Does anyone know whether Rep. Troy Woodruff ran as a hardcore social conservative? According to this article, he intends to introduce legislation that would outlaw abortion except in the case of a medical emergency. He seems to acknowledge that such legislation is unconstitutional now, but with Bush appointing more conservative justices to the supreme court, maybe outlawing abortion will fly the next time it gets to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If this kind of social conservatism is something of a departure for Rep. “I’ll never vote for Daylight Saving Time” Woodruff, my theory is that he is aiming to find a constituency to replace the one he lost when he was the deciding vote to put Indiana on Daylight Saving Time.

The AP is reporting that Carlene Bottorff, wife of Rep. Jim Bottorff who died on Dec. 6, has been selected to fill his seat in the House of Representatives. Delaware County Democratic Party Chairman and Muncie firefighter, Dennis Tyler, will fill the seat of Rep. Tiny Adams who died on Dec. 7.

The report also mentions that there will be two other new Representatives, Matt Bell who replaces Rep. Alderman who resigned, and Suzanne Crouch who replaces Vaneta Becker who has moved to the Senate.

Judge Hamilton has issued a ruling (pdf) denying Representative Bosma’s Motion to Reconsider his ruling enjoining sectarian prayer as part of official House business. The court addressed a few issues. The first had to do with the standing to sue and the proper remedy for the Constitutional violation. For a plaintiff to prevail in a case like this, among other things, he or she has prove 1) that the government was acting unconstitutionally; and 2) he or she has standing, essentially – the legal right to sue for the alleged wrong. In this case, the Court determined that the plaintiff had standing because taxpayer funds were being used to further the unconstitutional practice. Representative Bosma argued that, rather than ending the unconstitutional practice, the Court should limit itself to doing just enough to eliminate the Plaintiff’s right to sue — i.e. stop the use of taxpayer funds for the Constitutional practice. The Court denied that part of the motion on the grounds that the act was unconstitutional regardless of the taxpayer funding issue and the court had the right to stop unconstitutional practices.

The Speaker also complained that the injunction did not give him a roadmap as to how to enforce the decision. The judge suggested that this was because the numerous potential scenarios did not allow for such specificity, but suggested that people acting in good faith should have no problem. The judge warned ominously that if it turned out people weren’t acting in good faith, he could fashion remedies that were a whole lot more invasive than the one he issued.

Finally, the judge denied the request that the order be stayed pending consideration of the motion to reconsider because he had issued a decision on the motion prior to the beginning of the session. I presume that the next step will be for the Speaker to file a Notice of Appeal and to ask the court for a stay of the injunction pending the appeal.

It’s too late at night for me to provide much context here, but I thought I’d mention that I found the following passage amusing:

The Speaker asks whether the injunction concerning sectarian prayers is limited to “Christian denominations,” and “whether denomination in this context refers to Christendom as a whole, or is
more limited and means only that there should be no appeals on behalf of Methodism, Presbyterianism, or Roman Catholicism, for example.”

This latter question seems to reflect almost a willful obtuseness.

I too have noted some willful obtuseness on the part of Speaker Bosma with respect to this matter. I expect this latest decision to be followed by more press conferences by the Speaker where he is willfully obtuse about the critical distinction between government speech (which this case addresses) and private speech (which it does not.)

Update The Indy Star’s Richard Walton has a story on the judge’s decision here.

Update #2: Additional coverage of the Court’s decision:

It is hardly surprising that the chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party is critical of Governor Daniels. More interesting to me is that he used the Governor’s ever-shifting position on Daylight Saving Time as a launching point.

In 2003 and 2004, the governor campaigned on shifting the entire state to Central time. Once elected, he strong-armed the Indiana General Assembly into passing daylight-saving time, but he then backed away from the issue entirely, saying local governments should petition the federal government to be placed in a specific time zone.

. . .

Daniels did not attend the [time zone] hearings, but he sent a letter to the DOT requesting that at least one federal recommendation be overruled, despite a clause in state law requiring him to support the local petitions.

When asked about his time zone flip-flop, the governor recently told reporters that he had never supported Central time and attributed the campaign discrepancy to being a rookie candidate who “committed the sin of straight answers.”

This is a complicated issue, but the governor has done his best to make it even more complicated. People might be asking what this means and why it matters.

It matters to all Hoosiers because it is a matter of trust in the governor.

Mr. Parker goes on to list other ways in which Gov. Daniels hasn’t earned the trust of the citizens of Indiana:

Daniels promised voters many things during his campaign, including a unified statewide time zone. He promised to promote and fund education. He promised to help homeowners deal with skyrocketing property taxes. He promised not to send state contracts out of Indiana. He promised to recruit and retain companies that provide high-paying jobs.

Unfortunately for Hoosiers, the governor has either backed away from or turned his back on each of those promises.

Partisan politics? Sure. But, by and large true just the same.