Chris Sikich, writing for the Indianapolis Star, has an article entitled Indiana legislature to continue ban on Sunday carry-out alcohol sales. House Public Policy Committee Chairman Bill Davis (R-Portland)has decided that a bill lifting the ban on Sunday sales of alcohol won’t get a committee vote.

Indiana will, therefore, remain the last state in the country banning Sunday sales of beer, wine, and liquor on Sundays at retail stores.

This law is a pointless anachronism, and it ought to be opposed by those ostensibly in favor of the free market and small government. At least rhetorically, Hoosier lawmakers are in favor of those things. There is no real reason why we should treat package liquor stores differently than other kinds of merchants who, all things being equal, would rather reduce competition with big box stores.

Of course, when it comes to Sunday alcohol sales, my real concern is not with those big philosophical issues. I can dress up my personal concerns in clothing of broad political and economic policy positions. But, in reality, I just want to be able to buy beer on Sundays. If this were a Tuesday ban on scrapbooking materials, I doubt the issue would ever grace this blog; because I would not care. Saturdays and Sundays are the days when I’m most likely to get out to a store. Beer is one of my favorite things to buy. So, it’s not infrequent that it occurs to me on a Sunday that I’d like to be able to pick up some beer.

And, that’s really the point, I think. It’s not just that liquor store owners want a day off. It’s also that Sundays are one of the days when customers are most likely to be in a big box store for something or other. If liquor is an option, customers will pick that up at the big box store while they’re out. On the other hand, if the customer has made his or her trip to the box store on Sunday; then has to make a separate trip for beer or wine, there is a bigger chance the customer will just drop by the package liquor store rather than hassling with the ginormous parking lot and crowds of people between him and his 6-pack.

Still, I’m selfish, the plight of the liquor store owner does not keep me awake nights when I’m contemplating my desire for slightly more convenient access to alcohol. But, fortunately, all is not lost. The General Assembly does permit me the liberty of going down to People’s Brewing and picking up a growler of Mr. Brown on a Sunday if I’m so inclined.

Rumor has it that SB 280 introduced by Sen. Delph will get a committee hearing tomorrow.

It begins by specifying that the legislation does not apply to litigation covered under IC 2-3-8 or 9. Those chapters give the General Assembly authority to employ private attorneys (rather than the Attorney General) to defend challenges to legislative or Congressional districts; and to employ private attorneys (rather than the Attorney General) to defend lawsuits against individual legislators, agents of the General Assembly, or the General Assembly as a body.

Sen. Delph’s bill would give an individual legislator standing to intervene in an action challenging legislation if in the opinion of the legislator the legislation is not being “adequately” defended. This right is given to the legislator designated as the first author of the legislation.

If the legislator can’t get a private attorney to work on the case for free, the Attorney General has to foot the bill for the litigation.

In my mind, this is a departure from proper separation of powers and a misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of what a law is. A member of the General Assembly, acting alone, is just an ordinary citizen. Absent the legislative process and requisite votes, the laws he writes are just words on a page. There is nothing magic about them absent the consent of the body. And, furthermore, there is nothing magic about the fact that an individual legislator came up with the idea and wrote those words on the page. He or she has no individual ownership in the legislation such that he or she should have standing to take control of the litigation beyond the right given to the rest of us citizens.

Acting in concert with the rest of the body, the legislator is entitled to exercise power. Outside of that body, he or she is just another person. This bill would undermine that notion.

By a vote of 38 – 10, the Indiana Senate passed SJR 7 regarding the “right to hunt & fish.” It’s already passed through the General Assembly once. (See the prior discussion here from 2011; and a proto-version of the bill from 2005) If it passes the house, it will go on to the ballot for the public to vote on.

It would add to the state constitution a provision that says:

The people have a right to hunt, fish, harvest game, or engage in the agricultural or commercial production of meat, fish, poultry, or dairy products, which is a valued part of our heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good, subject only to laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly. Hunting and fishing shall be the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. This section shall not be construed to limit the application of any provision of law relating to trespass or property rights.

Is this addressing a problem? Does it limit the government in some fashion that should be more explicit? It’s either so innocuous it shouldn’t be cluttering up the Constitution, or so opaque in its intent that its intent should be made more explicit. But, who wants to be the legislator who votes against hunting & fishing? Somebody ought to float a puppy amendment.

Eric Bradner, reporting for the Evansville Courier Press has an article entitled Indiana lawmakers could announce wait on measure banning same-sex marriage.

The announcement is expected to come yet this afternoon. The last General Assembly passed a proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman and also prohibiting recognition of rights for unmarried couples that are “substantially similar” to marriage. The process of amending the state Constitution requires that this General Assembly pass the same resolution either this year or next year. It would then go to a vote at a general election.

The rationale for waiting is that some similar questions are going to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in the upcoming session. If the Supreme Court issues an opinion, it could well have an impact on the proposed state amendment.

Also influential seems to be the waning interest in pursuing this amendment by some Republican lawmakers.

HB 1219 has passed the House of Representatives and will now go to the Senate. It requires a local unit of government that has an Internet accessible property database to create a procedure for preventing members of the public from gaining access to the home addresses of law enforcement officers or victims of domestic violence. The procedure has to include the ability of officers to submit a written request “to prevent a search of the web site from disclosing or otherwise associating the law enforcement officer’s home address with the law enforcement officer’s name.”

I’m not unsympathetic to this bill. But, first, logistically, this strikes me as one of those things that are easier said than done. Also, once law enforcement officers are exempt, lawmakers will have to struggle with requests from other groups that can present a sympathetic case for why they wouldn’t want their addresses readily available to evildoers. Pretty much anyone that comes into professional contact with the criminal justice system can make some sort of a case.

These records will also likely be available through indexes you can access by going to the offices in the county building. However, the bad guys are more likely to plot and scheme when they can do it from the privacy of their computers rather than having to make a trip into a public building.

Reps. Huston and Turner have introduced HB 1364 which makes it a civil cause of action for a student, former student, or their family members to mess with a teacher on the Internet with intent to intimidate or torment. By “mess with” I mean:

(1) build a fake profile of a school employee on an Internet web site, including a social networking web site;
(2) post or encourage other people to post on an Internet web site, including a social networking web site, private, personal, or sexual information pertaining to a school employee;
(3) post a real or doctored image of a school employee on an Internet web site;
(4) access, alter, or erase any computer network, computer data, computer program, or computer software that belongs to a school employee; or
(5) use a computer system for repeated, continuing, or sustained electronic communications, including electronic mail or posts on a social networking web site, to a school employee.

The tormented teacher can get $1,000 and an injunction. Mainly I flagged this one because I’m not sure I’d seen the word “torment” in legislation before. Reminded me of that film classic, Sorority Babes in the Slime Bowl Bowl-O-Rama where the Imp says “I will torment you. It is my job. You know I must.”

Reps. Leonard and Hamm are authors of HB 1457 concerning unemployment insurance.

It does a few things. Employers have experience accounts with the Department of Workforce Development which charges the employer based on the amount of unemployment insurance paid out to an employee. I don’t know the exact system, but it’s not necessarily a dollar-to-dollar match except for employers who elect to “make payments in lieu of contributions” for whom the accounting is more like a dollar to dollar match. Anyway, sometimes former employees get benefits to which, it turns out, they were not entitled. For example, maybe the employee was terminated for just cause but it took a couple of levels of the claims and appeals process to make that determination. In the meantime, the employee is getting unemployment benefits, and then when the just cause determination is reached, the employee is now required to pay them back. The employer’s experience account is then adjusted to reflect the fact that the money paid out was an “overpayment.” This bill would not permit the account adjustment for employees who received written request for information from the employer but the employer did not initially provide information (so a correct benefits determination could be made at the outset, I presume) and if the employer has a history of failing to respond to such inquiries from the Department of Workforce Development.

The bill also imposes a higher unemployment insurance contribution rate for employers in the construction trade.

The bill also reallocates some of the money collected as a civil penalty from a former employee that knowingly or intentionally provides false information to get benefits. The money collected currently gets deposited in a special employment and training services fund. Under this bill 15% of that amount would instead be deposited in the unemployment insurance benefit fund.

Eligibility for benefits would also be contingent on a former employee participating in reemployment and eligibility assessment activities as directed by the Department of Workforce Development.

These activities:

(1) must include:
(A) orientation to the services available through a one stop center (as defined by IC 22-4.5-2-6);
(B) provision of labor market and career information;
(C) assessment of the individual’s workforce and other job related skills; and
(D) a review of the individual’s work search efforts; and
(2) may include:
(A) comprehensive and specialized assessments;
(B) individual and group career counseling;
(C) training services;
(D) additional services to assist the individual in becoming reemployed;
(E) job search counseling; and
(F) development and review of the individual’s reemployment plan that includes the individual’s participation in job search activities and appropriate workshops.

The Department can also require the individual to provide proof of identity.

Reps. Karickhoff and Thompson have introduced HB 1304 which would allow local tax increases to fund public safety access points (PSAPs). (Think 911 communication centers.)

Where a county has contractually assumed from another political subdivision (say, a city inside the county) the responsibility of operating a PSAP, the county and other political subdivision fiscal bodies can petition the DLGF for permission to raise the maximum county property tax levy by the amount levied in the previous year by the political subdivision to fund PSAP operations and to reduce the political subdivision’s maximum levy by a like amount.

Additionally, the bill would a county to adopt an ordinance raising the county’s economic development income tax rate 0.1% with that increased revenue being used to fund the PSAP.