The Evansville Courier Press has an article with an update on last week’s legislative activity and the upcoming schedule:

Looking ahead to the coming week:

– Long days are likely ahead for legislators. Monday is the last day to amend Senate bills; Wednesday is the deadline to pass Senate bills and send them to the House. Meanwhile, Tuesday is the deadline for the House to pass its bills and send them to the Senate. On Monday alone, the House has 80 third-reading bills on its docket.

– A proposal affecting the funding available for I-69, House Bill 1830, is eligible for a conclusive third-reading vote Monday.

Of the $1.1 billion in the Major Moves construction fund, House Bill 1830 would spend $60 million on local road and street projects instead of the 10-year list of major highway projects that INDOT had already planned, such as I-69.

Authored by Democratic Rep. Terri Austin, House Bill 1830 would tap the investment earnings on the Major Moves fund but not the principal. An INDOT spokesman warned last week that INDOT was counting on the interest, too, to fund its 10-year projects list and if the money is tapped, it could create funding problems in the “out” years.

– A proposal to outsource the state lottery and use the money for life-sciences research and for college scholarships goes before the full Senate this week. Senate Bill 577 was passed Tuesday by a Senate committee, 7-5. The bill would allow Gov. Daniels to lease the Hoosier Lottery to a private company that would operate it and collect the profits. In exchange, the company would pay the state $1 billion up front and another $200 million each year.

– A ban on “serial meetings” is eligible for amendments Monday. Senate Bill 103 would prohibit elected boards or university trustees from breaking into groups smaller than a quorum and then voting behind closed doors to circumvent the Open Door Law. The Senate bill has some exceptions for officials to make economic-development visits, for example, and it allows university boards to conduct videoconferencing. It was approved by a Senate committee last week and now goes to the full Senate.

House Bill 1337 Smoking in a vehicle with children. Rep. Charlie Brown. This bill was defeated by a vote of 43 to 51. It would have subjected people to a $25 fine if they were smoking in a vehicle with a child less than 13 years old. This law would not have been primarily enforceable — in other words, law enforcement would not have been permitted to stop a person for violating this law, but could only be cited in conjunction with a stop for some other sort of violation. It also would have prohibited smoking near a public mass transportation terminal.

I don’t know all the party affiliations of the Representatives on sight, but I see that some of the Democrats who voted against this bill are Representatives Dvorak, Crooks, and Battles.

All I can say, and trust me on this as a child of smokers: cigarette smoke gets to the way back of a station wagon much, much faster than the air conditioning.

[tags]HB1337-2007, public health[/tags]

House Bill 1299 – Senior fishing licenses. Rep. Bischoff.

Currently, Indiana citizens who are at least 65 years old are exempt from the requirement that they have a fishing license and that they have a trout-salmon stamp when taking trout or salmon. The proposed legislation would change that to individuals born before April 1, 1943. So, people who currently have the exemption would keep it, but if you will turn 65 on April 1, 2008, you’re out of luck. In the future, however, seniors would be able to buy an annual fishing license for $3 and a “fish for life” license for $17.

Passed 96 to 0.

Are we awash in elderly fishing such that we have to make them pay their $3 per year?
[tags]HB1299-2007[/tags]

House Bill 1001 went through Second Reading today. Looks like there were a number of party line votes on proposed amendments.

Rep. Crawford, by a vote of 49 to 48, passed an amendment that did a number of things, among which was require that, for the 2007-2008 school year, schools offer full-day kindergarten to children eligible to receive free or reduced price lunch and, for 2008-2009, offer full-day kindergarten to all children in those schools whose percentage of children eligible for free or reduced priced lunches are above the state average. It also exempts the NFL and its teams and corporations from taxation on property, revenues, and expenditures in conjcunction with holding a Super Bowl in Indiana. It also creates a “Prekindergarten Grant Pilot Program.”

There was bipartisan support (90 to 5) for Rep. Borror’s amendment to appropriate $2 million to the Indiana economic development corporation to assist small businesses.

Seven other amendments offered by House Republicans were defeated by narrow margins.

Technorati Tags: HB1001-2007, budget

One of the things that surprised me when I started drafting legislation for the General Assembly was how often the proposed legislation was the result of one incident that affected one constituent who went to their legislator. Almost always the issue was one that affected more than that particular constituent, but frequently it was the isolated case that started the legislative process moving. Prior to my experience as a drafter, I had always had a vague notion that legislators identified issues of general interest and began legislation based on broad concerns rather than particular incidents.

I was reminded of the specific nature of legislation yesterday when the particular case that started Rep. Torr’s efforts via HB 1020 to offer a tax break for stillbirths wrote in to comment on a blog post I had put up. Rep. Torr was kind enough to comment on his motivation for introducing the bill as well.

My suspicion when I discussed the bill and speculated on its intent was that it was part of a broader effort by pro-life advocates to broaden the legal definitions of when rights accrue to the unborn. This suspicion was fueled by the fact that Rep. John Hostettler had introduced similar legislation on the federal level back in July of 2005. Hostettler was a committed soldier in the pro-life army, so I don’t doubt for a moment that his legislation was part of the pro-life effort. Rep. Torr, unlike Rep. Hostettler, is not a zealot. So, I believe him when he tells us that he didn’t have any broader effort in mind. His constituents simply came to him with a tragic case, and he wanted to help.

This isn’t a particularly good example because it’s pretty easy to conclude that a lot of people go through the hardship of suffering a stillbirth, and the circumstances probably don’t change a great deal from one case to the next. But, I believe that, in general, having particular instances of hardship trigger legislation is a bad idea. Hard cases, as they say, make bad law. Instead, my preference would be for legislators to have general policy goals and to collect particular cases as data to guide them on those policy goals. That’s probably just me living in a fantasy land, however.

[tags]HB1020-2007, legislative process[/tags]

The Journal & Courier has a particularly unreflective editorial entitled With lottery in private hands, all win. They spend a lot of time gushing about what a good thing it would be to spend more on education and combat brain drain. Given unlimited resources, I agree, that would be a swell thing to do. So, we’ll just focus on the resources.

The editorial simply states that a private purchaser would pay $1 billion up front and $200 million annually plus a percentage of the take, and then states “that’s a lot of money.” But, they offer us no comparison. And, they make no effort to understand the opposition — 1) either we’re giving up more than we’re getting and/or 2) the only way the private contractor is giving up more than we’re currently getting AND will make money on the deal is if the contractor increases lottery participation, i.e. encourages more Hoosiers to dump more money into the lottery. Neither of those things are good things. But, here is the “justification” that made me roll my eyes:

But it’s hard to understand why any lawmaker would object to the lottery deal. Indiana’s other gambling endeavors are run by private groups.

Caesar’s Indiana in Elizabeth, Casino Aztar in Evansville and French Lick Resort and Casino — none is state owned. Neither are the horse tracks. So why should the Hoosier Lottery be the exception?

It’s not at all “hard to understand” for reasons #1 and #2 stated above. But, why does the editorial board think the quoted passage is an argument for privatizing the lottery. Why not have the State run the businesses mentioned above. Why should the State settle for a percentage of the take when it could have the whole thing? Normally, we want businesses to thrive because we want their goods and services distributed as widely as possible at the lowest possible price. The way to do that is to allow entrepreneurs to profit if they figure out how to make a good product and sell as much of it as they can as cheaply as possible. But, gambling is different. By and large, good public policy would be to frown upon spreading gambling as widely as possible. If that’s the case, then there is no reason for the state to share the profits. If total gambling in Indiana is less, but the State’s profits are more, I’d call that win-win. (At least if we accept the premise that gambling is socially troublesome — otherwise, we have to explain why we don’t just go for a casino on every corner.)

Senate Bill 461 One map for Indiana. Sen. Ford:

Provides that the state data center shall develop and maintain the Indiana map, an electronic map of Indiana. Provides that the state data center shall provide public access to Indiana map data, except for data that the governor designates as a security risk. Provides that the state data center shall serve as the state names authority for Indiana under federal law. Establishes the electronic map maintenance fund.

This could potentially be useful if administered well. It calls for the development of one Indiana electronic map, including the integration of data developed and maintained by state agencies and political subdivisions. But, I’m kind of a techno-geek and love maps, so this one kind of caters to me.

[tags]SB461-2007[/tags]

House Bill 1033 Weather radios in manufactured homes. Rep. Hoy:

Requires that a manufactured home that is installed in a mobile home community be equipped with a weather radio. Provides that a mobile home operator is encouraged to provide a written reminder to the manufactured home owners in the mobile home community to replace batteries in a weather radio or smoke detector contained in the manufactured home.

I’ve already said I think this bill is a little silly. I think ordinary radios ought to be sufficient to warn someone of severe weather, and if residents choose not to equip themselves with a radio, well, you take your chances, and life is full of choices and danger. Others have offered cogent disagreement.

But, much as I have a problem with the policy being advanced here, it pales in comparison to the trouble I have with the legislature inserting this crap into the Indiana Code:

IC 16-41-27-16.6 – Each year during National Fire Prevention Week, the operator of a mobile home community is encouraged to provide a written reminder to the owners of all manufactured homes in the mobile home community to replace the batteries in all weather radios contained in their manufactured homes.

This isn’t a press release. This isn’t a resolution. You don’t use the Indiana Code to “encourage” people to do things. This is a code of laws. You use laws to restrict behavior that is otherwise permitted, permit behavior that is otherwise restricted, and to compel particular actions. Sometimes you use one or a combination of those uses to induce particular behavior (see the tax code), but a statement saying “Gee, it’d be nice if you did x, y, or z” is out of place in a Code of Laws.

The Indiana Code is, in my humble opinion, one of the best codes in the country. (If you want a look at something just god awful in terms of articulation and organization, take a look at the United States Code). We should keep our code in good shape by leaving mere editorial comments out of it.

[tags]HB1033-2007, public safety[/tags]

Niki Kelly, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has an article on the Indiana budget bill entitled House, governor trade jabs on budget. The governor regards it as a “political document,” setting things up for negotiations later. The bill provides for full-day kindergarten, something the governor supports. However, it also provides for average budget growth of 4% per year, up from the Governor’s recommended 3.8%. The prediction is that revenues will grow by 4.2%. But, the bill does so by flat-lining Medicaid expenditures — an unrealistic assumption.

Education funding is increased in the Democratic budget proposal. While not going so much with the Republican-preferred education funding formula that basically has a fixed amount per student, the Democrats did depart from the automatic increase for all school districts regardless of enrollment. Instead, their plan “puts more money into the complexity index, which is weighted heavily toward students who require more resources to teach because of various societal factors such as income and parental status. The change largely aids urban school districts.”

There is a lot more in there, and I highly recommend the article. Ms. Kelly does good work.

Technorati Tags: budget

Once again, the General Assembly is considering legislating a scientific fact. Back in the 19th century, the General Assembly attempted to legislate the value of pi. Now, they’re giving another shot at trying to define when human life begins and, perhaps worse, compelling a woman’s doctor to endorse the General Assembly’s fiat. (See my prior blog entry on the subject here.) Rich Callahan, writing for the Associated Press, has an article entitled Abortion bill sets when life begins which discusses SB 172. The bill was heard in Senator Miller’s Committee on Health and Provider Services. No votes were taken after the hearing, but it might come up for a vote next week.

The bill requires a physician inform a pregnant woman that a fetus might feel pain, and also give notice to the patient in writing at least 18 hours before an abortion concerning the availability of adoptions, concerning physical risks to the woman in having an abortion, and stating that human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.

At the hearing, the bill drew criticism from at least two religious groups, Rev. Michael D. Mather of Broadway United Methodist Church and David Sklar and Linsdsey Mintz of the Jewish Community Relations Council:

[He] told the committee that not even fellow Methodists agree on when human life begins. As written, Mather said the legislation represents one religious viewpoint — the belief that human physical life commences when a sperm fertilizes an egg.

“I believe that what is matter of faith should not be a matter of law,” he told the panel.

David Sklar, an intern at the Jewish Community Relations Council, read a statement by the Indianapolis group that called the bill’s declaration that life begins at conception “blatantly indifferent” to diverse religious beliefs, including Jewish tradition.

“This bill establishes a particular religious opinion as legal fact, and sets a very dangerous precedent violating the separation of church and state,” said the statement by Lindsey Mintz, the group’s director of government affairs.

Technorati Tags: sb172-2007, abortion