Looks like there was maybe an interesting vote on the minimum wage bill, House Bill 1027. I haven’t seen the news reports and am going only off of the stuff posted on the General Assembly’s website, so I hope I am not getting this wrong.

The House Ways & Means passed the bill as amended by a vote of 14 to 10 along party lines. The amendment increased an inheritance tax exemption from $100,000 to $200,000. The rest of the bill increases the minimum wage from $5.15/hour currently to $6/hour on 9/1/2007, $6.75 on 3/1/08, and $7.50/hour on 9/1/08.

It also increases the wage claims the Commissioner of Labor can take assignments on from $800 to $3,000. (Basically, for these claims, the Department of Labor can act on behalf of the employee against the employer attempting to get the employee paid.)

However, the House Republicans attempted to substitute their own minority committee report. Recall, that the House Dems passed the bill to the House with an amendment increasing the inheritance tax exemption from $100,000 to $200,000. Doubling the exemption was insufficient for the House Republicans. With their proposal, the exemption would have gone to $200,000 on July 1, 2007; to $300,000 on July 1, 2008; and the inheritance tax would have been eliminated after July 1, 2009. This proposal was defeated by a vote of 48 to 51.

I guess this pretty well highlights the nature of the class warfare between the parties. The fact that our legislators see inheritance tax breaks as a natural counterpart to a minimum wage increase disturbs me a bit. But, it’s not really a fair fight. The Democrats do not seem to fight nearly as hard for the poor as their counterparts do for the very rich.

Why (he asks rhetorically) is it always the estate taxes singled out for elimination? Sure, everybody hates taxes. If we could fund government without taxes, that would be neat. But, since that isn’t going to happen and we are going to need taxes of some sort, why not target the more objectionable taxes first? The moral claim of a worker to his or her paycheck at the end of the week is clearly stronger than the moral claim of an heir to the proceeds of a decedent’s estate. So, it seems like a no brainer that the income tax ought to be reduced or eliminated long before we start reducing estate taxes.

[tags]HB1027-2007, taxes, class warfare [/tags]

The Indiana Law Blog has a good entry discussing SB 1-2007 dealing with the Illiana Expressway and the Commerce Connector proposed by Governor Daniels.

The opening paragraph:

The ILB tries always to remain nonpartisan, but coming from Chesterton in Porter County, the farms of many of my friends are directly in the path of the Governor’s recently unveiled plan to take by eminent domain a long swath of prime farmland from Lake through Porter through LaPorte counties in NW Indiana, to be used by a consortium of private investors to build a toll road to divert truck trafffic through the rural southern part of those counties. The Illiana Expressway would be privately build and operated, with some of the profits going to the State, which by a number of reports would use the toll money to assure that tolls need never be charged on the south leg of I-69. The Commerce Connector to be built around Indianapolis follows the same plan.

I thought using eminent domain to benefit private businesses was political kryptonite these days.

[tags]SB1-2007, privatization, Kelo[/tags]

Senate Bill 411 Wiretap law. Sen. Hershman.

Includes additional offenses as designated offenses for purposes of intercepting electronic communication. Currently the designated offenses for which the wiretap law under IC 35-33.5 apply are limited to felony controlled substance offenses. The proposed bill would add kidnapping, criminal confinement, robbery, arson, child solicitation, human and sexual trafficking crimes, and “escape” as a Class B or C felony.

Defines “electronic communication” to include any type of communication transmitted by a wire, a radio, or an electromagnetic, a photoelectronic or a photo-optical system, and replaces references to interception of a telephonic or telegraphic communication with references to the interception of electronic communication. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the process by which an eye perceives, say, writing on paper qualify as a “photo-optical system”? I know they’re trying to keep up with technology, but it’s a tough thing to do. Technology is going to go all Neuromancer on them, and traditional lines are going to get blurrier and blurrier.

Permits the state police department to authorize a law enforcement agency that has requested the interception of electronic communication to operate or monitor equipment used to intercept electronic communication under the supervision of the state police department. Currently, only the State Police are permitted to perform the wiretap.

Permits a deputy prosecuting attorney to apply for the wiretap where under current law, only the Prosecutor may apply. Establishes a procedure to permit a warrant for the interception of electronic communication to be issued without a written affidavit if certain conditions are met.

[tags]SB411-2007, Big Brother[/tags]

Senate Bill 30 Education foundations. Sen. Waltz:

Provides that until June 30, 2012, the governing body of a school corporation may donate up to $25,000 per year from the general fund of the school corporation to a public school endowment corporation for the future use of the school corporation for programs and activities that enhance the quality of education or extend learning opportunities for students of the school corporation. Requires matching private funds on at least a dollar for dollar basis for each dollar contributed by a school corporation.

I don’t know much about school funding, but my initial reaction is to be surprised at the private match requirement before a school corporation can invest funds in an endowment for future use. This bill passed the Senate on third reading by a vote of 49 to 0 and is moving on to the House.

[tags]SB30-2007, education finance[/tags]

Senate Bill 3 came up for second reading in the Senate today. As discussed a few days ago, Sen. Drozda introduced this bill that turned dealing cocaine or narcotic drug from a Class B felony into a Class A felony if it was committed near a church. That would have made the offense more serious than, say, rape or manslaughter.

Senator Lanane offered an amendment that, while keeping the offense a Class B felony, allows a court to consider the fact of dealing drugs near a church (or other house of worship) as an aggravating factor when deciding on a sentence. His amendment prevailed by a vote of 26 to 23, but I can’t seem to find a break down of the vote.

[tags]SB3-2007, crime[/tags]

Senator Hershman has reintroduced Joint Resolution 7 which would amend the Indiana Constitution to prohibit granting marriage rights or their equivalent to same sex couples. Senators Heinold, Bray, Jackman, Waterman, Kruse, Nugent, Dillon, (Mike) Young, Delph, Weatherwax, Riegsecker, and Drozda have joined Senator Hershman as co-authors. This provision has passed one General Assembly and has to pass this one as well, before it would go on the ballot in 2008 to be voted on by the public. It has been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Bray, one of the co-authors, chairs that committee, so the resolution will have no problem getting a hearing.

The full text of the resolution states as follows:

(a) Marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

First, I don’t like monkeying with the Constitution unless it’s necessary. It is not necessary here. There is already a statute prohibiting same sex marriage. I don’t particularly like the statute. If I were a legislator, I wouldn’t have voted for it. But, because a) I’m not gay and it’s not my ox being gored; b) marriage is heavily intertwined with religious beliefs that are apparently opposed to same-sex marriages; and c) the door is open to conveying equal rights under a different label; I can live with it.

If that statute were struck down as being in violation of the Indiana Constitution because it violated an Indiana Constitutional provision, then, theoretically, a better argument could be made for amending the Constitution. However, part of that argument would have to involve making a case as to why denying rights to same sex couples ought to trump whatever part of the Indiana Constitution was being violated.

But, the proposed Constitutional amendment goes much, much further than the current Indiana statute by prohibiting any Indiana law from requiring a legal incident of marriage to be conferred upon an unmarried couple. In other words, as I read the proposed amendment, if there is a right that is an incident of marriage, Indiana law is not permitted to extend that right to same sex couples. Think of marriage as creating a bundle of rights. This amendment not only says that the bundle can’t be extended to same sex couples. It’s saying that if there is a stick in that marriage bundle, same sex couples cannot be given the same type of stick. In my mind, that is simply abusive.

Similar language in Ohio is causing significant problems, including arguments that laws against domestic violence cannot be enforced against unmarried couples. This sort of provision approved in Nebraska was struck down by a federal judge who wrote that the provision:

“goes far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman.” Its “broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals,” he noted.

(The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals apparently overturned the District Court.)

Section (b) of Indiana’s proposed amendment simply goes too far. I’m not precisely sure what evil proponents are trying to remedy with this amendment, but the cure is much worse than the disease. From the proponent’s rhetoric all I get is that gays somehow threaten heterosexual marriages. Which is obviously nonsense. If the government grants the same or similar rights to a same sex couple as I have by virtue of marriage to my wife, it has jack all to do with my marriage. My marriage rises or falls based on my relationship with my wife. Proponents of SJR 7 are using a Gatling Gun to shoot a fly. If they think that same sex couples ought not have a particular right or rights, it is incumbent on them to identify the right and tell the world why the same sex couple ought not have the right. If they merely think same sex couples ought not enjoy a status labeled “marriage,” then they ought to strike all of subsection (b) from the amendment (and make the case for why same sex couples ought not enjoy the “marriage” label.) And, if they have not thought through the particulars of their position, but merely have an inchoate sense that gay people are icky, then shame on them for messing with our Constitution based on emotion rather than reason.

[tags]SJR7-2007, culture wars[/tags]

A few days ago, I mentioned Rep. Crooks’ Masson’s Blog – A Citizen’s Guide to Indiana » HB 1070 – Prohibition on forced ID implants. It prohibits governments or others from requiring implantation of a subcutaneous identification device. Subcutaneous would mean “under the skin.” A Slashdot post referencing a Register story notes the development of an RFID tattoo.

The Register reports that a St Louis based company, Somark Innovations, has successfully tested RFID tattoos to be used for tracking cattle and other animals. Details are limited for the actual tattoo, but it’s said to contain no metals and can be read up to about four feet away. Engadget has some more details on the matter. And yes, the article does mention RFID tattoos are possible for people, specifically the military. From the article: ‘The system developed by Somark uses an array of needles to quickly inject a pattern of dots into each animal, with the pattern changing for each injection. This pattern can then be read from over a meter away using a proprietary reader operating at high frequency.

I don’t know if tattoos would fall in to the category of “subcutaneous,” but it’s a close enough call that, if HB 1070 progresses, it should probably be amended to specify RFID tattoos. (RFID stands for Radio Frequency Identification.)

[tags]HB1070-2007, technology, Big Brother[/tags]

Senate Bill 3 Controlled Substances. Sen. Drozda:

Provides that dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug within 1,000 feet of a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, or house of worship is a Class A felony.

Senator Drozda’s original version just enhanced the penalty for dealing drugs within 1,000 feet of a church. The Senate Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters amended the bill to include synagogues, temples, mosques, or houses of worship and passed the measure, as amended, by a vote of 6 to 5. All of the Democrats and Republican Michael Young voted against it. Currently the enhancement from a “B” felony to an “A” felony is reserved for selling more than 3 grams, selling to a minor, or selling in, on, or near a school, park, family housing project, or youth program center. Prior policy seems to reflect the idea that selling drugs to or around young people is more harmful than selling to adults. (But, to be clear, a “B” felony results in some pretty stiff penalties.) Given Sen. Drozda’s legislative history, I get the feeling he’s more concerned about profaning a holy place than anything else.

At the end of the day, I think a “B” felony is stiff enough for pretty much any drug charge. If they’re not going to rethink their actions when facing a 6 to 20 year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine, I doubt the “A” felony with 20 to 50 years is going to have a greater deterrent effect. Not that the penalty isn’t significantly greater. It is. But, the sorts of folks who are going to ignore a 6 to 20 year sentence probably aren’t exactly “deep thinkers.” So, we’ll end up with approximately the same level of crime and more jail cells. And, I have a hard time regarding sale of a drug to a willing, adult buyer as being more serious than rape (a Class B felony) or voluntary manslaughter (a Class B felony) — even if it happens to be sold near a church.

[tags]SB3-2007, crime[/tags]

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]