Senator Young’s SB 351 would require as opposed to permit the issuance of a license, under rules established by the Natural Resources Commission, to harvest, possess, and sell the roe of shovelnose sturgeon, paddlefish, and bowfin. “Roe,” as the statute helpfully explains, refers to the eggs or gametes of one of these fish. It also requires issuance of licenses to nonresidents — currently the statute speaks only to licensure of state residents.

Mainly this bill stood out to me as one of those laws that struck me as oddly specific. It reminds me of just how wide ranging our laws can be and how much legislators are expected to know and how lobbyists can become influential. Knowledgeable as a particular lawmaker may be, there is going to be an enormous range of things they don’t know about and they’re going to turn to someone to clue them in. Lobbyists, if they’re doing their job, will be ready and willing to provide explanations.

Senator Tomes, joined by Senators Kruse and Holdman, have introduced SB 251 concerning The Lord’s Prayer in schools.

It states:

In order that each student recognize the importance of spiritual development in establishing character and becoming a good citizen, the governing body of a school corporation or the equivalent authority of a charter school may require the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of each school day. The prayer may be recited by a teacher, a student, or the class of students.

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen such a nonsequitur in legislation before. I’m skeptical that recitation leads to good citizenship. But, in any event, the legislation graciously permits the school’s governing body to pick which version of the Lord’s Prayer to use and allows parents or students to not participate.

I see from the Wikipedia article that The Lord’s Prayer appears in Jesus’ discourse on ostentation in the Gospel of Matthew wherein Jesus cautions against public displays of piety mainly having the purpose of letting others see you pray. That would seem to make the irony of this legislation fairly thick. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating that this type of attempt at having government sanctioned prayer looks like nothing so much as the effort of a small but vocal subset of Christians to mark their territory. “This school is ours – we’ll tolerate you, if we must, but don’t forget who is running the show.”

Not even subtle in this case. They could just as easily have said prayer generically, knowing that given demographics, the prayer would always be either neutral or some flavor of Christianity. It would never be anything contrary to Christianity, but at least they’d have a fig leaf of neutrality. But, by raising up The Lord’s Prayer, they aren’t even pretending that non-Christian religions are entitled to anything like equal consideration. And now, when the inevitable push back comes from people with concerns about behaving in a manner that’s Constitutional, or even just neighborly, the subset of territory markers can wallow in their self-inflicted martyrdom.

Update Jacie Shoaf, writing for the Evansville Courier Press has an article on this issue. Sen. Tomes said he just introduced it to have a discussion about it.

He said he wanted the prayer in schools in order to help children “recognize right from wrong or good from bad.”

Never mind that the Lord’s Prayer has very little to say about right and wrong. It tells us that there is a God is in heaven, that his name is hallowed, that his kingdom is coming, that his will should be done, that we should be forgiven for our wrongs and should do the same for others, requests that God deliver us for evil, and that God is super cool. It looks to me more like a statement of powerlessness and submission than any kind of lesson about good and bad.

But, as Ken Falk of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union said, ““The reason there’s not going to be a hearing is because it’s unconstitutional.”

SB 193 concerning financial disclosures by local candidates passed out of committee. Candidates for local offices (not including judicial, for purposes of this legislation) are required to file with their declaration of candidacy a financial disclosure that includes for the candidate and the candidate’s spouse, the name of their employers as well as any corporations or partnerships of which they were partners, directors, or officers.

Senators Hersman and Miller have introduced SB 310 which attempts to address Medicaid Fraud. It expands the types of assistance for which a person becomes ineligible after being convicted of public assistance fraud or tax fraud from Medicaid to any public support, including Medical assistance, Township assistance, Food stamps, Direct relief, Unemployment compensation, or “Any other form of support or aid.”

The period of ineligibility would be one year for misdemeanors and ten years for felonies. It also has a provision that would be useful to me in my work as a defense attorney, requiring a Medicaid recipient to notify the office of medicaid policy and planning of a claim the person is asserting against a third party for costs paid by Medicaid (e.g. recipient gets in a car crash; Medicaid pays the resulting medical bills; recipient sues person who caused the accident — now recipient would have to notify Medicaid.) At that point, Medicaid would have to send the third party a itemized list of medical bills and a notice of intent to hold a lien on the proceeds. This should facilitate making sure Medicaid gets paid back — perhaps it would prompt the Office to be more responsive to requests where the parties in a law suit are trying to settle a claim and need to get Medicaid to agree to its cut in order to finalize the settlement. (The intent of this legislation is probably more aimed at making sure the Medicaid recipient doesn’t just pocket the cash without making Medicaid aware that it’s entitled to reimbursement.)

Eric Weddle, writing for the Lafayette Journal & Courier has a good article entitled Right to work creating roadblock for other measures; though I’m probably not entirely unbiased since I get a quote in the article.

The article reviews some of the legislation that’s being held up by the right-to-work bottleneck, including the one banning human trafficking and the statewide smoking ban which supporters would like to have in place when the Super Bowl comes to Indy.

The Senate Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters passed SB 4 on human trafficking. It prohibits knowingly or intentionally recruiting, harboring, or transporting a child less than sixteen (16) years of age with the intent of engaging the child in forced labor or involuntary servitude; or with the intent of inducing or causing the child to engage in prostitution or participate in sexual conduct (as defined by IC 35-42-4-4). It’s not a defense that the child consents to the activity.

SB 1 concerning the right to defend against unlawful entry is a reaction to the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Barnes v. State. It appears to give individuals the right to resist residential entry by law enforcement officers under limited circumstances. But only if the resident doesn’t actually know it’s a law enforcement officer.

Just as a reminder, the basic facts in the Barnes case:

The police apparently got called to the apartment to respond to domestic violence in process. Husband was throwing stuff around the apartment and had apparently ripped a phone out of Wife’s hands and thrown it against the wall. When the police got there, Husband & Wife met the police in the parking lot. Police followed them back to the apartment, Husband barred entry while Wife said things like “just let them in.” Police tried to force their way, and Husband resisted physically.

The first red flag I see in the proposed legislation is that it has a “purpose” subdivision. In my mind, legislation is supposed to be telling who gets to do what to whom and under what circumstances. “Purpose” provisions are attempts to talk over some lack of articulation; lack spackling a hole in the wall.

But, on to the meat of the legislation. It says, A person may use force to prevent or a law enforcement officer’s unlawful entry into the person’s dwelling or into the dwelling of a member of the person’s immediate family if the intruder is not wearing a police uniform and has not identified themselves as a police officer. The person can also resist entry if the police officer is not engaged in the enforcement of the officer’s official duty. The person can use physical force and is not required to retreat.

However, the provision does not apply to any of the following:

(1) An investigation of suspected domestic or family violence (as defined in IC 34-6-2-34.5).
(2) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer who has a reasonable belief that a person inside the dwelling has been or is at risk of physical harm.
(3) An entry into a residence by invitation of at least one (1) adult resident, unless one (1) or more other adult residents
object to the entry.
(4) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer in hot pursuit.
(5) A person who is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime.
(6) The entry into a dwelling by a law enforcement officer with a warrant.

What a recipe for disaster. The resident believes the intruder is not an officer. The officer believes someone inside has been or is at risk of physical harm. Neither knows what the other is thinking. Officer attempts to enter. Resident resists physically. Officer is harmed. Resident goes to jail for assaulting a police officer because the law didn’t apply because the police officer reasonably believed someone was at risk of harm.

Rep. Moses’ HB 1085 would regulate hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). Disclosure: my sister-in-law has had her ground water contaminated down in Texas, such that applying fire to it causes it to develop a plastic skin — so I’m biased on the subject.

Anyway, this bill defines the term as meaning “the process of injecting specially blended liquids and propping agents under high pressure to create fractures in underground formations through which oil, water, or gas can flow into a wellbore. The term includes the acquisition of source water, well construction, well stimulation, and waste disposal. The term does not include the underground injection of natural gas for the purpose of storage.”

It assigns to the Natural Resource Commission the task of regulating fracking. An operator would require to obtain approval for an environmental compliance plan that includes, (1) well location and total depth; (2) A list of injection fluids and propping agents used in the hydraulic fracturing process; (3) The chemical constituents and additives used in, and wastes generated during, the hydraulic fracturing process; (4) A detailed geographic analysis of the well and its surrounding area, including the rock type and the direction and magnitude of regional tectonic stresses; (5) The results of any predrilling or prealteration survey performed on the well with respect to the hydraulic fracturing process; and (6) An analysis of whether the proposed hydraulic fracturing process will pollute or otherwise endanger water or land in Indiana.

It also contains a provision that requires the Commission to come up with a process whereby an operator could be required to disclose a proprietary formula in the case of a medical emergency – e.g., if there is a suspicion that the fluids used in fracking are related to someone’s health issue, and it would be useful for medical professionals to know what chemicals are involved.

Rep. Borders’ HB 1066 would allow a city, town, or county to establish an ordinance court for the purpose of (as the name would suggest) adjudicating ordinance violations. The bill provides for a limit on ordinance court costs in the amount of $100. If this thing goes forward, I’d suggest that the legislature clarify that this does not (or does, if that’s the intent) affect the potential penalty of $2,500 for ordinance violations — but just sets the outer boundaries for court costs of an Ordinance Court.

In any case, I imagine the Indiana Supreme Court will be thrilled by this legislation. Seems like the trend over the past decades has been to move away from justices of the peace; city courts; and the like. So, this would be moving in reverse.