Sen. Zakas has introduced SB 60 addressing the issue of faithless electors. This bill appears to implement a process to ensure that Presidential electors vote for the candidate the elector has promised to vote for. As I presume everybody knows by now, in Presidential elections, citizens do not get to vote for the Presidential candidate directly. Instead they vote for a slate of electors who will presumably cast electoral votes for the candidate who won the majority of popular votes in the state. My understanding is that some states have penalties for “faithless electors” and some do not — these are electors who vote for someone other than the candidate to whom they are pledged. Sen. Zakas’ bill would essentially void any faithless electoral vote cast and allow the remaining electors, presumably still faithful, to go find someone who will also vote the right way.

I’m not aware of this ever being a problem in Indiana.

Sen. Meeks has introduced SB 39 entitled “responsibility for implementing natural resource doctrine.” I’m not familiar with environmental law, but I suspect the law has something to do with the recent scandal involving DNR’s approval of allowing BP’s Whiting plant to dump more toxic waste into Lake Michigan.

Requires the department of natural resources (DNR) to implement the public trust doctrine with respect to public freshwater lakes. Requires the natural resources commission to adopt rules identifying at least one division in DNR to implement the public trust doctrine with respect to public freshwater lakes. Adds “wildlife” to the definition of “natural resources”.

Well, on further review, maybe this doesn’t have anything to do with BP’s Whiting dumping. Sen. Meeks bill amends IC 14-26-2 which concerns “public freshwater lakes” – the term is defined specifically to exclude Lake Michigan. IC 14-26-2 sets forth some “public rights” with respect to these lakes. My best guess is that nobody at DNR is particularly in charge of enforcing these public rights and, therefore, this statute, as implemented, is more or less worthless. Perhaps Sen. Meeks is trying to make sure that it’s somebody’s job to look out for these rights. Just a guess, though.

Update Looks like Sen. Meeks’ SB 41 involves public freshwater lakes as well

[tags]environmental law[/tags]

Bryan Corbin, writing for the Evansville Courier Press, has an article on legislative efforts with respect to the Shepard-Kernan local government restructuring plan;

A Southwestern Indiana lawmaker, Rep. Dave Crooks, is introducing a bill that would assign all 27 Kernan-Shepard recommendations to a summer study committee of the Legislature. There isn’t time during the Legislature’s 2008 short session to consider the Kernan-Shepard plan, Crooks said. But a summer study committee would be able to thoroughly explore the ideas in preparation for the 2009 session.

Meanwhile, Senator Mike Delph wants to leap before he looks too hard:

Sen. Mike Delph plans to introduce a bill containing portions of the Kernan-Shepard plan in the 2008 session.

“Whether we get all components of the bill done, that will be for the will of the Legislature. But we at least ought to introduce a vehicle to move forward a discussion of the costs of government,” Delph said.

A short session before a major election year where you have major property tax restructuring as the order of the day? That seems like a particularly bad time to push local government restructuring, particularly where you have only a relatively brief report as a blueprint. To my knowledge, nobody has actually run any numbers to determine how much these proposed changes will supposedly save in the way of tax dollars or what costs we might be looking at in terms of direct restructuring costs or indirect reductions in government services. And moving the restructuring in pieces also seems potentially questionable — you always run the risk of passing the easy stuff while the harder stuff gets defeated, leaving you with an incomplete mess that doesn’t do anybody much good.

Niki Kelly, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, has an article on SB 17 which would affect Tax Increment Finance Districts.

The legislation examines TIF districts, which allow a city or county to capture property taxes generated by new development and spend the tax revenue on projects that benefit the area.

Most often they are used to entice businesses by promising infrastructure improvements done upfront with the promise of property taxes from the district paying off the bonds in the future.

But that means the money is not going to support taxing units of that area, such as schools, which shifts the burden to other taxpayers.

State wide, according to LSA, about 2.4% of assessed value is in TIF districts.

The legislation would create a remonstrance process by which obtaining 100 signatures could significantly delay issuance of a TIF bond and delay a TIF project. Another provision would prohibit expanding the district unless the existing area doesn’t generate sufficient revenue to fund the original project.

Proponents of TIF districts complain that this bill would damage a valuable economic development tool. Senator Kenley listened politely and probably understood their concerns but noted that taxpayers and their need to pay lower property taxes had to be considered.

It seems to me that the tendency is to continue with economic development uses of TIF money once the original project is completed. When you crunch the numbers at the end of any given TIF project, the reduction to taxpayers generally by letting the TIF district expire is minimal — usually a couple of bucks. The development that can be accomplished by keeping the TIF district probably seems much more attractive. But, on the other hand, I suppose it all adds up.

Lesley Stedman Weidenbener, writing for the Louisville Courier Journal has an article entitled “Meeks changes course, favors a casino move.” Apparently Senator Meeks was instrumental in blocking a casino license for Clark County down in southern Indiana. Now he is seeking to have an existing license from the Gary area to Meeks’ own Steuben County. Clark County officials are “curious” about Meeks’ apparent change of heart. With everything else on the table for the session, such legislation is viewed as a long shot.

I have mixed thoughts about Rep. Bischoff’s HB 1045 which creates the “courthouse preservation advisory commission.” On the one hand, creeping government. Yet another commission when efforts are afoot to slash government. On the other hand, I think Indiana really has a lot of really great courthouses that provide an important anchor for their respective communities.

The commission would be charged with traveling to county courthouses to assess potential courthouse rehabilitation projects, including appraisal of the condition of the courthouse and rehabilitation cost estimates; providing early coordination for courthouse rehabilitation projects to encourage proper preservation practices; reviewing and providing recommendations on architectural plans for courthouse related projects; and providing county officials with information concerning funding sources for courthouse preservation projects.

I travel to 8 or 10 counties in the regular course of my practice. Most of them have excellent courthouses. Some do not. For example, Cass County courts are housed in what looks to be just another government building that conveys no particular sense of authority at all. White County is a little like that as well, but I’ll cut them major slack since their courthouse was wiped out by a tornado. These are major community resources that ought to be preserved. Whether this proposed commission will do much good is an open question.

SB 85 by Senator Steele legalizes switchblades but criminalizes “ballistic knives” which are knives with blades “with a detachable blade that may be expelled from the handle or frame of the knife.”