[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6625986,"mediaKeyId","2755047-1540366a299c35054d841e5887d79ad9","parentId",2755047,"title","Votes at a glance: House bills considered by the Indiana Senate on March 24, 2025","audioSeconds",4461,"startMs",2307000,"endMs",6768000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2755047-1540366a299c35054d841e5887d79ad9&start=2307&end=6768","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2755047-1540366a299c35054d841e5887d79ad9/thumbnail_2307000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6625986/Indiana/Votes-at-a-glance-House-bills-considered-by-the-Indiana-Senate-on-March-24-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6625986-83135511ba4051799904d722961c4c08/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141055&Signature=M~SkvSrDEvydnOdeFcOinkKEee0g1vPu2D4KhkfUkxih9zMf6D~3Iy5AghdL~RquXVFz6ZezMyO7WUm-xBZHRwt8s2dduWaZBhnGLgE45OvmDDEw92iW7IwjGSNIejt38gAOwdG~Lr8TeDCkRoaqQ0E3E6aKiQUKzgoeCXvuKEF3pfO~hgaKlT2On4scbpToBb07ktk6ksro6GPuf1Q8R6UnL0n1ZMheTxpYktJo81MfEMS1x8ctU019YED0zYTW-LISESHIWI6gs-l3UwZn2EMlMKnmrsOqn0b0ovZn0gzqmYmcFmN7YFwBIhfNFvFaRVAvq-qu5DjmDPb6l7dIMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Indiana General Assembly","date","2025-03-24T00:00:00Z","article","The Indiana Senate handled a large number of House bills on March 24, 2025. Below are the actions recorded on the floor (passage = final Senate passage; engrossment = ordered to engrossment; reported = message/committee report). Vote tallies are included when recorded on the transcript.

Votes and actions recorded on the floor (selected):

- House Bill 10‑14: Passed (roll call recorded: 47 ayes, 0 noes). Purpose: Add certain misdemeanors to the crimes-of-violence list and adjust stacking/sentencing calculations.
- House Bill 10‑51: Passed (43 ayes, 4 noes). Mobile integrated health care: adds counties and alternative EMS providers to grant eligibility in certain circumstances.
- House Bill 10‑79: Placed on second reading and ordered to engrossment (no floor amendments recorded).
- House Bill 11‑94: Amendment #1 adopted on second reading; bill ordered to engrossment (amendment concerned holding of first whole-blood draws for coroners).
- House Bill 11‑14: Passed (43 ayes, 4 noes). Increases penalties for operating a vehicle without a valid license and creates certain fraud offenses involving vehicle titles/registrations.
- House Bill 11‑18: Passed (47 ayes, 0 noes). Clarifies protections for debriefings in EMS/health contexts (liability and compelled testimony safeguards discussed in committee).
- House Bill 11‑31: Passed (43 ayes, 4 noes). Cumberland excluded from Unigov (see separate story).
- House Bill 11‑43: Passed (46 ayes, 1 no). Expands CPA licensure pathways (baccalaureate + experience option).
- House Bill 12‑80: Passed (47 ayes, 0 no). Exempts specified uniformed service pay from state income tax and adjusts retirement/survivor benefit eligibility.
- House Bill 13‑82: Passed (47 ayes, 0 no). Secretary of State dealer services technical and licensing changes.
- House Bill 13‑92: Passed (46 ayes, 1 no). Technical corrections and administrative transfers; includes study of retirement medical benefit accounts.
- House Bill 13‑93: Passed (37 ayes, 10 noes). Immigration notification by sheriffs/detention facilities when probable cause of unlawful presence exists (see separate story).
- House Bill 14‑25: Passed (41 ayes, 6 noes). One‑year moratorium on lab-grown (cell‑cultured) meat sales/processing while agencies report back to the Legislature.
- House Bill 14‑67: Passed (47 ayes, 0 noes). Prohibits foreign nationals from contributing campaign funds in public-question elections; requires treasurers to collect affirmations and retain records.
- House Bill 14‑71: Passed (47 ayes, 0 noes). Giglio-list statute (rules for prosecutors/law enforcement and disclosure of officer credibility issues).
- House Bill 14‑90: Passed (47 ayes, 0 noes). Limited statutory exceptions to allow qualified non‑veterinarian equine dental practitioners to perform specific services at racetrack sites under defined conditions.
- House Bill 15‑09: Passed (47 ayes, 0 noes). Requires appointed bodies to publish appointing authority and term dates on meeting notices/websites or the Gateway portal.
- House Bill 16‑87: Passed (47 ayes, 0 noes). Probation and juvenile-contact technical updates; bill reported as passed on third reading.

Several other House bills were placed on second reading or ordered to engrossment with no recorded floor amendment or roll call in the portion of the transcript provided; those include, among others: HB 10‑53 (passed to next step), HB 12‑20, HB 12‑26, HB 13‑22, HB 13‑48, HB 15‑58, HB 15‑59, HB 16‑04 and others where the clerk reads the roll and the chair orders engrossment.

A note on procedure: the transcript shows committee reports and messages from the governor/lieutenant governor and the President Pro Tempore interleaved with bill readings; the clerk repeatedly read bills for second or third reading, the chamber took voice or roll‑call votes when required, and many bills moved forward either by final passage or by being ordered to engrossment.

Ending: This roundup lists floor actions recorded in the transcript. For detailed debate and context on bills that attracted extended floor discussion, see the separate articles on House Bill 16‑66 (health‑care ownership confidentiality), House Bill 13‑93 (immigration notification), and House Bill 11‑31 (Cumberland Unigov exclusion).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Chamber - Mar. 24, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A single floor day produced many decisions on House bills, including multiple final‑reading votes and several bills ordered to engrossment. This roundup lists each bill mentioned on the record, its outcome and any recorded vote tally or floor action noted in the transcript.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature IN, Indiana","taxId",77679,"location","Indiana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6625990,"Senate approves Cumberland's petition to leave Unigov; debate over precedent and services",636,2836000,3472000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2755047-1540366a299c35054d841e5887d79ad9&start=2836&end=3472","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2755047-1540366a299c35054d841e5887d79ad9/thumbnail_2836000.jpg","/articles/6625990/Indiana/Senate-approves-Cumberlands-petition-to-leave-Unigov-debate-over-precedent-and-services","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6625990-cc3c33b0ffc2048af4358ae014dde152/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141055&Signature=HFydqW7a56kjCclf9B8OPQ5nFJxJ3YP0t0bTOoxJoYRL1WS1BAITGUgrW1uR7tKzyO65oUilrggSaTv56VEv~sv7jSL1GPfN~JoxFZLYFnfuIJ-cEIUgN0P6NdvBYtMbC~DsluPZXQKZPiBmlYKBdHnnuLlvBec-DmWntlNlvzvFcg6Bbxd8ml5F7UKMIkIqfP9q~B5queUhZXEHf4drHZjUQTf~hk~U6c8~xrFzEuvcSB541788Gn4SylJUehtkXS8c200TCqs27mu6NjBYsk0gR~awEfFDl8FdO-xNFXUBaU0zhsb3EgkgUxGaqjHB2dPsHLZxVr8QsXyAnUAfDw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Indiana Senate on March 24, 2025 approved House Bill 11‑31, a measure that allows the town of Cumberland to remove itself from the Unigov consolidated government structure. The vote recorded on the floor was 43 ayes and 4 noes.

Sponsor Senator Kreider said Cumberland has grown from roughly 500 residents at the time Unigov was adopted to roughly 6,500 today, with development extending into Hancock County. He told the Senate the town has municipal services—streets, police and other functions—that make exclusion administratively workable and that financial transfers and taxing‑unit adjustments would be handled by the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF). \"The town of Cumberland has existed. They've got a street department, a police department, all of the things that you would have,\" Kreider said.

Senator Taylor spoke against the broader policy trend, saying the bill illustrated why Unigov should be reconsidered statewide and warning exclusion creates uneven representation. \"When we start talking about these little moves that people make because they don't wanna be a part of something, well, think about the other people too,\" Taylor said, noting excluded towns can retain separate town officials and still hold county offices.

Senator Freeman supported the bill but used his remarks to preview legislation he intends to file to exclude additional townships, reflecting continued debate about Unigov's future. Freeman said he had visited Cumberland and discussed infrastructure and financial details with town leaders.

Questions on the floor focused on how the DLGF would handle tax‑rate changes and whether residents could later rejoin Unigov; the sponsor said rejoining would be \"a pretty remote possibility\" but not impossible in theory.

After floor debate the Senate voted to pass the bill. The secretary was instructed to inform the House of passage. The transcript shows the bill was carried through third reading, the machine opened for voting and a roll call was taken (43 ayes, 4 noes).

Ending: The measure clears the Senate and relieves Cumberland of some administrative ties to Indianapolis government pending the DLGF's transfer of taxing units and related financial adjustments.","The Senate on March 24, 2025 passed House Bill 11‑31 allowing the town of Cumberland to exclude itself from Indianapolis's Unigov consolidation; the vote was 43‑4 after an extended floor debate about fiscal impacts and precedent for other towns.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6625995,"Senate approves bill authorizing sheriffs to notify ICE when arrested individuals are suspected of being undocumented",2514,4266000,6780000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2755047-1540366a299c35054d841e5887d79ad9&start=4266&end=6780","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2755047-1540366a299c35054d841e5887d79ad9/thumbnail_4266000.jpg","/articles/6625995/Indiana/Senate-approves-bill-authorizing-sheriffs-to-notify-ICE-when-arrested-individuals-are-suspected-of-being-undocumented","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6625995-a587abf60d055626340c35e0a82a57b0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141055&Signature=cW0DLdeTcdjToR13vb1I9Ql-BlBcVi4NAbu4ieVdf8M2iqtyadhG0n4Az4ypHjRC~6iGx21~z1TITC9ZiI0mD5C-sDKV7a0~EPrgbpTFvBaEL2b8Gck9CBdXCfsvzTC1wI7qT~TvjZdipJBkRW1YagDUXpRBvJYgE-MQWWPBbMgmrbOwKVTxDEwVby6bj3aKb2fCRlkttjukD0vFIdBWkNW-hFpEA22fmScSN1pqnMOk4HED4oJEgQw5XS4D~gw74XUbJgQmb8j2eGcHdxacyAWYWdzhxVGLRBnkQooM65r79pahSv4DpML5KdATeLJgKcjMRzsGXQC3T5WBey7lRA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Indiana Senate on March 24, 2025 passed House Bill 13‑93, a measure that requires county sheriffs or detention facilities to notify federal immigration authorities if an arrested individual is believed, on probable cause, to be present in the United States unlawfully. The final recorded vote was 37 in favor, 10 opposed.

Sponsor Senator Freeman said the bill narrows the circumstances in which federal immigration authorities would be notified. \"When someone has been arrested for a misdemeanor or felony, and we don't know who that person is, they can't produce a license, they can't produce an ID, they can't produce a single piece of paper, they can't produce any kind of identification, I do not think it is unreasonable... to figure out who this person is,\" Freeman said on the floor.

Opponents warned that the measure could lead to racial profiling, discourage crime victims and witnesses from contacting police, and impose operational burdens on local agencies. Senator Taylor called the bill a risk to immigrant communities and argued law enforcement should not be asked to enforce federal immigration policy in ways that could chill reporting: \"They have not been convicted of committing a crime. They have just been arrested. We have a thing in this country called due process,\" Taylor said.

Debate also focused on practical standards. Sponsors said the statute requires probable cause that the person is not lawfully present before notification; several senators pressed for clarity about what facts meet that threshold and whether officers will be trained to apply it. Senator Baldwin listed examples that could establish probable cause in practice, including counterfeit documents, database matches showing an order to remove, admission of illegal entry, or credible intelligence of human smuggling.

Several law‑enforcement and county officials were cited during floor debate. Senator Pohl said local practice already includes referrals to federal authorities when appropriate but that the bill could create new administrative burdens if ICE does not respond. Senator Cordura and others raised concerns about the potential for mistaken referrals and for victims to avoid contacting police.

After extended floor discussion and several amendments that narrowed who must act and which actors are responsible, the chamber adopted the bill and the clerk recorded the roll: 37 ayes and 10 noes. The Senate instructed the secretary to inform the House of the passage.

Ending: Supporters described the bill as a limited, post‑arrest step to identify noncitizens who have committed crimes; opponents said it risks profiling and local public‑safety harms and urged federal solutions.","The Senate passed House Bill 13‑93 on March 24, 2025, 37‑10, directing county sheriffs or detention facilities to notify federal immigration authorities when an arrested person is believed, on probable cause, not to be lawfully in the United States. The bill drew lengthy debate over profiling, training, and local enforcement roles.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6625999,"Senate adopts amendment limiting publication of healthcare business ownership data",1128,1137000,2265000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2755047-1540366a299c35054d841e5887d79ad9&start=1137&end=2265","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2755047-1540366a299c35054d841e5887d79ad9/thumbnail_1137000.jpg","/articles/6625999/Indiana/Senate-adopts-amendment-limiting-publication-of-healthcare-business-ownership-data","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6625999-c334d9fc6c8c152f3db369fab327bfb2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771141055&Signature=GlVVJ27DqJmqUxULBz5N4yo4qSXNW32BiNUcEfYtNkRvE3owwKQwtIhdXlgATYB0-v4wi6bvL~cXpIdX0sCI~Gl8fcEPWX8ecLal33TAf98K8~ifcVkGZ4M1BTeq5UpAEkYbatQflmacH4f2Je0pK9OGijVtv~yZ6JuUKVW2zr~ZGDL2rD~eKv6G2ggXohNDkE73tD47TQDxK5Dbv2ELecTVRJKQHtJ9GHt3-yH8G42OdUq6FQUeMhLDByuHE4TobYwhIekZuVqeBP-UBhR0MpBxFaxMokv7bubCH2eNH2l2O~JtyT9dZfyt9lQ2i1f3DgBPm2IcCPi3vGPIoAdAgw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Indiana Senate on March 24, 2025 adopted an amendment to House Bill 16‑66 that makes certain business ownership information collected under the bill confidential.

Senator Johnson, sponsor of the amendment, told colleagues the change is designed to protect individual practitioners and small physician groups from being publicly listed in a way that could expose them to hostile corporate acquisition attempts. \"We don't want to expose those businesses directly to that information in the public eye unless it's already covered under Secretary of State information,\" Johnson said.

The amendment creates a confidentiality clause limited to the new information collected specifically through the bill's reporting process. Johnson said the amendment does not change existing public filings at the Secretary of State, professional licensing agencies (PLA), or the Department of Health; it applies only to the aggregated data produced under this legislation. \"We're protecting some of that in this amendment, by creating a confidentiality clause in that section on the business entity itself pertaining to this information we're collecting for this bill only,\" Johnson said.

Other senators debated the tradeoffs. Senator Gudor raised concerns about precedent for giving confidentiality to one industry when other business types are public, noting senators file economic interest forms and public disclosure supports accountability. Senator Young asked whether the confidentiality would extend to addresses and individual names; Johnson said it pertains to the business entity information collected under the bill and not to unrelated disclosures such as required economic interest filings.

Senator Cadore described the underlying policy problem the bill seeks to address: tracking private equity acquisitions and other ownership changes so the state better understands market trends while attempting not to expose individual owners to solicitation. \"Bigger picture, there's a lot of other physician group or, you know, a singular practice and those kind of things. I don't want to give a list out there for somebody to go through and have that specific information available for somebody to go after,\" Johnson said.

After debate, the chamber voted by voice to adopt the motion to amend. The chair announced, \"Motion to amend passes.\" The bill, as amended, was ordered to engrossment.

The amendment's text, as discussed on the floor, (1) limits confidentiality to information newly collected under the bill; (2) applies to business entities with ownership interests (not to licensing data already made public by other agencies); and (3) was described by the sponsor as intended to protect individuals who are owners of healthcare business entities from being exposed in a single aggregated public list.

The floor discussion made three practical clarifications that senators emphasized: (a) the confidentiality applies to the new aggregated reporting required by the bill, not to preexisting Secretary of State or licensing records; (b) it applies to health care entities that are business owners (hospitals, physician groups, dental or therapy practices) rather than to all individual clinicians unless they appear in an ownership role; and (c) the amendment was intended to respond to concerns raised in committee about market solicitation of owners and unintended consequences of a public, aggregated ownership list.

The Senate adopted the amendment by voice vote; a numeric roll call was not recorded in the transcript for the amendment. The bill, with the amendment, was ordered to engrossment for further processing.

Implementation details and any rules for withholding or releasing the confidential data were not finalized on the floor; those operational questions would be resolved in subsequent drafting and rulemaking by the agencies named in the bill.

Ending: The Senate moved the bill forward with the confidentiality amendment; sponsors and opponents flagged policy tradeoffs between transparency and owner safety that may be revisited in later committee or implementation steps.","The Indiana Senate on March 24, 2025 adopted an amendment to House Bill 16‑66 creating a confidentiality carve‑out for ownership data collected under the bill, narrowing what ownership information would be published while preserving the bill's underlying reporting purpose.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: House bills considered by the Indiana Senate on March 24, 2025

Senate approves Cumberland's petition to leave Unigov; debate over precedent and services

Senate approves bill authorizing sheriffs to notify ICE when arrested individuals are suspected of being undocumented

Senate adopts amendment limiting publication of healthcare business ownership data