Senate rejects amendment to change makeup of prosecutor review board; bill ordered to engrossment

The Indiana Senate debated changes to the membership rules for a new prosecutorial review board during consideration of House Bill 1006 on April 8, 2025. Senators argued over whether the board should be allowed a 4–1 majority from one party or be restored to a 3–2 balance; the amendment to restore a 3–2 balance failed on a roll call, 15 ayes to 34 noes, and the bill was ordered to engrossment.

Supporters of restoring 3–2 representation said the proposal coming from the House struck the right balance and would avoid excessive partisan advantage on a board that reviews elected prosecutors. "When we're talking about having a discussion about prosecutor review boards, you want a balanced approach," said Senator Thomas Pohl, offering Amendment 1 to return the bill to the House version and restore a 3–2 composition.

Opponents, led in debate by Senator Michael Freeman, said the composition proposal reflected the current partisan distribution among elected prosecutors across the state and argued the amendment would not be practical. "Not everybody is engaged with IPAC," Freeman said, referring to the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, and added that appointment logistics and county election results make a 3–2 requirement difficult to implement.

Other senators raised questions about how appointees would be selected and whether members must come from the council's board of directors. Senator Sarah Glick read the bill language aloud to the chamber and noted, "The board of directors of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Indiana shall appoint 5 members of the board. These 5 members must also be members of the board of directors." Senator Pohl and others argued that the bill as received from the House required restoring the smaller-party representation to avoid the appearance of unfairness when an appointed review body evaluates an elected prosecutor.

After extended discussion and a roll-call vote on the amendment, the clerk reported the tally: 15 ayes, 34 noes. The amendment failed. The chair then announced there were no further amendments and that House Bill 1006 was ordered to engrossment for further consideration.

The debate made clear two central tensions: whether statutory design should reflect current partisan distributions among county prosecutors and whether an appointed review body risks appearing partisan when it reviews an elected prosecutor's conduct. The Senate did not adopt the 3–2 amendment and did not take a final passage vote on the bill during this session; the measure moves to the next stage of legislative processing.