State ex rel. Masariu v. Marion Superior Court No. 1, 49S00-9310-OR-1089
| Citation | 621 N.E.2d 1097 |
| Decision Date | 12 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S00-9310-OR-1089,49S00-9310-OR-1089 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, on the RELATION of Betty MASARIU, in her official capacity as Principal Clerk of the Indiana House of Representatives, Relator, v. The MARION SUPERIOR COURT NO. 1 and the Honorable Anthony J. Metz, III, as Judge thereof, Respondents. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Pamela Carter, Atty. Gen., Dennis P. Lee, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard E. Shevitz, Deputy Atty. Gen., for relator.
Robert P. Johnstone, Jan M. Carroll, Barnes & Thornburg, Indianapolis, for respondents.
The Relator seeks a writ of prohibition barring Respondent court and judge from proceeding further with an action brought against her, styled Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc., William Theobald, and Nancy Winkley v. Betty Masariu in her official capacity as Principal Clerk of the Indiana House of Representatives, under Cause No. 49D01-9304-CP-416.
The Clerk of the Indiana House of Representatives is a patronage appointment chosen by the majority party in closed caucus and ratified by the full House in public session. Her duties are controlled totally by the leadership of the House, and she is answerable only to them for her actions in the performance of her duties. How those duties are performed, or any lack of performance of those duties, is an internal matter totally controlled by the House leadership.
Article 3, Sec. 1 of the Indiana Constitution reads as follows:
"The powers of the Government are divided into three separate departments; the Legislative, the Executive including the Administrative, and the Judicial; and no person, charged with official duties under one of these departments, shall exercise any of the functions of another, except as in this Constitution expressly provided."
Although it is the duty of the Courts to determine the constitutionality of statutory law, this Court has held repeatedly that courts should not intermeddle with the internal functions of either the Executive or Legislative branches of Government.
The plaintiff's amended complaint seeks declaratory relief and attorney fees, remedies ostensibly available under Ind.Code Sec. 5-14-3-9 (Indiana Access to Public Records Law) and Ind.Code Sec. 5-14-1.5-7 (Indiana Open Door Law). The complaint asserts that the voting records of the House of Representatives are public records available for inspection and copying pursuant to Ind.Code Sec. 5-14-3-2. We find, however, that to the extent such enactments empower the judicial branch to inquire into and interfere with the internal operations of the Indiana House of Representatives, said application...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holcomb v. Bray
...in the exercise of such functions are inappropriate for judicial resolution." Id. at 421 ; see also State ex rel. Masariu v. Marion Superior Ct. No. 1 , 621 N.E.2d 1097, 1098 (Ind. 1993). The Legislative Parties claim that the issue before us is such a political question involving the inter......
-
Berry v. Crawford
...internal operations of the legislative branch” which we have rejected in the past. State ex rel. Masariu v. Marion Superior Ct. No. 1, 621 N.E.2d 1097, 1098 (Ind.1993). Yet, in denying the motion with regard to review of the collection of the legislative fines, the trial court found that “t......
-
Berry v. Crawford
...internal operations of the legislative branch" which we have rejected in the past. State ex rel. Masariu v. Marion Superior Ct. No. 1, 621 N.E.2d 1097, 1098 (Ind. 1993). Yet, in denying the motion with regard to review of the collection of the legislative fines, the trial court found that "......
-
Holcomb v. Bray
...of such functions are inappropriate for judicial resolution." Id. at 421; see also State ex rel. Masariu v. Marion Superior Ct. No. 1, 621 N.E.2d 1097, 1098 (Ind. 1993). The Legislative Parties claim that the issue before us is such a political question involving the internal matter of sche......