrasound machines. Yoder pointed to Real Alternatives, a state-funded anti-abortion organization, that currently gets $4 million per fiscal year from the Indiana budget, and last year used taxpayer dollars to hold a tailgate with liquor, beer and 'ladies from Twin Peaks' restaurant. And she noted the entities are not regulated, so they're not subject to health care regulations. 'Hoosier moms and babies deserve better,' Yoder said Monday. Legislation expunging red flag law records heads to Gov. Mike Braun's desk after the House concurred with Senate changes. Indiana's red flag law allows police to temporarily remove firearms from people considered 'dangerous.' Under House Bill 1137, records would be sealed and expunged if a court later decides someone isn't dangerous, although law enforcement would maintain access. But disagreement over where fees from carbon dioxide sequestration projects should go didn't get resolved on Monday — and won't until lawmakers strike a compromise in a separate bill. Senate Bill 457 would exempt pipeline companies from needing to get certificates of authority in certain cases, create a permit for exploratory wells and well conversions; add inspection provisions; charge new fines for legal violations; and tweak other fee amounts. Originally, fines and fees would've gone to dedicated funds to defray state spending on project administration and monitoring. But an amendment from Sen. Ryan Mishler, R-Mishawaka, who leads the powerful Senate Appropriation Committee, would direct the money to the state's General Fund instead. Edits undoing the changes were skipped in committee last week, while an amendment with a 50-50 compromise went uncalled on the floor Monday. 'All my time here, funds were created by the (governor's) administration, so the Senate took the funds out. Now … the second floor says, 'Oh, no, it belongs in statute,'' Rep. Ed Soliday told the Capital Chronicle, referring to the location of Braun's office. 'But the choice in the bill is: who's going to pay? Is it going to be the taxpayer or is it going to be the petitioner? And I think it should be the petitioner,' Soliday, the bill's House sponsor, continued. 'Why should you and I pay for it?' He said the House would pass the Senate's version, 'and then we'll sort this funds thing out in some other trailer (bill).' He hoped to avoid a conference committee 'because that's when mischief gets done.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Indiana call to amend congressional term limits into Constitution gains ground
Just nine states have approved identically worded applications to convene. (Getty Images) A national movement to launch a convention and amend congressional term limits into the Constitution is gaining momentum in Indiana. Consecutive legislative attempts failed to get past the committee stage. Last year, the Indiana House passed a resolution but it didn't get a Senate hearing. This year, the Senate has jumped into the fray, passing a resolution despite bipartisan opposition. Critics fear a 'runaway' convention could jeopardize rights already enshrined in the Constitution, while supporters maintain there are enough safeguards in state law and point to legislation that would further strengthen them. Senate Joint Resolution 21's author, meanwhile, hopes to pressure Congress into limiting itself. Article V of the Constitution reads, in part, 'The Congress … on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments …' Hoosier lawmakers in 2016 approved a multi-topic take featuring language on term limits, fiscal restraint and more. But the nationwide campaign hinges on identically worded applications — exclusively about term limits — for a convention under Article V of the Constitution. That year, the District of Columbia-based U.S. Term Limits (USTL) launched its convention-based push. If Indiana approves its latest attempt, the state would join nine others who've adopted USTL's language. Two-thirds of the states — 34 — are needed to trigger the convention. A convention to amend the Constitution has never before been held. All of the nation's existing amendments began in Congress and later went to the states for ratification. Throughout the decades, Americans have unsuccessfully pushed to trigger conventions on topics like desegregation busing, abortion and a balanced federal budget. USTL's effort is among the latest campaigns. Hoosier lawmakers, all of them Republicans, have repeatedly filed joint resolutions housing USTL language five times since 2016. But attempts introduced in 2018, 2021, 2022 and 2023 didn't get committee votes and died. Some were even sent to their respective chambers' rules committee, where legislation dead on arrival is often sent to fail. Indiana House approves congressional ask for term limits in Constitution In 2024, a House-filed version passed on a 63-32 tally featuring 'no' votes from both sides of the aisle. It got no consideration from a Senate committee and died. This legislative session, Senate Joint Resolution 21 earned Senate approval in a 31-18 vote — in January, well ahead of deadlines. Now, it's back at the House for consideration. The USTL application specifies that the convention should be a 'limited' one, just for amendments restricting the number of times U.S. House and Senate members can be elected to their posts. It describes how it should be aggregated only with same-subject applications and separately, sent to other state legislatures as an 'invitation to join in this call.' Indiana's top two leaders have indicated support for USTL. Gov. Mike Braun signed the organization's Article V convention pledge last March while campaigning for his current office. So did Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith, weeks earlier. Beckwith also chaired USTL's Indiana chapter until he ascended to his present role. Ahead of the Senate's vote, Democrats and Republicans alike feared there's no way to limit a convention to any single topic. Sen. Jim Tomes, R-Wadesville, dubbed the effort a 'mistake.' 'I don't think for a minute … that these other states that we're going to be in the mix with on this won't find some way to open that Constitution up and dice around on it, make changes to it,' he said. 'I think it's risky. I think the odds are against us.' Tomes argued that voters can already term limit lawmakers at the ballot box. The week before the vote, Sen. J.D. Ford introduced an unsuccessful edit adding redistricting to the convention call. 'If you read Article V, it does not have any other rules about the convention. It doesn't say who presides. It doesn't talk about who pays for it,' Ford said at the time. '… Our application says U.S. term limits, but once we get in there, it could be a runway convention. It could be any topic on the chopping block.' A study by the Congressional Research Service, updated in 2016, found that the Constitution is silent on Congress' role in the convention, the president's role, how many delegates states can send — equal numbers, by population or just as many as they wish — and other open questions. Resolution author Sen. Andy Zay, R-Huntington, said a runaway convention 'simply won't happen' — and that he didn't even intend to launch a limited one. He asserted 'history has shown' that when the applications near the two-thirds requirement, Congress will take action. An early 1900s campaign to amend direct election of U.S. senators into the Constitution ultimately yielded the 17th Amendment — not because states racked up enough applications, but because Congress itself took up the topic. Zay described his resolution as a 'nudge.' Senators expressed other concerns. Several criticized the effort to restrict congressional service while leaving the Statehouse unaffected. Numerous attempts to limit state-level tenures have died through the years. 'What message do we send to the public when we say … 'We're limiting your (congressional) offices, we don't want you to take advantage of being a career politician, but the moment that it touches my seat — my position, my influence, my power — then I'm opposed to it?'' Sen. Fady Qaddoura asked fellow lawmakers. The Indianapolis Democrat said he did support term limits but would vote against the resolution until he saw a more 'comprehensive' version with other election fixes. Sen. Aaron Freeman echoed that argument of hypocrisy. The Indianapolis Republican also asserted that term limits would afford staffers and lobbyists more power and push 'the swamp to get a whole lot swampier.' Author Zay said the Indiana General Assembly doesn't need term limits. 'Why? Because we go home on Thursday — every Thursday — and we are out of here at the end of April this year and mid-March in in-between years. We are the embodiment of a part-time legislature,' Zay said. 'We are public servants that … face our people every day of the week.' Sen. Jim Buck, R-Kokomo, described the professional and financial costs lawmakers at all levels pay to serve the public. Forcing them out of office early, he argued, would bring in 'a completely different class of elected officials' instead of a government 'of the people.' Sen. Travis Holdman, who led the Senate's successful multi-topic resolution that included congressional term limits, said that's fine. 'We've heard about how this may disrupt the lives of members of Congress — good, because our lives are disrupted and our businesses are disrupted by what we do here as part-time legislators,' Holdman, R-Markle, said. '… I think the framers intended, originally, with the Constitution and the federal government, that they be part-time legislators.' Indiana Code already requires delegates to an Article V convention to swear to support the state and federal constitutions, plus 'faithfully' perform their duties and follow any legislative instructions. Convention votes cast outside that scope are 'void,' according to the law, and someone who purposefully casts such a vote commits a Level 6 felony. Congressional term limits advocates want to add more guardrails. Senate Bill 450, authored by Holdman, would require the Indiana General Assembly to adopt another joint resolution banning a delegate — or commissioner, as it renames the role — from voting to amend certain parts of the Constitution. Those include the storied document's first seven articles, the first 10 amendments collectively known as the Bill of Rights, and a list of other amendments dealing with the abolition of slavery, voting rights, the Electoral College and more. Sen. Sue Glick, R-LaGrange, argued that's ineffective. 'We can pass all these resolutions that say an Indiana delegate (is) … guilty of a felony if they don't do what they're told; we can bring them home,' she said. 'And 49 other states are going to laugh because they get to decide what the Constitution of the United States looks like, because Indiana took its Tinker toys and went home.' She urged lawmakers to consider the 'dangers' of an Article V convention within the nation's current political atmosphere. 'This is not a vacuum. Do you think the First Amendment is going to survive? Do you think the Second Amendment is going to survive? Do you think you will have the same freedoms that were guaranteed to you?' Glick asked. 'I don't see all the same kind of intellects who will be attending this convention that attended the first one.' Holdman's bill also would narrow who can serve as a commissioner using stricter residency, anti-lobbying and anti-criminal history provisions. Commissioners would also be barred from accepting gratuities — with exceptions for gifts valued under $200, 'primarily ceremonial or commemorative' items, properly reported political contributions and work-related compensation. 'This isn't the end of our democracy,' Zay said of his resolution. 'This is simply a statement to our friends in Washington … that maybe 50 years is a little too long.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
