Sen. Stoops has introduced SJR 10 which would permit an initiative and referendum process in Indiana. Currently there is no process in Indiana for initiating legislation or constitutional amendments independently of the General Assembly. This would amend Article 4, section 1 of the Indiana Constitution to provide that “the people,” independently of the General Assembly have the power to:

(1) Propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution of the State of Indiana.
(2) Adopt or reject their proposed statutes or amendments to the Constitution of the State of Indiana by ballot.
(3) Approve or reject by ballot any statute, or section or part of any statute, enacted by the General Assembly

A measure (defined as a statute or constitutional amendment) is to be put on the ballot for a vote if a petition with the text of the measure gets signed by voters equaling 2% of the number of voters in the previous Secretary of State race. This is referred to as an “initiative.”

A “referendum” is the power to “approve or reject” all or part of legislation adopted by the General Assembly. The referendum gets on the ballot by a petition with 2% of the number of voters as voted in the last Secretary of State race. The legislature can amend or repeal legislation affected by referendum. They can’t do that with legislation adopted by initiative.

I don’t believe it says anything about when the initiative or referendum goes on the ballot. Special election? Next general election?

The amendment then directs the General Assembly to adopt legislation which would similarly impose the initiative and referendum process on units of local government.

The problem with this sort of thing is that the electorate is not usually all that engaged and, even if you don’t think your legislator sufficiently understands the laws he or she is passing, this pales in comparison to how little your average voter will be familiar with the context of these laws. Even though the process appears very democratic and perhaps that’s even the intent — more often than not, I expect that this process would be used by interests with money who can demagogue an issue to their advantage.

Update I had intended to mention this , but then forgot until Matt (not sure he wants credit or not, so I’ll leave it at the first name!) brought up Ohio on Facebook. I am cautiously supportive of a process which I (perhaps mistakenly) believe exists in Ohio — a “veto only” sort of referendum process that allows voters to hold a referendum on passed legislation in order to repeal it. So, they can veto legislation but not propose it. I don’t think I’m conflicted on whether would support a line item veto for this sort of process or, alternatively, only an up or down vote on a bill. My first inclination would be to require an up or down vote on the entire bill that was passed rather than the ability to pick particular sections of the bill. Think, for example, if a bill had expenditures and taxes to support those expenditures, then the citizens came along and repealed only the taxes but kept the expenditures. But, that makes things awfully messy if, for example, objectionable social legislation is squirreled away in an otherwise very necessary and appropriate budget bill. So, I like this sort of veto-only referendum process much better in theory than the referendum and initiative process; but it still has some very thorny problems.

Sen. Steele has introduced SB 155 which would require people arrested for low level offenses, with certain exceptions, to be released on their own recognizance (i.e. not have to post bail to get out of jail pending trial.)

Requires a court to release a defendant whose most serious charge is a misdemeanor or a Level 6 felony on the defendant’s own recognizance unless the defendant: (1) is charged with a crime of domestic violence, a violent crime, or a sex offense; (2) has previously failed to appear before the court as ordered; (3) is a sex or violent offender; (4) has been convicted of a misdemeanor within the previous five years or of a Level 6 felony within the previous 10 years; or (5) has been convicted of murder or a Level 5 or greater felony at any time.

Seems to make sense. They are innocent until proven guilty — if they aren’t a particular danger to the community and not a flight risk, probably it doesn’t hurt to let them go while the case is pending. The fiscal note suggests that this might reduce local expense by taking some pressure off the county jails.

Sen. Head has introduced SB 15 which attempts to improve the availability of fresh and unprocessed food in locations where such food is not readily available. The bill defines “food desert” as “an area where, within a five (5) mile area, fresh or unprocessed food accounts for less than ten percent (10%) of the food inventory for the area.” The division of nutrition and physical activity within the Indiana State Department of Health is charged with developing criteria for awarding grants to assist new and existing businesses in offering fresh and unprocessed foods within a food desert. The bill would also appropriate $1 million for the grants.

This is an aside to the main point of Sen. Head’s efforts, but I will say that writing legislation to describe areas like this bill has done is surprisingly difficult. How do you define that five mile area? Lets say you pick a point, draw five square miles around it (I assume we’re talking square miles — the legislation doesn’t say that.) Is it just that point that’s a food desert? Or is any place in that square part of the desert? What if there are copious amounts of fresh food available 20 feet away from the edge of the initial square? Is that edge, nevertheless, part of the food desert? It’s one of those things that seems easy at first but gets a lot tougher as you try to write it down.

As to the substance of Sen. Head’s efforts, it seems like a laudable goal. Access to fresh food is a good thing.

With the introduction of SB 73, Sen. Leising keeps up her fight to mandate cursive for elementary schools. Generally, I think educators and not the Indiana General Assembly should tend to the details of required school curriculum. On a personal level, as I’ve noted before, I’m very open to the idea that — given that instructional time is not infinite — schools might prioritize subjects other than cursive. Cursive writing is an anachronism. I have seen people arguing the mental benefits of writing over keyboarding, but I don’t think I’ve seen much in the way of advocacy separating out benefits from cursive that one does not also get from printing.

Mainly — I’ll confess — my bad attitude comes from the fact that I always hated writing in cursive, do not believe it has improved my life in any substantial way, and I stopped doing it as soon as I was permitted.

My entry from last year:

Sen. Leising has been tilting at this particular windmill for years since the State Board of Education made cursive discretionary for schools to teach. Advocates of cursive come up with post hoc rationalizations for why they care so much. It’s for the children, of course. But the justifications are specious:

“They need to be able to sign their name.”
Fine, spend a few hours one day teaching them to sign their name.

“It affects brain development.”
You get the same development from printing.

“They need to be able to read the original Declaration of Independence.”
When they get to this point, proponents of mandatory cursive are grasping at straws.

The fact is that cursive is the slide rule of writing. Nostalgia is the motivation for hanging on to it. The world is changing, and that’s upsetting. The offered rationales are pretexts to justify the underlying nostalgia. If we just discovered cursive today, we would be in no rush to force it on our kids.

If teachers and schools decide to spend limited class time on this mode of manufacturing letters, it’s not the end of the world, but making it mandatory is not a useful or necessary use of the General Assembly’s power.

On the subject of cursive versus printing and the lack of data concerning benefits from cursive that aren’t present with printing — and Sen. Leising’s statements on the matter — I’d recommend this comment to my previous blog entry by Kate Gladstone.

IC 35-47-2 regulates the carrying of handguns and provides a procedure for obtaining a license to carry a handgun. Part of the procedure is that the Superintendent of the Indiana State Police Department makes a determination that the applicant is a “proper person” within the meaning of IC 35-47-1-7. There are a number of criteria for being a “proper person” — mostly referencing the nature of one’s prior criminal history and mental stability. One of the criteria under the current law is that the applicant must not have a record of being an “alcohol abuser” which is defined under IC 35-47-1-2 as “an individual who has had two (2) or more alcohol related offenses, any one (1) of which resulted in conviction by a court or treatment in an alcohol abuse facility within
three (3) years prior to the date of the application.”

SB 36, introduced by Sen. Tomes, would make alcohol abusers eligible as “proper persons” to obtain a handgun license. (Drug abusers would still be ineligible.) Additionally, the licensing process includes a review of the application by the law enforcement officer receiving the application. Sen. Tomes’ bill would forbid the application itself or a subsequent interview by the investigator from questioning the applicant about “any criminal convictions the applicant may have for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the law concerning operating a vehicle while intoxicated.”

Nothing mixes quite like handguns and alcohol.

Sen. Breaux introduced SB 86 which would require a person who applies for a license to carry a handgun to complete an eight hour handgun safety and training program. It creates an exemption for current or retired law enforcement officers and active or honorably discharged members of the armed forces. The training program and instructor must be certified by the NRA.

Five of the hours must include training in:

(A) The safe storage, use, and handling of a handgun, including safe storage, use, and handling to protect child safety.
(B) Knowledge of ammunition.
(C) Handgun firing positions.
(D) Firearms and the law, including civil liability issues and the use of deadly force. The instruction in the subject described in this clause must be provided by an attorney or a person trained in the use of deadly force.
(E) Avoiding a criminal attack and controlling a violent confrontation.
(F) All laws that apply to carrying a concealed handgun in Indiana

There must also be three hours of range training including the firing of at least 45 rounds.

Frankly, all of this training sounds useful whether you have a handgun license or not.

Sen. Randolph introduced SB 122 which would mandate certain minimum standards for a patrol car camera policy that a law enforcement agency would be required to adopt if it chooses to install video cameras in its patrol cars. The policy must “(1) require all traffic stops to be recorded; (2) establish a procedure to follow if the recording system malfunctions; and (3) require a law enforcement officer to document the reason why a traffic stop was not recorded or was not recorded in its entirety.”

At least for our local agencies, I think cameras would help police officers more than they hurt them. I’ve come across a number of accusations of wrongful acts by police officers, and very often those accusations are a function of someone who is unhappy that they were caught committing a crime. However, the fact that the state is leaving the cameras optional but then imposing a level of bureaucracy if the local agencies purchase the cameras creates a disincentive for their use. In my mind, if the State is going to dictate how the cameras must be used, then the State should pay for them.

A narrower concern I have is that the statute should define “traffic stop.” It defines “law enforcement agency” and “recording system” but not “traffic stop.” If the officer gets out of his car to help a motorist already stopped by the side of the road, is it a traffic stop? If the officer chases a bank robber who abandons his getaway car and the officer gets out of his car to pursue the robber, is it a traffic stop? If the officer stops a pedestrian walking alongside the road, is it a traffic stop?

The smallest room seems poised to be the biggest issue for the Indiana General Assembly this year. I already posted about Sen. Mrvan’s bill seeking to make certain private bathrooms in retail establishments available to people who suffer from Crohn’s Disease and the like.

Sen. Holdman’s SB 100 concerning sexual orientation, gender identity and religious freedom (see my write up here) contains provisions which I described as:

7. The chapter permits separate restrooms, shower facilities, dressing facilities based on sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The attorney general will defend charter schools, public schools, local governments (and the State) against lawsuits based on allegations that their policies with respect to restrooms, shower facilities, and dressing facilities are discriminatory.

And, now, I see Sen. Tomes has introduced SB 35 entitled “single sex facilities” which seems primarily targeted at transgender people. But, in practice, its larger impact may be to turn women at college bars into criminals when they use the men’s bathroom because of the shorter line. The bill has two main provisions – one for schools, and another for public facilities.

In schools, Sen. Tomes’ bill requires that any “student facility” (being a locker room, restroom, or shower room designed for use by multiple students at the same time) be designated as either male or female and requires that a student facility for females be used by only students of “female biological gender” and one for males be used by only students of “male biological gender.” Non-student visitors get to use an outhouse in the back, perhaps?

As I understand it, the use of “biological gender” may be a bit of a problem. The bill defines the term as referring to the person’s chromosomes and physical characteristics. I’m no expert in the field, but I think the biology relates to sex and gender relates to more to a person’s social role or personal identification. “Biological sex” might be the better terminology. (See Wikipedia entry).

Outside of school, Sen. Tomes’ bill creates a crime called “single sex public facility trespass.” It applies to public accommodations with locker rooms, restrooms, and shower rooms in places of public accommodation accessible by multiple people at the same time and designated for use by only males or females. It then defines females as someone “who was born female at birth” or someone having “at least one x chromosome and no y chromosomes.” (So, for the first option, he makes the drafting mistake of defining a thing by referencing the thing itself — a “female” means someone who was born “female” — a defined term.) A male is someone who was born male at birth or who has at least one x chromosome and at least one y chromosome. So, for all that verbiage, it appears that if you have a Y chromosome, you go to the men’s room and if you don’t have a Y chromosome, you go to the ladies’ room. It’s a Class A misdemeanor if a female knowingly or intentionally enters a men’s room (or vice versa.) However, she is permitted to clean the toilets in there — exceptions are made for maintenance, for assisting in a medical emergency, and for accompanying a child less than 8 years of age. (The chapter also doesn’t apply to children under 18.)

The main problem is that sex and gender just aren’t as simple as Sen. Tomes’ wishes they were. And this, frankly, underlies a lot of what seems to come out of social conservatism. Gender occupies a spectrum and isn’t binary. There are challenges to accommodating that spectrum if we’re going to keep our bathrooms binary. Making matters worse, most of us get more wound up about nakedness and excretory functions than is probably necessary. The added emotional charge just makes dealing with the issues even more challenging. You have a person who feels like a man but looks like a woman who, like everyone else, needs to go to the bathroom from time to time. You have these binary bathrooms and people in them who are uncomfortable with the presence of someone who, outwardly anyway, looks like a person of the opposite gender. And, you have pooping and peeing and visible genitals. These are not the ingredients for a logical conversation about sound policy.

Dominic Holden, writing for Buzzfeed, has a column entitled “Why America’s Top LGBT Group Is Losing An Argument Over Bathrooms” where he observes that, despite the recent political successes for advocates of LGBT rights, they have been losing ground when bathrooms get involved. Describing the reason for the failure of an equal rights ordinance in Houston, he writes:

Their defeat can be attributed primarily to one ubiquitous, bumper-sticker-ready slogan: “No men in women’s bathrooms.” Anti-LGBT activists ran that message with visceral TV and radio commercials that claimed Houston’s nondiscrimination law would lead to men sexually assaulting young girls in public restrooms. This attack has been raised by conservative opponents virtually everywhere laws like this have been debated in recent years.

The argument is based on an underlying premise that transgender women are actually dangerous men — a claim that has no factual foothold. It’s never been an issue in the 200 cities and 17 states with laws like these on the books. But it’s kryptonite to LGBT nondiscrimination laws.

Based on that insight, I think we can expect to hear a lot more about bathrooms this session.