The superintendent of my school district has written a letter urging that parents, teachers, and taxpayers contact their representatives (in our case, that would be Rep. Truitt) to express opposition to HB 1003 concerning school vouchers.

According to our Superintendent:

If House Bill 1003 passes, it will decrease funding to traditional public schools for over 1.1 million public school students and divert those public tax dollars to help pay for about 20,000 students’ private or parochial school tuition. This type of education reform does not help all students, but rather undermines the quality of public education available for all children.

It does not take many students using vouchers to have a significant impact on one school district. For example, using the statewide funding average, if just 150 students use vouchers, that results in more than $1 million less funding for one single public school district alone. Vouchers will reduce funding available for public education.

Our legislature needs to hear from you that you believe private school tuition should not be paid for 20,000 students at the expense of one million public school students.

More generally, I’m not in favor of these “money follows the student,” per capita school funding philosophies. These are not student entitlements. The money is not for the student’s exclusive benefit. Everyone in the community – with or without children – pay to support the schools. The schools are for the benefit of the community. An educated population is a public good. Typically vouchers propose to give individual students or families authority to re-allocate funds well in excess of money they’ve actually contributed to the school funds.

The per capita funding mechanisms also ignore the fact that some students are more difficult to educate than others – some have learning disabilities, others lack interested parents, and probably a million other variables. Pretending that each student is entitled to or requires exactly the same amount of money to educate throws the system out of whack. So long as we are committed to public education for everyone, our funding mechanisms have to recognize the fact that some students require more effort than others.

One aspect of legislation that remains a mystery to most people, including many in the legal profession, is the non-code section of a statute. Most legislation amends the Indiana Code in some fashion – it modifies an existing part of the code or adds a new code section. But, at the tail end of some legislation you’ll see provisions that don’t amend any sections of the Indiana Code.

Typically, these non-code provisions are used for transitional measures or other provisions that won’t be law long enough to justify having them clutter up the Code for years or decades after they become inactive. For example, let’s say you want to create a board of 3 people with staggered 3 year terms such that, every year, a new board member is replacing an old one. For the first couple of years, you’d have board members with abbreviated terms – Member 1 has a one year term, Member 2 has a two year term, and Member 3 has the standard three year term. After that, everyone has the standard three year term and, because of the abbreviated initial terms, the following standard terms are staggered. There is no very good reason to make the language concerning the initial staggered terms into permanent additions to the Indiana Code. So, you write them as Non-Code provisions – having the force of law, but which don’t show up in the Code.

Anyway, the Legislative Services Agency and the Code Revision Commission of the General Assembly have put forth the extraordinary effort of cleaning up the mess that has accumulated in the Non-Code stables since 1984. SB 490, authored by Sens. Holdman, Delph, and Taylor contains a general repeal of Non-Code provisions with a laundry list of exemptions. The bill is generally impenetrable, even to a legislative geek like myself. So, I’ll just trust in the LSA and the Code Revision Commission to have done it right as they so often do.

And, once again, I’ll take the time to comment on how much better our code of laws is than most of the others I’ve seen. Say what you will about the stupor inducing language of legislation; the Indiana Code is generally a relatively easy to read document, particularly when compared to the United States Code and other state codes. And we owe that to the employees of the Legislative Services Agency, the legislators and experts who serve on the Code Revision Commission, and the leadership of the General Assembly which has generally been willing to put aside their other differences to agree on rules that have made our Code a very usable document.

Eric Bradner, writing for the Evansville Courier Press, has a column about the Indiana Democrats’ notable lack of message, youth, or energy during a time when they’re in the wilderness.

At the heart of the Democratic demise is an identity crisis. The political climate is harsh, but this isn’t about relitigating the last election. It’s about what happens between that one and the next one, as Democrats try to find a way forward.

The problem is, the people who used to provide their ideas are long gone, and those who are offering new ways forward are — in too many places, at least, and especially during this year’s state legislative session — being pushed to the side.

As far as I can tell, there has been no concerted effort to organize and galvanize young talent. The party’s old guard is squashing what could become its new generation.

Near as I can figure, the two Democratic power centers in Indiana have been embodied by former state House speaker, Pat Bauer, and former U.S. Senator, Evan Bayh. Bauer’s reputation is as a person who is more feared than loved, and I’ve never heard him accused of being a big idea man. Bauer’s most recent moment of ignominy was voting for the marriage rights discrimination amendment. As for Sen. Bayh, he occasionally talked a good game, but in terms of actual accomplishments while he was in office, nothing really stands out except his undeniable ability to improve his own status.

Bradner points out that so far the state Republicans have devoted a lot of their energy moving social conservative wish list stuff – guns everywhere, abortions nowhere; that kind of thing. I think the desire to move those things has been frustrated for years by the Democratic house, and it’s kind of sling-shotting forward. Abdul at Indiana Barrister has suggested that, privately, some unnamed Republicans are concerned that this legislation isn’t necessarily a great idea and they should be focused on other things. But, it seems to me, these more level-headed Republicans have relied on the opposition party to keep the right wing of their party in check. They’ve been silent for so long, the silence has become acquiescence.

The Circle of Life laws of political physics suggests that this swing of the pendulum opens up opportunities on the left end of the political spectrum, but if all Hoosiers can see out of the Democrats are Pat Bauer and the leavings of Evan Bayh, those opportunities won’t amount to much.

Some stuff that happened yesterday in Indianapolis:

HB 1158 – Reported out of committee – Use of handheld wireless communications device while operating a motor vehicle. For purposes of determining whether a person has committed criminal recklessness or has recklessly killed another human being, the trier of fact may consider, in addition to other relevant factors, whether the person used a handheld wireless communications device while operating a moving motor vehicle.

HB 1203 – passed out of committee. This seems to be anti-card check legislation. To the extent permitted by federal law, this prevents union organization through the card check method and only allows union organization through secret ballots.

HB 1210 concerning abortion – Passed out of committee. Requires a physician to inform the pregnant woman that the fetus might feel pain. Requires a pregnant woman seeking an abortion to view fetal ultrasound imaging unless the pregnant woman states in writing that the pregnant woman does not want to view the fetal ultrasound imaging. Requires a physician who performs an abortion to: (1) have admitting privileges at a hospital in the county or in a county adjacent to the county where the abortion is performed; and (2) notify the patient of the hospital location where the patient can receive follow-up care by the physician. Prohibits qualified health plans under the federal health care reform law from providing coverage for abortion.

HB 1474 – passed out of committee. Abortion information reports. Provides that the information forms to be completed by medical facilities where abortions are performed must: (1) elicit disclosure of the age of the father; (2) include the date the pregnancy was terminated; and (2) include the date the form was received by the state department of health (department). Provides that if an abortion is performed on a female who is less than 14 years of age, the physician who performed the abortion shall transmit the information form to the department not less than three days after the abortion is performed.

HB 1538 – Passed out of committee. Minimum wage by local government. Prohibits local government from establishing a minimum wage within its jurisdiction unless otherwise permitted by state or federal law.

HB 1543 – Passed out of committee. Landlord-Tenant regulation by local government. Adds additional notice requirements to provide notice to landlords that a regulation is being considered. Prohibits a requirement that landlords be licensed or registered. Prohibits fees for many inspections. Prohibits inspections of rental property without probable cause.

SB 18 – Handheld devices while driving. Passed the Senate by a vote of 29-21. Makes texting (or reading) from a handheld device while driving a Class C infraction.

SB 97. Third party funding of lawsuits. Passed the house 36 – 14. It requires the funding agency to be registered, for its contract with the plaintiff to be written and disclose fees, it must allow the plaintiff to cancel the agreement, and it has to include a statement that the funding agency does not have a right to control the litigation.

SB 463 – Mandatory retirement age for judges. Passed the Senate by a vote of 43-7. Repeals provisions with retirement ages for superior and county court judges.

SB 495 – Lawsuits by school corporations. Passed the Senate by a vote of 33 – 16. Prohibits schools from using state funds to sue the state.

SB 500 – Massage therapists. Requires massage therapists to be licensed by the state. (Currently, they are permitted to be certified by the state which allows them to advertise their certification.) Prohibits local government from regulating massage therapists.

SB 506 – handgun possession. Passed the Senate by a vote of 43 – 7. Expands the conditions under which a person may possess a handgun without a valid license.

SB 520 – Foreign law. Passed the Senate 60 – 0. Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law or a contractual provision calling for the enforcement of a foreign law if doing so would violate a right conferred by the Indiana or U.S. Constitution. Voids contractual provisions calling for the application of foreign law or transfer to a foreign venue unless the contract explicitly provides for a choice of laws.

SB 590 – Illegal Immigration matters. Passed out of committee. This bill does a lot of things that get the State more deeply involved in the immigration business.

There were a lot of other things, but I just flat ran out of time.

The House passed HJR 6 which constitutionally mandates discriminatory treatment for gays with respect to not only marriage but also legal statuses for unmarried people that are “substantially similar” to that of marriage.

Here is the roll call. This was a bipartisan effort. Notably, House Minority Leader Pat Bauer voted for the measure.

Update: I’ll just go ahead and add a few thoughts I’ve posted in various discussions I’ve had since this vote was taken. None of it is new, I don’t think. I’ve expressed them in these parts before. But, they bear repeating.

I’m a little struck by how much my own feelings on this issue have progressed. Until about ’92, I guess I was pretty flat out anti-gay. Then, I was indifferent. Then, I figured civil unions but not marriage. Now, all of those positions seem benighted to me. I think sexual orientation (straight or gay) is just how you’re born. It’s who you are. And, now I have close friends who I know to be gay. (Had some of ’em before, just didn’t know their orientation). It strikes me as fundamentally unfair to deny them the basic right of organizing their family in the same way I get to do.

In addition, I don’t get why “traditional marriage” needs to be “defended” from this or how this serves a defensive purpose. It’s not as if I’m any less married if the gay couple down the street get to commit to each other. We’re not going to run out of marriage. I don’t see how allowing gay marriage picks my pocket or breaks my leg (to paraphrase Jefferson). And, it’s not about one’s belief that marriage equality is “wrong.” It prohibits those who think it is right from enjoying the legal benefits of marriage. It further prohibits future General Assemblies from deciding that gay Hoosiers ought to have access to such legal benefits. These prohibitions can’t be chalked up to a simple difference of opinion in an “agree to disagree” fashion. It’s not as if we’re attempting to prohibit mandatory gay marriage.

Rep. Crawford successfully added an interesting amendment to HB 1008. The introduced bill basically raised the maximum venture capital investment tax credit from $500,000 to $1,000,000. Rep. Crawford’s amendment makes that increase contingent on the economic development commission studying and producing a report on the number and characteristics of jobs that have been created before July 1, 2011, because of the credit.

The amendment was mostly, but by no means exclusively, supported by Democrats. The venture capital investment tax credit chapter, IC 6-3.1-24, gives the Indiana Economic Development Commission a lot of leeway in determining what constitutes an Indiana business qualified for the credit. There are a few types of business that are specifically excluded from eligibility; but otherwise, if it brings capital into Indiana, creates jobs, or “otherwise significantly promotes the purposes of the chapter,” the commission can give its blessing. I would think there has to be a major concern that this may just be giving well connected businesses a way to avoid tax liability without necessarily doing a lot to enhance Indiana’s economy. Rep. Crawford’s amendment addresses that concern to some extent.

HB 1006 is a big old mess of a bill. The digest description characterizes the bill as being about “entrepreneurial know-how.” I might be throwing a friend from LSA under the bus by calling out that title since, when I was there anyway, it was the LSA drafters who have to come up with the digest information. But, you have to give them something to work with, and this one isn’t really a concise, easily described bill.

The first part tells the Secretary of State to develop a web site that’s essentially one-stop shopping for a business to submit information to the State about the business’ formation, existence, or other activities for the purpose of complying with the requirements of state law, including requirements concerning pre-establishment; establishment; registration; licenses or permits; filings or reports; and
transacting payments or refunds. I stressed the “including” because that means that means the list isn’t exhaustive. It’s not clear that the website has to be sufficient to allow the business to submit all of its information to the State – but it’s also not clear that any exceptions are contemplated. All other state agencies are directed to assist the Secretary of State in this endeavor. Money in the electronic and enhanced access fund may be used to develop and maintain the website.

Next the bill the bill requires the IEDC (Indiana Economic Development Corp.) to include, in its annual report to the general assembly, methods for collaborating with local economic development organizations and with economic development agencies in contiguous states and also requires the IEDC to collaborate with those economic development agencies.

Now, the bill shifts gears even more dramatically and allows high schools to develop entrepreneurship curriculum and submit it to the state board of education for approval. Finally, the bill requires the commission for higher education to inventory entrepreneurship programs conducted by colleges and display the inventory on the commission’s web site for the use of students, after consulting with the department of workforce development and the Indiana economic development corporation.

Two Associated Press stories from the social legislation front caught my eye this morning. First, is by Deanna Martin, is a bill that would hike marriage fees unless the couple takes classes first.

The second, unattributed, is a bill that would mandate that doctors tell their patients that human life begins at conception. There are something like nine bills with abortion in their description, so I’m not sure which one this article has in mind.

No time for me to hold forth on these at the moment. Talk amongst yourselves.

The House Judiciary Committee passed HJR 6 on a party line vote. This bill provides:

Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana.

The question is who is going to be the lucky man and who is going to be the lucky woman. Maybe they’ll have a lottery or something. And wouldn’t it suck if they were already married to someone else?

The proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution also provides:

A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

So, if you’re just shacking up together and want to provide for the orderly transition of property and care of the children and whatnot, maybe Indiana is not the state for you.

I’ve said it before. I’ve come to believe this kind of legislation is on the wrong side of history, is actively bad, and will come to be regarded as an anachronism. And, this is probably why there is a desperate push to enshrine it into the Constitution. Because, sooner or later, the people of Indiana will probably want to treat gays like ordinary people and this proposed amendment to the Constitution is designed to make that harder. After all, we already have a law that does this, and the Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld it (h/t Advance Indiana). I doubt the law will last forever, but when the law is ready to go, I don’t think we’ll do ourselves any favors by having this language in our state Constitution.