Lesley Stedman Weidenbener, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, has an article on what the House Democrats are up to in Illinois. I’ve mentioned before that I think it’s wrong to characterize the House Democrats as “not working” because they are in Illinois. That frame implies that they are wage slaves whose job is to warm seats in the committee rooms and House chambers and to push a button when the time comes.

At the end of the day, a legislators primary function is about communication. They receive information from constituents. The receive information about proposed legislation. They analyze proposed legislation, propose some of their own, and communicate what they perceive the strength and weaknesses to be. And, they try to enact good legislation into law and prevent bad legislation from becoming law. Very little of this requires much in the way of physical presence in a particular place.

The real frustration, of course, is that their physical absence prevents the Republicans from doing what they perceive as being their job. It’s not as popular, however, for the Republicans to say that “the Democrats are preventing us from doing our job,” because that makes them look weak; and there is a tendency toward tough-guy bravado in political rhetoric.

The article also mentions the Wednesday meeting between Reps. Bauer and Bosma. This really all boils down to those two guys. If they don’t agree, nothing is going to happen. If they do agree, their respective caucuses will fall in line — though it seems that Bauer has tighter control over his caucus than Bosma. I might well be wrong, but Bauer seems able to tell his caucus what to do. At times, Bosma looks like he watches where his caucus is going, then runs to the front of the line so it looks like he’s leading. Given that I don’t always like where either of them is going, I can’t say which leadership style is superior.

This is an odd one. Until I see confirmation of some sort, I’ll hold open the possibility that Sen. Lawson did not really send this e-mail to a Libertarian party member and that it’s a hoax of some sort.

But, the Libertarian Party of Indiana has posted what at least purports to be an e-mail from Sen. Lawson to an unnamed member of the Libertarian Party, described by LPIN (in the linked post anyway) only as “a leader.”

Apparently, Sen. Lawson takes issue with the Libertarians making any kind of vigorous advocacy in opposition to HJR 6, which, as you will recall, is the proposed constitutional amendment which would prohibit recognition of a legal status “substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals” and, additionally, limits the benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples.

Anyway, the state Libertarians oppose this amendment as an effort to insert discrimination into the Indiana Constitution.

So, Sen. Lawson has a different view of things than the Libertarians. Nothing to see there. The weirdness comes when she asks them, essentially, to shut up about it already. Here is the letter as posted by LPIN — the letter refers to posts on a Facebook page. (Not sure if it’s the Republican or Libertarian state Facebook page).

Dear ____,

It has been quite some time since we have last spoken. I appreciate your continued concern about LGBT rights here in Indiana. As you know, we have taken recent strides to assist the state in strengthening marriage. Our state boasts one of the highest rates of divorce in the nation and we are seeking to help reduce these issues through marriage counseling programs and by constitutionally changing the way that marriage works here in Indiana.

I have come to realize that you have helped drive the Libertarian Party of Indiana’s most recent views against HJR-6 and SJR-13. While you do understand that I appreciate and respect your views on this issue, I do request that you keep these posts to a minimum. The Republican Party of Indiana does not wish to cause issue with the Libertarian Party of Indiana in any way, but should these oppositions continue to occur, we may have to make some structural adjustments.

I do appreciate your views and think that you have done a magnificent job in articulating an adequate viewpoint on these issues. While they are viewed as the most basic civil rights issues of our day, it should also be noted that continual political polarization in Indiana and in the United States could result in serious consequence should we not provide support and coalition together for the greater good of all Hoosiers.

I will keep you informed of the bills that are passing through the Senate this year and will continue to have open dialogue. I do request that you cease postings in this issue and help them die slowly so that the State House will be able to see the true nature of the people of Indiana and not of politics as usual.

Sincerely,

Senator Connie Lawson

(Emphasis added). I wonder what the heck “structural adjustments” might be. Sounds ominous.

UpdateCapandWash is saying that the letter is forged.

Update #2 LPIN is standing by their post. They presented a printed copy of the letter to the State GOP last Friday to confirm or deny and did not receive a reply.

Update #3LPIN is now saying they are convinced that the e-mail was a fake. But, they detail their efforts to verify the authenticity of the e-mail prior to their press release. Sounds like the folks they tried to talk to at the state Republican Party and in Sen. Lawson’s office weren’t responsive.

Whoever wrote the e-mail, I will always thank them for bringing “structural adjustments” into my vocabulary.

Brian Howey, long time commenter on the Indiana General Assembly, has a column in the Evansville Courier Press on the Democratic walk-out that doesn’t jibe too well with how the legislative process actually seems to work. He’s been watching the General Assembly a lot longer than I have, so I assume he knows better, but his column seems to reflect an idea that the “work” of the House of Representatives occurs on the floor or in the committee room. I say it doesn’t.

The bumper sticker criticism of Democrats (generally, maybe but not necessarily made by Howey) is that “they need to get back to work” as if they’re wage slaves paid by the piece of legislation. I only got to observe the General Assembly from a particular angle when I worked for LSA and now watch them mostly through the newspapers, but it seems to me that most of the work of your average legislator takes place away from the floor or committee room. Often, they phone in their bill requests. You can read legislation anywhere. And, the crux of the matter is that the fate of pretty much every bill seems to be determined before it gets to the floor of the House or into the committee room. Public testimony and legislative debate always looked to be more for show than because it had much utility in affecting a vote.

Absent House Democrats can still make and receive phone calls or e-mails or other communication from constituents and fellow legislators as to their ideas and opinions on pending legislation and willingness to vote in favor or against. As for the idea that legislation should receive a hearing and the process should allow it to be debated and rise or fall on its merits with a vote, that’s a great School House Rock version of the democratic process, but ignores that the majority of bills die without ever getting a committee hearing.

Let me emphasize that: the normal fate of a bill is to die without hearing. The legislator introduces the bill, the bill gets assigned to committee, and the committee chair never gives it a hearing. So, the idea — and I’m not sure that Howey is advancing this one himself, necessarily — that it’s some sort of miscarriage of justice if the Democratic walkout deprives a bill of the opportunity for debate and a vote, is ridiculous on its face. Most bills don’t get debated, and most bills don’t get voted on.

I’m tired of the walkout too. The Democrats need to be reasonable, the Republicans need to be flexible, and they should get on with it. I know supporters of the Republicans feel like they shouldn’t have to bother with the Democrats because they won big in 2010. But, the Democrats are showing them why they have to be dealt with. The Constitution requires 2/3s for a quorum, and the Republicans didn’t win quite enough seats in the House to make the Democrats entirely irrelevant.

The Democrats are close to “freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose” territory. As an electoral matter, they need to avoid standing in the way of legislation the public is crying out for. I don’t see a lot of that being proposed, let alone blocked. If the Republicans want to paint the Democrats as being unreasonable, they need to do a better job of explaining what, if anything, they have offered. I think the public will recognize that, since the Republicans have majorities, they shouldn’t have to offer much before concluding that Democrats are being unreasonable. But, if their “offer” consists of little more than getting red in the face and saying “do it,” (or issuing progressively stiffer fines) voters will primarily chalk it up to more partisan bickering and go back to watching basketball.

So, we’re doing the whole Spring Break thing with the kids, meaning that I’ve been neglecting the blog. And, frankly, I think it’s healthy to disengage from the daily news from time to time. There is a toxicity to it that can’t be good for one’s mental health. You start thinking things are bad from the daily stories you read even when the objective facts of your own life are fairly pleasant. (Says the privileged middle-class white guy, anyway.)

From what I’ve gleaned, the House Democrats are still AWOL, though I haven’t bothered to read about the particulars of the back and forth between Bosma and Bauer. Indiana probably needs both of those guys to step back and let others in their caucuses lead.

Charlie White sounds like he’ll hold on like grim death to his position as Secretary of State while his fellow Republicans would rather he just go away now that he’s secured the position for their party (assuming the Democrats don’t have success with their challenge that would put Vop Osili in office).

HoosierOne and others continue to fight the good fight in favor of marriage equality and against the discrimination amendment (which goes beyond marriage to mandate – depending on the vagaries of the term “substantially similar” – that unmarried couples be deprived of benefits enjoyed by married couples.)

Abroad, things are apparently bad in Japan. Hopefully we’re rethinking our nuclear strategy. Damage from unplanned disasters is a cost that needs to be factored into the overall equation when deciding what kind of energy is the most cost effective.

I’m sure there are other things going on, but I’m going to enjoy the sun for awhile. Talk amongst yourselves.

I don’t know the details of how the voucher program as contemplated in Indiana will work, so this is an honest question. Will vouchers be available for kids and families already going to private schools? In other words, will we be subsidizing their current behavior. And, if so, is this expected to be a significant expense of the voucher program?

The idea of vouchers for kids trapped in a dying school has some resonance. The idea of spending extra money on kids and families already willing and able to avoid public schools doesn’t.

Niki Kelly, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, has an article on the current state of the session with the Democratic House members still in exile. I’d only take issue with a couple of points. First:

The two legal responsibilities of legislators are to pass a budget every two years and redraw political boundary maps every decade with new census data.

I’m not sure that’s the case. For a long time, it got bandied about that there was a Constitutional responsibility for the General Assembly to pass a budget. There isn’t. Here, Niki Kelly says that it’s a “legal responsibility.” That covers more ground, so I can’t say she’s wrong. But, I’ve never seen that spelled out in the Indiana Code. Certainly it’s a good idea and critical to the functioning of the State. But, I don’t believe I’ve seen budget responsibilities elevated above other legislative responsibilities in the Constitution or the Code. Nevertheless, every two years, I see newspaper articles asserting that the budget is legally special in some fashion.

The other is that Democrats would bear sole responsibility for a special session if one was necessary because of their walkout. That’s not entirely true. Republicans could offer concessions that would induce the Democrats to come back. I can understand them thinking they shouldn’t have to, and certainly understand that they don’t want to. But, it is within their power. If there is a special session, one reason for that session is that the House Republicans chose not to exercise that power.

Taking Republican responsibility completely out of the equation reminds me of a post-fight interview I saw with “Merciless” Ray Mercer after he had knocked out Tommy Morrison. Mercer had beaten the hell out of Morrison, including a punch or two as Morrison was on his way to the mat. Mercer said, “Fight should’ve been stopped; man could’ve been killed.” As if he had no personal capacity to stop beating on a guy, even if the guy was going to die, until the fight was stopped.

Again, I understand why they wouldn’t want to give an inch to the Democrats and why they even feel they shouldn’t have to. Voters may well blame Democrats more. But, Republicans aren’t entirely without responsibility here.

What to think of the current standoff in the state House of Representatives now that House Democrats have exiled themselves, bringing business in the House to a standstill for lack of a quorum?

The House G.O.P. reminds me of one of those receivers that catches a deep pass in the open field, then starts showboating short of the end zone before being stripped by a second-stringer too dumb or stubborn to know the game is supposed to be over. It’s all the more maddening because the guy who stripped the ball is a short dude with bad hair.

For years, it’s been a field position game with the Democrats and Republicans going back and forth across the 50 yard line. The Democrats would have the Governor’s mansion, the G.O.P. would have the Senate and the Congressional delegation, and they’d ebb back and forth with control of the House. Then, the G.O.P. took the Governor’s mansion, but ended up losing the House and Congressional delegation. This year, however, the Republicans connected long – keeping the Governor’s mansion (however gently that house actually gets used), increasing their perpetual majority in the Senate, taking a monstrous 60-40 lead in the House, capturing Bayh’s Senate seat, and taking a 6-3 majority in the Congress.

Publicly, anyway, Gov. Daniels sounded like the seasoned quarterback – when you get to the end zone, act like you’ve been there before. Tone down the social issues, focus on conservative economic priorities, and leave right-to-work alone. Sadly, no. House Republicans seemed to have started their victory dance at about the 20 yard line – a Constitutional Amendment discriminating against gays; lots of abortion stuff; and then, the bridge too far – right to work. That provided the opening for the uninspiring, but undeniably gritty, Pat Bauer to come and strip the ball by staging a walkout. Now, instead of walking into the end zone, the Republicans find themselves facing a goal line stand from about the 2 yard line. They may well punch the ball in anyway, but now they’re going to have to work for it.

While the Indiana House was at a stand still due to the House Democrats’ labor supporting exile, the Indiana Senate moved a lot of paper. A couple of the more contested issues:

SB 575 – eroding teacher collective bargaining options. Passed the Senate, 30-19. It was a losing effort, but I was pleased to see my Senator was one of the few Republicans voting “nay.”

SJR 10 – More mucking about with the constitution and union busting. In this case, a constitutional amendment requiring a secret ballot vote for organizing a union at a place of employment to the extent allowed by federal law. Passed by a vote of 32 – 16.

SB 328 – A whole bunch of anti-abortion provisions – the doctor has to tell the patient a lot of stuff to make the woman feel bad about what an awful thing she’s doing; there is increased bureaucracy for a medical provider, and the state department of health has to have abortion information on its website. Passed 39 – 9.

SB 192 – Directing the criminal sentencing study committee to study issues related to marijuana, such as whether it should be illegal and, if so, at what amounts and whether medical use of marijuana should be permitted. Passed 28-21. Passage of this one really surprised me.

Out of time for now.

Robert Enders, an Allen County Libertarian, I believe, has some interesting thoughts on “right to work” legislation. I recommend the whole post, but here is the gist:

Employers have a right to require an employee to join a union, just as they have a right to insist that a worker receive training or attend certain classes. Admittedly, many now wish to give up this right and have lobbied the state legislature to that end. . . . The government has been used as a weapon by both labor and management against each other in disputes. It’s wrong when either side does it.

The right to work legislation is intended to limited the freedom of an employer and a union to contract. In particular, it prohibits union shop provisions in labor contracts. I suspect employers want this limitation. It’s easier to point at the law, and say, “nope, we can’t put this into a contract” than it is to stand firm on negotiations.

Proponents of this law say it’s all about the rights of potential employees who might not want to be part of a union shop. But, since when has there been overwhelming concern about potential employees objecting to a condition of employment? Almost universally, the response in Indiana anyway is along the lines of “tough shit. You don’t like the terms, go work somewhere else.” But, suddenly, when the condition is paying union dues or their equivalent as opposed to, say, cutting your hair or dressing professionally or having reliable transportation or whatever; suddenly, it’s a moral imperative that potential employees be able to disregard an employer’s condition of employment.

House Democrats have apparently left the state in an effort to deny the House a quorum to vote on the “right to work” legislation. Today is the deadline for the House to adopt committee reports one of which is HB 1468 – a right to work bill voted out of the Labor Committee. Under the House Rules, February 25 is the deadline for bills to pass third reading.

In response to the House Democrats procedural move to prevent a quorum, I’ve seen some online discussion about how they are cowards and need to come back to do their jobs. Regardless of what you might think of their policy preferences, I’d argue that it takes more effort and courage for them to do what they’re doing. It would have been dead easy and required no courage for them to go meekly like lambs to the slaughter and warm some seats for a few hours while the House majority passed its agenda.

Their job is to negotiate for the best policies they can (as they see it.) Maybe they won’t have any luck negotiating anything better. Maybe they’ll get punished at the polls. But, the 2010 election results suggests that obstruction can be rewarded. I wasn’t a huge fan of the unprecedented filibustering in the U.S. Senate. But, those were the rules of that particular game, and that filibustering engendered no apparent backlash. The House Democrats are using the last arrow in their quiver. Time will tell if it hits its mark, flies wide, or wounds some of their own. And, if future general assemblies don’t want to deal with this kind of thing, they’ll need to re-write the quorum rules.