A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

SB 91 – Voter ID for Absentee Voters

by 1 Comment

SB 91, introduced by Sen Young, appears to address the determination that Indiana’s Voter ID law is unconstitutional because of disparate treatment between in-person voting and absentee voting where the former is required to provide identification and the latter is not.

Title 3 of the Indiana Code concerning election law is always such a mess, it gives me a headache when I try to unravel it. I suspect that, in certain quarters, this is seen as a feature rather than a bug. Anyway, I’m not going to pretend I could spot anything unfortunate in this legislation if it’s there. In any case, SB 91 would require the election board to add the following to the absentee ballot application form:

(d) The form prescribed by the commission must require that a voter who requests an absentee ballot provide one (1) of the following:
(1) A description of and the identification number for the proof of identification the voter would submit if the voter were voting in person.
(2) The last four (4) digits of the voter’s Social Security number, if:
(A) the voter does not provide a description of the proof of identification; or
(B) the proof of identification does not have an identification number.

I’m not sure what “description” of identification means. “Well, it’s on paper and it’s kind of tan, and I think the font is Times New Roman.” Or maybe it just means “It’s my driver’s license and I double pinky swear that it isn’t expired.” Anyway, so far as I can see, this doesn’t really address the Court of Appeals’ objection unless in-person voters can also satisfy the Voter ID requirement by just giving the last four digits of their social security number.

SB 89 – Use of DNA Evidence

by 6 Comments

The consequences for having a black sheep in your family could be getting a little higher than just good gossip and awkward silences at family gatherings. SB 89, introduced by Senator Zakas, allows the Superintendent of the State Police to authorize an investigation of a person genetically related to another person whose DNA record is stored in the Indiana DNA data base. Such an investigation is permitted where there is a DNA sample under investigation that’s close but not quite a match to the person already in the database.

I don’t know if “investigation” is a term of art in this situation or if it means the same thing as for any other crime where the police reasonably suspect that a person might have committed a crime. If it means that they can come and get your DNA just because cousin Billy is a screw up, that’s a little creepy.

SB 88 – Conversion of Leased Motor Vehicles

by Leave a Comment

SB 88, introduced by Senator Tallian, increases the crime of conversion when it involves a leased motor vehicle. Conversion, is sort of theft’s younger brother in the realm of criminal offenses. Theft requires some sort of intent to deprive a person of the value of their property. Conversion requires only that a person exercise unauthorized control over the property of another.

Normally, conversion is a Class A misdemeanor. Under SB 88, the penalty would be increased to a Class D felony if it involved a motor vehicle worth more than $5,000 for which the person signed an agreement specifying its return at a certain place and time if the person fails for more than 10 days to return the property (or 5 days after a written demand is served on the renter.)

Current law also has enhancements to conversion of motor vehicles if they are used to commit a crime.

SB 85 – Disclaimer of Property to Avoid Child Support

by 4 Comments

SB 85, introduced by Senator Broden, prohibits an individual from disclaiming an interest in property if the disclaimant is delinquent in the payment of child support.

I wonder how often this comes up. I do as much family law as I care to – which is to say, none – but I hope to get better acquainted with wills and estates which is, I believe, where the disclaimer business generally comes up.

Indiana’s Shifting Tax Policy

by 1 Comment

Meranda Watling, writing for the Lafayette Journal & Courier, has an outstanding summary of the tax situation for local government over the past decade. And, even better, one of her sources was Everybody’s Favorite Economist, Larry Deboer.

To summarize even more briefly, the property tax situation became destabilized back in 1998 when, due to the Town of St. John litigation started back in 1993, the Indiana Supreme Court ordered an overhaul of the way Indiana handled its property taxes. (See Dagney Faulk’s “How We Got Here from There.”) The way Indiana handled its assessments was pretty artificial. There were formulas that ended up undervaluing certain properties. For example, expensive old homes had relatively low assessments. (Hence, I believe, the anger among the Indianapolis Meridian crowd.)

Switching to a market based assessment resulted in an upheaval. Those with undervalued assessments suddenly saw a sharp increase in their property tax burden. The General Assembly scrambled with a variety of approaches, including a significant property tax replacement credit for homeowners and property tax caps. Where we stand now, homeowners have a similar tax burden, landlords are paying more, and businesses are paying somewhat less. And, we are shifting from reliance on a fairly predictable property tax to a more volatile sales tax. The shift was assisted by a 16% increase in the sales tax which accompanied the property tax caps.

I think this quote summarizes the feeling of many local officials:

“I’d like to see the whole system stabilized,” said Kim Fox, Tippecanoe School Corp. chief financial officer. “There’s such a push not to increase taxes. But at least make it so we know what we’re getting and it can come in on time.”

Not only have local officials been subjected to uncertainty about what revenues would be available, but also uncertainty as to when they would be available. The desire of some, mostly state level, officials to blame the problem on overspending by local government is unfortunate. There has been a tectonic shift in how we finance government and, since fecal matter runs down hill, the most local levels of government seem to be left cleaning up the mess.

Hopefully the next decade will be marked by a more predictable tax system. I wish I could remember the quote, but there was a Supreme Court Justice who wrote something along the lines of “it is some times more important that the law be clear than that it be entirely correct.” In the tax field, I think that’s often the case. Even where constant wrangling over tax policy leads to slightly better policy, those gains can be more than offset by the lack of predictability.

SB 78 – Disposition of Corpses

by 2 Comments

Sen. Deig has introduced SB 78 which concerns the disposition of a decedent who appears to have died from murder, manslaughter, or other criminal act. The normal rules of who gets to make decisions about the remains are suspended where the decedent had a restraining order against the person who would normally make the decision.

Sounds reasonable to me.

SB 57 – Planning for Unincorporated County Areas

by Leave a Comment

SB 57, introduced by Senator Steele, creates a public question process to determine whether a county should adopt a comprehensive zoning ordinance. A county legislative body is permitted to put a public question on the ballot or it can be compelled to put one on the ballot if 10% of the voters in the unincorporated portions of the county sign a petition. The public question would ask whether the county should “exercise planning and zoning.” The question can be binding or non-binding, but that has to be specified in advance.

An affirmative vote on a binding question would require the county to adopt a planning ordinance within two years. A negative vote would prohibit adoption of an ordinance for two years. A new public question could not be held for another four years.

SB 18 – Texting While Driving

by 8 Comments

Senator Holdman has introduced SB 18 which is designed to curb the scourge de jour – texting while driving. I should probably create a “ripped from the headlines” legislative category. Every year, it seems there is an issue or two that captures the media’s attention for awhile, thereby making its way into a legislative agenda.

In this bill, a new section is added to IC 9-21-8 which says “A person may not use a telecommunications device to transmit a text message or electronic mail message while operating a moving motor vehicle.”

This bill highlights some of the difficulties in drafting legislation. Sometimes it’s tough to keep up with technology. The bill changes the definition of “telecommunications device” to include “The term includes a: (1) wireless telephone; (2) personal digital assistant; (3) pager; or (4) text messaging device.” But, at times, you’ll find the difficulty of keeping up with new technology is really a matter of confusing the bottle with the wine. Often enough, even if the drafter recognizes this problem, there isn’t much to be done if the courts or the legislator are focused on the bottle.

In this case, the problem being addressed is the fact that the driver isn’t paying attention to the road. Whether the attention is focused on a text message, a cell phone, a book, a CD case, a map, or a screaming child isn’t terribly important in terms of the actual risk of driving while not paying attention. But, the way the politics are set up and probably the way the case law has developed, simply attempting to penalize “driving while distracted” probably would not be effective, even though that’s the real problem.

SB 68 – Sunday Motorcycle Sales

by 10 Comments

Senator Charbonneau has introduced SB 68 which really puzzles me. It allows for Sunday motorcycle sales but otherwise leaves intact the prohibition on Sunday motor vehicle sales.

I don’t pretend to understand the justification for the prohibition on Sunday motor vehicle sales, but assuming for the sake of argument that there is a legitimate purpose for the ban, what distinction could there be between motorcycles and other motor vehicles that makes selling motorcycles on Sunday permissible but selling other vehicles a criminal offense.

SB 77 – Reimbursement by State for Borrowing Costs to Local Government

by Leave a Comment

Senator Deig has introduced SB 77 which requires the state to reimburse local government for borrowing costs in certain situations. Specifically where: (1) the department of local government finance ordered a reassessment of real property for the assessment date in 2006; (2) the billing of property taxes in the county in 2007 was late; and (3) as a result, the taxing unit had to borrow for current operations.

Not a bad idea. It should probably be more expansive since there are a number of other situations in which the State gums up the property tax works and local government ends up borrowing money due to the delay.