House Bill 1253 Employment of illegal aliens. Reps. Tincher, Austin , Battles , Koch , Ruppel. Passed with amendments by the Committee on Veterans Affairs and Public Safety by a vote of 8-3. (Republicans Mike Murphy and David Wolkins and Democrat Dennis Avery voted against the bill).

Provides that: (1) a person who hires or employs an individual shall verify the individual’s Social Security number using the Social Security Number Verification System; and (2) a person who hires an individual shall not continue to employ the individual after learning that the individual is an illegal alien. Allows certain persons to bring civil actions against a person who hires illegal aliens. Provides that a public services contract is void if the contractor providing the services hires or employs illegal aliens unless the state or political subdivision determines that voiding the contract would be detrimental to the public interest or public property. Provides that a person who has hired an illegal alien in the previous five years is not eligible for any state or local economic development incentives.

An individual who lost the individual’s job because of the hiring of an illegal alien or a person who loses a contract to a person who hires an illegal alien can bring a civil suit against the employer of the illegal alien. In other words, an employee who thinks he or she lost his or her job because of an illegal or perhaps more nebulously, a company that thinks it got underbid by a company using illegals, can file a civil suit. Sounds good for the lawyering business, anyway. You can also lose or become ineligible for contracts with governmental entities if you hire an illegal.

I think legislator’s hearts are mainly in the right place here. They want to do something about problems caused by illegal aliens undercutting the labor market. But, with this law in place and if I had a company, I might think twice or three times about hiring anybody with a surname that sounded Mexican, regardless of how many times I used the federal government’s Social Security Number Verification System. The potential landmines an employer might have to litigate over, even for an honest mistake, are pretty significant. I’m not sure I have a better solution, but this one looks pretty brutal.

Update The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, by Niki Kelly, has a story on the bill here. Advance Indiana offers its thoughts here.

From the Journal Gazette article:

Rep. Mike Murphy, R-Indianapolis, blasted the legislation as a feel-good bill that does nothing, noting that most of the elements of the bill are already federal law, including Social Security number verification.

He said it creates a picnic for lawyers, has no fiscal impact statement assessing its costs and has no enforcement mechanism because that would be illegal under federal law.

“As frustrated as we may be, … this bill does absolutely nothing to solve the problem,” Murphy said.

Several lawmakers said the bill was a way to send a message to federal representatives and senators.

But Rep. Dennis Avery, D-Evansville, said he would send a message to his congressman by writing him a letter, and he voted no.

[tags]HB1253-2007, immigration, labor[/tags]

House Bill 1335 Coal mining. Reps. Stilwell, Battles, and Davis. This bill was passed 10-0 by the Committee on Labor and Employment. I don’t pretend to have even a nodding acquaintance with the state’s mining laws. The bill appears to have a fair number of technical corrections you often see in amendments to fairly old statutes. But, there is obviously some substantive stuff in there as well having to do with the mining board. What caught my eye was a provision having to do with the coal mine maps required by IC 22-10-2-1.5. A coal mine operator has to maintain an accurate and up to date map of the mine, showing things like what part of the mine is active and what is not, escapeways, and adjacent mine workings within 1000 feet. Current law requires that the map be available for inspection by the director of the Indiana bureau of mines, state coal mine inspectors, the miners in the mine, operators of adjacent coal mines, and persons owning, leasing, or residing on adjacent areas. This bill removes coal mine inspectors as people entitled to inspect the maps.

The bill also does a number of other things with respect to the administration and oversight of mines that I do not pretend to understand.

[tags]HB1335-2007, labor[/tags]

The Indiana Judicial Center has a blog for providing legislative updates. For example, on January 12, they posted an update on Family & Juvenile Law. I’m just going to paste the whole entry to give you a look at what kind of information it provides:

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard SB 17, introduced by Sen. Steele, which would create an interim study committee on Title IV-D and child support. The bill calls for the first meeting of the interim committee in June, in conjunction with the Annual Meeting of Indiana’s Support Enforcement Association. Sen. Steele also offered an amendment, which would require representation of Title IV-D prosecutors on the existing Child Custody and Support Advisory Committee. The Committee discussed: a case where the payee of child support was changed without notice to the support obligor, the jurisdiction of Title IV-D courts, use of administrative law judges, the interrelationship between child support and parenting time, contempt in child support cases, and use of Title IV-D in paternity cases. Sen. Bray assigned the bill to a committee with Sen. Steele, Chair, Sen. Ford, and Sen. Lanane to get the bill into final form and bring it back to the Committee next week.

The Senate Judiciary Committee also heard SB 12, concerning legal separation. Its author, Sen. Steele, reported a problem concerning the start of the one-year period of legal separation. Committee members amended the proposed legislation to provide the one-year period of legal separation should begin when a separation agreement is filed, if the court does not issue an order and there is not a contested hearing. The bill passed as amended 8-0.

House Bill 1197 Reps. Pflum & Saunders:

Prohibits construction of a confined feeding operation (CFO) within two miles of a school or a municipality. Permits application to land of manure generated by a CFO only by incorporation or injection. Requires certification of applicators of manure generated by a CFO.

More commentary on this bill at WAHM Diary, which was once the diary of a Work at Home Mom (WAHM), but took on a decidedly more CAFO-centric focus when one was built about 2,500 feet from her home. (Also, as always, for those interested in following CAFO developments, check out Kemplog.)

[tags]HB1197-2007, CAFO[/tags]

Senate Bill 0396 Immunity for emergency vehicle operators. Sen. Weatherwax:

Provides a governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee’s employment immunity from a loss resulting from the operation of an authorized emergency vehicle under certain circumstances.

This seems pretty clearly to be an attempt to override the Supreme Court’s holding in City of Indianapolis v. Garman and Patrick v. Miresso involving injuries to third parties during high speed chases where the police are trying to apprehend a criminal. The Indiana Tort Claims Act immunizes governmental employees attempting to enforce the law. (IC 34-13-3-3) The Supreme Court held that the law enforcement immunity is limited by another statute (IC 9-21-1-8) requiring drivers of emergency vehicles to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons.

At the time, I suggested that the Court of Appeals (and therefore, subsequently, the Supreme Court) got it wrong because immunity analysis assumes negligence. So, a statute stating that one shouldn’t act negligently should do nothing to abrogate immunity.

Sen. Weatherwax’s bill would make explicit that the statutory duty of an emergency driver to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons does not abrogate a governmental entity’s tort claim immunity. The bill would go a bit further and offer immunity to all emergency vehicle operators using sirens or lights unless the vehicle operation constituted willful or wanton misconduct.

[tags]SB396-2007, immunity, law enforcement[/tags]