I noticed several election law bills from Sen. Errington. By way of full disclosure, I should mention once again that I have little stomach for reading election law bills. Title 3 (the elections title of the Indiana Code) is a convoluted mess — which I don’t think is entirely an accident. Nonetheless, these bills by Sen. Errington seem relatively straight forward.

Senate Bill 182 – Voter identification. Sen. Errington. Creates some alternate acceptable means of proving one’s identity for the purposes of exercising one’s right to vote. The acceptable means are:

(1) Identification issued by the state, the United States, or a public or private higher educational institution located in Indiana. (2) A current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or another government document that shows the name and address of the individual. (3) A driver’s license or state identification card issued by a state other than Indiana. Provides that an individual also provides acceptable proof of identification: (1) if two precinct election officers who are members of different major political parties execute an affidavit declaring that they have personal knowledge of the individual and that the individual is the individual whose name appears on the poll list; or (2) if the individual executes an affidavit in which the individual swears or affirms that the individual is the individual whose name appears on the poll list.

SB 183 – Poll opening and closing times. Authorizes a county election board to adopt by unanimous vote an order to allow the polls in the county to close later if a precinct in the county opens after the time required by law.

SB 184 – Voting procedures after normal poll closing time. Provides that if a court order or other order extends the hours that the polls are open, a voter who votes under the order after the time the polls otherwise would have closed must be provided a regular ballot if there are no candidates for election to a federal office on the ballot. (Under current law, such a voter must be given a provisional ballot.)

[tags]SB182-2007, SB183-2007, SB184-2007, elections[/tags]

Looks like Rep. Ryan Dvorak is back at his blog. Last year he did a great job of giving folks a legislator’s eye view of the process. I expect the same this year. And now he’s committee chair of the House Environmental Affairs Committee.

The other legislator who was very good at maintaining a blog was Rep. Steve Heim. He didn’t win re-election this year and has unfortunately pulled down his blog. If folks learn of other legislators maintaining an active blog, let me know. I think it’s a great way to remove some of the distance (for better or for worse) between legislator and citizen.

House Bill 1111 – Rep. Tincher:

Negligence actions and insurers. Provides that, in an action for damages based on negligence, an insurer shall be made a party defendant if: (1) the action is brought by a plaintiff in Indiana and based on a claim against the insured; and (2) the insurer has an interest in the outcome of the action that is adverse to the plaintiff or any other party in the action or, by its policy of insurance, assumes or reserves certain rights or agrees to take certain actions. Specifies that, if a policy of insurance is issued or delivered by an insurer outside Indiana, the insurer shall be made a party defendant only if the damage allegedly caused by negligence occurred in Indiana. Provides that, in an action for damages based on negligence, the court shall allow the admission into evidence of the fact that the wrongdoer is covered by liability insurance.

Isn’t an insurer almost always going to have an interest adverse to that of the Plaintiff? In 99% of the cases, the Plaintiff is suing the insured, wanting the insurer to pay some money under the policy. The bill also allows admission into evidence the fact that the Defendant has an insurance policy. This is a fairly significant deviation from current case law which prohibits admission of the fact of insurance. There is a sense that such evidence is prejudicial to a defendant in that a jury is presumed to be more willing to take money from an insurer than from an individual. On the other hand, jurors live in the real world and probably assume that a driver most likely has insurance.

[tags]HB1111-2007, courts[/tags]

House Bill 1086 – Rep. Bischoff:

Property tax deduction for free golf for students. Provides a property tax deduction for an owner of a commercial golf course who allows elementary or secondary school students to use the golf course without charge.

Being the product of an excellent junior golf program (my game notwithstanding – the program has at least one tour pro to its name), I’m all for encouraging young people to golf. But with tight budgets as a factor, I’d guess this would have to be a pretty low priority.

The fiscal impact statement (pdf) notes as follows:

The deduction would cause a shift from the property taxes paid by the golf course owner to other taxpayers. The amount of the shift is unknown but would depend on the amount of free golf provided by the course to students and the percentage that the course’s assessed valuation is of the total assessed valuation of the taxing district.

. . .

Green fees range from $10 to $50 for 18 holes of golf. The average green fees are about $20. The assessed valuation of about 140 commercial golf courses is about $177.5 M. Approximately 355 high schools have a boy’s golf team, and 277 high schools have a girl’s golf team.

My suspicion is that any donations of time would probably be for times of the day where the course wasn’t much being used anyway — weekday afternoons in the spring and fall and perhaps times like Monday during the day during the summer. The donation would obviously impact the course a bit — any given round of golf is going to have some sort of impact, but probably would not lower the revenue of golf courses from green’s fees. Long term, such donations are probably beneficial to the industry overall since kids who play golf are more likely to become adults who play golf who teach their own kids to play golf, etc.

[tags]HB1086-2007, taxation[/tags]

House Bill 1093 – Rep. Avery:

Distribution of Indiana electoral votes. Provides that electors for President and Vice President of the United States are chosen so that the candidate for President: (1) receiving the greatest number of votes in a congressional district receives the vote of one Indiana presidential elector; and (2) receiving the greatest number of votes statewide receives the vote of two at-large presidential electors. Requires a presidential elector representing a congressional district and voting for President and Vice President of the United States to vote for the candidates who receive the greatest number of votes in the congressional district. Requires an at-large presidential elector voting for President and Vice President of the United States to vote for the candidates who receive the greatest number of votes statewide. Provides that an elector who fails to vote for the candidates for President and Vice President of the United States for whom the elector is required to vote commits a Class B misdemeanor.

An interesting proposal that is being considered in other states as well. Currently, Indiana has a winner-take-all approach to distributing its 11 electoral votes. In each of the 9 Congressional Districts, vote totals would be determined for the Presidential race. The winner in the particular Congressional District would receive the vote of the elector for that district. The 2 state wide electors would vote for whomever received the most votes state wide. (Maine and Nebraska already apportion their electors this way.) [Also see: United States Electoral College at Wikipedia.]

[tags]HB1093-2007, elections[/tags]

House Bill 1070 – Rep. Crooks:

Forced use of internal identification device. Prohibits a governmental entity from requiring a person to use or have implanted a subcutaneous identification device. Prohibits a person from requiring an individual to use or have implanted a subcutaneous identification device as a condition of employment, insurance, medical treatment, receiving a service, or doing business with the person. Authorizes an individual to bring an action to enforce these provisions. Permits a prevailing plaintiff to receive: (1) the greater of actual damages or an award of up to $10,000; and (2) reasonable attorney’s fees.

Back in about 1995, I read a story in a wingnut newsletter ranting about chip implants, the Sign of the Beast, and the Apocalypse. Now we have legislation regarding same — and it’s probably warranted. Basically, this legislation would prohibit the government or other person (with employers and insurers seeming to be primary considerations) from requiring implantation of a subcutaneous identification device. Such a device is one that is a) implanted under the skin; and b) capable of storing and transmitting data. The government can’t require it for any purpose. Non-governmental entities can’t require it as a condition of employment, insurance, medical treatment, receiving a service, or doing business with the person.

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

House Bill 1068 – Rep. Koch:

Broadband over power lines. Allows the utility regulatory commission (IURC) to authorize certain incentives for an electric utility that deploys a broadband over power lines (BPL) system, with respect to that part of the system that is used and useful in providing electric utility service to customers. Requires the electric utility to record and account for its capital investment and operating expenses reasonably incurred to support: (1) electric utility applications; and (2) other BPL services; used or consumed by the utility. Provides that a BPL system must comply with federal laws and regulations protecting licensed spectrum users from interference by BPL systems. Provides that the IURC may condition the granting or continuation of any incentive on the BPL system’s compliance with applicable federal law.

I don’t understand utility law well enough to know whether the details of this make for good policy, but generally I like the idea of improving Indiana’s technology infrastructure.

[tags]HB1068-2007, technology, infrastructure[/tags]

House Bill 1073 – Burton & Grubb:

Requires a special counsel or collection agency that makes a claim on behalf of the department of state revenue or a county treasurer to levy on a taxpayer’s property at a financial institution to: (1) submit certain information concerning the claim to the financial institution; and (2) pay a fee of $10 for each claim submitted to the financial institution.

Specifically, when a collector is going to drain a tax-debtor’s bank account for unpaid taxes, it will have to provide the bank with:
1. Proof of employment for or a contract with the county treasurer or department of revenue;
2. A $10 fee.
3. A notice of the levy they’re collecting on.
4. A form with remittance instructions
5. A self-addressed, stamped envelope for the bank to use for the remittance.

I don’t really have a problem with any of this, though the envelope seems a little nit-picky — that cost should probably be deemed included with the $10 fee you’re paying the bank for the hassle of compliance. Here is the part I have a beef with:

A financial institution, special counsel, or collection agency may not assess a fee under subdivision (2) to the department, county treasurer, or taxpayer.

Why should the collector have to eat the $10 cost? At a minimum, the collector should be able to go after the tax debtor for the fee. If debtor had complied with his, her, or its tax obligations, the $10 fee wouldn’t be necessary. And, since the collection is being done for the benefit of the county or department of revenue, why shouldn’t they be allowed to contract to foot the bill?

It’s a small thing, obviously, but I don’t see the reason for that sentence.

[tags]taxes, collections[/tags]

House Bill 1062 – Rep. Micon:

Creates the privatization review committee (committee). Requires a state agency to develop a privatization plan before privatizing any state program. Requires a state agency to hold a hearing on the plan and report the results of the hearing to the public and the committee. Requires the committee to: (1) review a privatization plan before the plan is implemented; and (2) make advisory recommendations to the governor. Provides that a privatization contract may not extend beyond June 30 of a year in which a governor next takes office.

The committee consists of 3 members each from the majority and minority parties of the House and Senate (total 12) as well as 1 labor representative, 1 business representative, and 1 university representative (all 3 of whom are to be appointed by the legislative council.)

Before a state agency privatizes, it would have to prepare a plan that lists the program’s revenues and expenditures for the past 2 years, a list of the state employees currently administering the program and the estimated effect of privatization on the employee; a list of the program’s assets and proposed disposition; an estimate of the cost savings or additional costs from privatization; an estimate of changes in individual wages and benefits; description of how the proposed privatization will deliver the same or better services at a lower cost; and information on whether the contract is going to an out of state business. The committee will hold a hearing on the plan and provide an advisory recommendation to the governor. Finally, a privatization contract cannot extend beyond June 30 of the year in which the next governor’s term begins.

I’m not a privatization advocate by any means, but this seems to go overboard in the other direction. A governor takes office, directs a privatization plan to be created with information that makes privatization politically unpalatable at best, and then a hearing has to be held and then the contract can’t extend beyond the Governor’s current term of office.

. . .

O.k., the above were my thoughts initially, but I just read a detail that makes the plan much more palatable to me — it applies only to contracts with a total dollar amount in excess of $15 million. I still think limiting it to the current governor’s term is probably unduly restrictive, but if $15 million is involved, the rest of the safeguards probably are not unduly burdensome. I’d probably put the time limitation at something like a 10 year cap. Sure, it ties the hands of the next governor, but I think that to remain practical, some possibility for longer term deals have to be available. On the other hand, tying up state assets for generations (75 years in the case of the Toll Road) is unacceptable as well.

[tags]Privatization[/tags]