Senate Bill 315 is one of the bills on its way to the governor. Authored by Senator Ford, it requires the Department of Transportation to study “intelligent transportation systems” which it defines as “a combination of information, control, and electronic technologies used to enhance the safety, maintenance, fuel efficiency, traffic flow, and ease of use of highways.” The term includes advanced traveler information systems; advance traffic management systems; and incident management systems.

What I’d like would be a system of cameras and monitors. The cameras would turn on at the point(s) at which traffic slows to a crawl and transmit the images all along the highway where traffic is stopped. I really hate it when I wait in a traffic jam for an hour and then, when it lets up, there is no apparent reason.

[tags]SB315-2007, transportation[/tags]

Some more laws on their way to the Governor:

Bill No.: HB 1059 Digest: Holocaust education.
Authors/Coauthors: Kersey, Robertson, Porter, Bosma, Klinker
04/16/2007 H House concurred in Senate amendments; Roll Call 542: Yeas 93, Nays 0
———————————————————————————————————–
Bill No.: HB 1211 Digest: Tax sales.
Authors/Coauthors: VanHaaften, Buck, Tyler
04/16/2007 H House concurred in Senate amendments; Roll Call 543: Yeas 93, Nays 0
———————————————————————————————————–

Bill No.: HB 1241 Digest: Physician assistants.
Authors/Coauthors: Welch, T. Brown, C. Brown, Reske
04/16/2007 H House concurred in Senate amendments; Roll Call 544: Yeas 91, Nays 0
———————————————————————————————————–
Bill No.: HB 1305 Digest: Cemetery funds.
Authors/Coauthors: Cheatham
04/16/2007 H House concurred in Senate amendments; Roll Call 545: Yeas 90, Nays 0
———————————————————————————————————–
Bill No.: HB 1306 Digest: Missing persons.
Authors/Coauthors: Cheatham, Summers, Hinkle, Welch
04/16/2007 H House concurred in Senate amendments; Roll Call 546: Yeas 91, Nays 0
———————————————————————————————————–
Bill No.: HB 1338 Digest: Mental health and health records.
Authors/Coauthors: C. Brown, Noe
04/16/2007 H House concurred in Senate amendments; Roll Call 547: Yeas 94, Nays 0
———————————————————————————————————–
Bill No.: HB 1373 Digest: Changeable message signs.
Authors/Coauthors: Stevenson, Austin, Whetstone, Kuzman
04/16/2007 H House concurred in Senate amendments; Roll Call 548: Yeas 89, Nays 4
———————————————————————————————————–
Bill No.: HB 1382 Digest: Juvenile delinquency and criminal law information.
Authors/Coauthors: L. Lawson, Kuzman, Hinkle
04/16/2007 H House concurred in Senate amendments; Roll Call 549: Yeas 95, Nays 0
———————————————————————————————————–
Bill No.: HB 1468 Digest: Immunizations by pharmacists.
Authors/Coauthors: Welch, Frizzell
04/16/2007 H House concurred in Senate amendments; Roll Call 550: Yeas 89, Nays 4
———————————————————————————————————–
Bill No.: HB 1480 Digest: Judges’ pensions.
Authors/Coauthors: Kuzman, Buell
04/16/2007 H House concurred in Senate amendments; Roll Call 551: Yeas 90, Nays 3
———————————————————————————————————–
Bill No.: HB 1508 Digest: Probate and trust matters.
Authors/Coauthors: Koch, Kuzman, Foley
04/16/2007 H House concurred in Senate amendments; Roll Call 552: Yeas 93, Nays 1
———————————————————————————————————–
Bill No.: HB 1653 Digest: Sexual misconduct with an inmate.
Authors/Coauthors: Dembowski, Duncan, Elrod, Mays
04/16/2007 H House concurred in Senate amendments; Roll Call 553: Yeas 93, Nays 0
———————————————————————————————————–
Bill No.: HB 1726 Digest: Missing children.
Authors/Coauthors: Dembowski, Walorski
04/16/2007 H House concurred in Senate amendments; Roll Call 555: Yeas 95, Nays 0
———————————————————————————————————–
Bill No.: HB 1778 Digest: Juvenile law and child care.
Authors/Coauthors: Summers, Hinkle, Turner
04/16/2007 H House concurred in Senate amendments; Roll Call 554: Yeas 93, Nays 0
———————————————————————————————————–
Senate bills after the break

[Read more…]

Rep. Jackie Walorski failed in her attampt to repeal Indiana Code 20-19-5. It was an amendment she tried to stick into SB 566. The code provision she was trying to repeal requires the department of education, the department of correction, and the division of mental health and addiction to coordinate a children’s social, emotional, and behavior health plan that provides recommendations concerning mental health services, early intervention, and treatment services for children under 22 months of age. Basically, it tries to set up a plan to get social, emotional, and mental health services to infants who need them.

I’m just a little perplexed why this particular bit of bureaucracy was targeted for elimination. The Walorski amendment failed 38 to 60. She also failed by a vote of 34 to 64 in her attempt to amend SB 504 to get rid of the bit that provides that an individual who has been convicted of a felony involving a controlled substance, that does not include an element of distribution or manufacturing of controlled substances, and has completed or is participating in certain substance abuse treatment programs or mental health programs may receive assistance under TANF for up to 12 months. So, not a highly successful day for Ms. Walorski, I guess.

I’m awake as we attempt to re-train my daughter to sleep in her bed (read: let her scream it out at 4:30 in the morning), so I figured I’d troll the Internet to see what kind of political stories are out there at the moment. The pickings are pretty slim this early in the morning:

Lawmakers facing tough negotiations — Bryan Corbin, writing for the Evansville Courier Press runs down the upcoming negotiations in the General Assembly: I-69, the budget, gambling, funding health coverage, increasing the minimum wage, the HPV vaccine, and fireworks.

Also in the Courier Press, by Thomas Langhorne, an article on Brad Ellsworth’s 2008 re-election chances.

The Terre Haute TribStar has the results of a poll of residents of West Central Indiana on their opinions of Gov. Daniels. They like the idea of increasing cigarette taxes to pay for health care, and the option of full-day kindergarten. They don’t like outsourcing major government functions or privatizing the lottery. Wait, never mind, the article refers to a web-based poll on Sen. Tim Skinner’s website where nobody even knows how many respondents there were. Nice piece of journalism.

Good round up from yesterday in the Indy Star by Mary Beth Schneider and Theodore Kim on where the General Assembly stands as we head into the end game. (Oddly, years after the Indiana Law Blog debunked the notion that the General Assembly is actually mandated to pass a budget, references like these are still common: “The only thing that can force lawmakers to meet beyond the April 29 session deadline is failure to pass a state budget.” It’s definitely a good idea, and there would be hell to pay if they didn’t do it, but it doesn’t actually seem to be required by the state Constitution.)

Also in yesterday’s Indy Star is an article discussing Gov. Daniels disappearing act. He’s normally been quite chatty with the press. But since mid-February, he hasn’t been talking that much. The speculation in the article is that, after shooting himself in the foot by lipping off about what he called a “whopping big tax increase” sponsored by the Democrats, the Dems slashed the Governor’s proposed cigarette increase, dealing a serious blow to the Governor’s health care initiative. Daniels said, “I’ve learned in the last couple of years that while the General Assembly’s meeting, I need to be careful. You know, let ’em work and not do too much color commentary, because even when you don’t intend to, your words can sometimes have consequences or can be misunderstood.”

Lesley Stedman Weidenbener has an article on the Senate’s budget plans in an article for the Louisville Courier Journal entitled Senate GOP budget plan outlined. The Senate will hear the budget bill (HB 1001) today in the Senate Appropriations committee. Committee Chairman Bob Meeks didn’t release the plan but outlined its contents to Ms. Weidenbener. It provides money for full day kindergarten, but does not mandate that it be provided. Also, the plan would reportedly:

Boost overall spending about 4 percent annually, the level that Gov. Mitch Daniels recommended after the state’s most recent revenue forecast. It would leave the state with more than $1.1 billion in its main checking account and reserves.

Increase spending on public schools by 3.4 percent in 2008 and 2009. That’s less than the House version of the budget, which raised spending about 4 percent each year, but more than schools have received in recent budget cycles.

Give universities overall spending increases of 3.4 percent in 2008 and 4.5 percent in 2009. The budget includes more money for research and provides tens of millions of dollars in bonding authority for university construction projects. A list of those projects will be available today.

Increased funding for Medicaid and prisons at the levels requested by the Daniels administration. The House plan kept funding for both at current levels.

Provides funding for 200 additional child-welfare caseworkers, about half the number Daniels requested.

After the budget passes the Senate, the House & Senate will have to hammer out a compromise for final passage.

[tags]HB1001-2007, budget[/tags]

Senate Bill 320 creating the state board of massage therapy and providing for the certification of massage therapists cleared the House by a vote of 52 to 39. Seems like House Democrats were mostly in favor while Republicans were mostly opposed. If the Senate doesn’t object to the House amendments or if they can hammer out the differences, we’ll have a newly regulated profession. Under the proposed legislation, they’ll yank your certification if you’ve been convicted of prostitution, rape, or sexual misconduct.

I’m generally against licensure bills where I don’t see a pressing need. This bill is no exception.

[tags]SB320-2007, professional licensure[/tags]

Lesley Stedman Weidenbener has an article entitled Marriage amendment shelved on the subject of the House Rules Committee’s defeat of SJR 7 which would amend the Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman and would also prohibit the extension of a legal incident of marriage to an unmarried couple.

I disagree with Ms. Weidenbener’s seemingly editorial comment that “The primary focus of the amendment is to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” An amendment does not really have a focus. It is says what it says, no more, no less. I don’t see how the first section of the amendment, defining marriage, is more or less important than the second section of the amendment restricting the extension of legal rights to unmarried couples. But, in any event, she is quite correct when she says that the second section has been the greater subject of controversy during the debate this session.

House Rules Chairman Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, said that after hours of testimony on the proposal last month, he still doesn’t have a definition of the “legal incidents of marriage.”

“I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I’ve said that many times,” Pelath said. “I’m mostly concerned about putting things in the constitution I don’t feel we understand absolutely what they do.”

The second section said this:

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.

Once again, broken down into its broadest application, it says, Indiana law may not be construed to require that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples. Rep. Eric Turner, a supporter of this provision claims that this section does not limit the General Assembly. How can he make this claim? The General Assembly passes a law conferring legal incidents of marriage (whatever those may be) upon an unmarried couple. The law is unenforceable because a court is constitutionally prohibited from construing such a law the way the General Assembly wrote it. If he’s saying that permitting the General Assembly to pass only uneforceable laws does not constitute a limitation, then he’s an idiot. If he’s not saying that, then he needs to explain himself.

A handful of Indiana’s largest employers, including Eli Lilly, Cummins, and WellPoint deserve credit. They publicly told the General Assembly that this backward legislation (my words, not theirs) was bad for business.

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

Theodore Kim of the Indy Star is reporting that the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee has moved, by a vote of 12-0, a property tax relief bill with measures proposed by Senator Kenley.

The complex plan, offered by Senate Tax Chairman Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville in several lengthy amendments to a House bill, would shift some local school, child welfare and juvenile incarceration costs from property tax rolls to the state.

The plan also would temporarily increase the homestead tax credit; give counties the power to raise local income taxes to pay specifically for property tax relief; and create a local control board to review local construction projects that are paid through property taxes.

The devil, as always, is in the details, but the provisions described in the article all sound like reasonable measures. For my part, property taxes don’t seem to make a great deal of sense any more. They are not as good a measure of one’s income or wealth as they once were, particularly back in the agrarian days where property taxation generally has its roots. I think they still have their place, but we need to rely on them much, much less.

I just posted a comment at Advance Indiana in response to that blog’s apt criticism of House Minority Leader, Brian Bosma’s proposal to “clarify” the intent of SJR 7. Bosma essentially wants to offer a “statement of legislative intent” to tell the courts what the legislature “really” meant when it passed SJR 7, particularly the second sentence which prohibits a court from construing a law as conveying an incident of marriage to an unmarried couple (even if, presumably, the law conveys an incident of marriage to an unmarried couple.)

First, unlike Congress, Indiana doesn’t do legislative histories. I’ve never seen the Indiana courts go to a resolution of the General Assembly to divine intent. Maybe that’s happened somewhere, I don’t know. But, I do know that the courts won’t go fishing around for legislative intent if the language in the legislation is clear. If the law says “up,” the court won’t pay any attention to a resolution that says the General Assembly really meant “down.”

Seems to me that proposing a clarifying resolution is basically admitting that the General Assembly did not do its job in the first place. It didn’t clearly articulate the law it was seeking to impose. I’m fairly certain this is a feature, not a bug, for certain politicians — if they stated their intent clearly, the electorate would run screaming.

The drafting manual used by Legislative Services when drafting legislation for the Indiana General Assembly says, with respect to “purpose provisions”:

“(2) Purpose Provisions [see also BILL PREAMBLE, Page 25]

A well-drafted act requires no statement of what it seeks to accomplish or the reasons prompting its enactment. Do not include language stating the purpose of an act or reciting the facts upon which an act is predicated unless the included language would be useful in upholding the act against constitutional attack or is necessary to give meaning to a provision for liberal construction.”

There will be no “constitutional attack” here — after all this will *be* the Constitution. If clarity in drafting is a priority in creating ordinary legislation, seems to me it should be doubly so with respect to Constitutional draftsmanship.

I haven’t really had a chance to read the news this morning, opting instead to play with my kids (we took a walk around the neighborhood – Cole on his bike and Harper in the backpack). But, I had a couple of thoughts as I scanned some of the blogs this morning.

First, Thomas over at Blue Indiana has a post that mentions the fact that Gov. Daniels has never had to work anything out with Democrats during his term. It occurs to me that the next couple of weeks will really be the best indicator of how effective he is as a Governor of Indiana. The first two years weren’t really a test because his party controlled everything. Next year probably won’t be a good indicator because both parties will be more obstinate than usual with a big election coming up. Right now is crunch time for the Governor’s legislative proposals. He controls his own office. The Senate is packed with Republicans. And the House has only a slim majority of Democrats. Seemingly, it would not be too much to ask for him to manage enough bipartisan negotiating skill to get his proposals past a relatively low hurdle. Bayh and O’Bannon did a reasonably good job with the much tougher task of getting past Sen. Garton and a Senate dominated by the opposition. So, we’ll see how Gov. Daniels fares under these more favorable conditions.

Left in Aboite has a post about an effort called Blog Against Theocracy. This effort makes me a little uneasy for reasons that I cannot yet fully articulate. I have been pretty clear in my opposition to Dominionist political efforts and influence. But this effort feels broader somehow. Maybe I’m wrong, but the tone of Blog against Theocracy doesn’t seem to make nice distinctions between people of faith who hold certain moral and world views but are content to live and let live while doing their best to improve the world and those people who don’t do much to improve the world but, instead, spend their energy seeking to make government a vector for their views. I’m o.k. with the former, very opposed to the latter. Just to be clear, however, that’s just the initial “vibe” I get from Blog against Theocracy, not the result of any kind of thorough examination.