Reps. Friend, Richardson, and Saunders have introduced HB 1175 which would essentially allow a government agency to charge for a public records request search if the search took more than two hours. The first two hours searching for responsive documents would be free, but after that the political subdivision could charge by the hour at a rate equal to whatever the employee is paid or twenty dollars an hour, whichever is less.

This strikes me as reasonable; but I don’t see anything magical about the two hours or $20. I imagine those terms are negotiable. But, I’ve seen enough kitchen sink public record requests to know that it can put a healthy burden on the government agency. To some extent, that’s just the cost of responsive government; but beyond a certain level, it becomes unfair to other taxpayers who are, in effect, subsidizing sometimes frivolous or unnecessarily burdensome public records requests.

I know Indiana has long been protective of its funeral industry, but I wonder what the back story is to this. Rep. Hamm has introduced HB 1122 which would make it a deceptive consumer act for a seller or supplier to remove, cover, alter, or make unreadable a country of origin marking on the casket or mark the casket as originating from a country other than the true country of origin of the casket. If no country of origin is marked on the casket, the supplier or seller of the casket is required to mark the casket with the English name of the country of origin. Interestingly, if I’m parsing the legislation correctly, it appears that if the casket is already marked with the country of origin in a foreign language, the supplier is not then required to mark it with the English name of the country.

Sen. Delph has introduced SB 280 which would confer standing on individual members of the General Assembly when, in their sole discretion, they don’t believe a challenge to that legislation is being adequately defended. In particular, it gives this discretion to the “first author” on a bill and then the “second author.” If the first and second authors are no longer members of the general assembly when the challenge is happening, then no one has this standing. If one of these individuals has intervened and then stops being a member, then the Speaker or the President pro tem gets to appoint a member to substitute in the litigation.

This legislation disregards the fact that legislation is the will of the body – not of any particular person. A member of the general assembly is just a citizen, no more no less. It’s only the body, acting as a group, that has additional power. This law would be a little more palatable if it conferred upon the General Assembly, acting as a body, the power to vote to defend its legislation on its own in the courts.

But in any event that would disregard separation of powers where it is the job of the executive, not the legislature, to execute the laws. So many of these proposals look like power grabs – “I might not like the way the attorney general defends a law; give me the power!” // “I might not like a law adopted by Congress; nullify!” // “I might not like a federal regulation; make it a felony to enforce!” // “I might not like the way local government conducts itself; add another exception to home rule!”

Sen. Kruse has introduced SB 127 which, aside from some limited exceptions, purports to forbid federal employees from making arrests without the consent of the local sheriff. One of the exceptions refers to arrests made on a federal “enclave.” It’s as if Sen. Kruse regards the United States government as a foreign power. This appears to come out of a movement that regards the Sheriff’s authority as paramount under the 10th Amendment. Check the case reports for cases in which I’ve been involved, and you’ll find that I’m wildly pro-Sheriff. But I’m pretty sure President & General Washington decided this question fairly decisively when he rode at the head of 13,000 soldiers to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

My understanding is that this movement has as something of an underpinning, the case of Printz v. United States which restricted the ability of Congress to commandeer local law enforcement officers to enforce federal law. This legislation stands that principle on its head to some degree; prohibiting the federal government from enforcing its own laws without permission from local officials.

I’m a citizen of Indiana and of the United States. And, while I’m happy to be a Hoosier, I find Sen. Kruse’s hostility to the United States and enforcement of its duly enacted laws not a little troubling.

In a similar vein, we have Sen. Boots SB 230 which purports to have the General Assembly give itself the authority to nullify federal law. Like President Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion and answered the question about whether the federal government could enforce its laws; President Lincoln answered the question of nullification when he put down the southerners who were committing treason in defense of slavery.

Sen. Boots dresses up his legislation as applying generally to federal laws the general assembly deems unconstitutional, but singles out Obamacare for nullification and then does not include in his legislation any process by which the General Assembly is expected to find any other federal regulation unconstitutional.

Treason in defense of slavery was evil, but at least the rationale was somewhat understandable. Doing it in defense of keeping the crappy health care insurance system we have now is just weird.

Rep. Randy Frye has introduced HB 1078 which would ban the retail sale of “toylike” lighters.

“toylike lighter” means a mechanical or electrical device typically used for lighting cigarettes, cigars, or pipes that is designed to resemble a cartoon character, toy, gun, watch, musical instrument, vehicle, animal, food, beverage, or similar article, or that plays musical notes, has flashing lights for entertainment, or has other entertaining features. A toylike lighter may operate on any fuel, including butane, isobutane, or liquid fuel.

If you outlaw toylike lighters, only outlaws will have toylike lighters.

I assume this is intended to reduce the number of kids playing with fire. (Or perhaps the toylike lighter is seen as a gateway to smoking?) In any event, within the last month or so it occurred to me how relatively rare lighters and firemaking devices are now than they were when I was a kid. Lots more people were smokers, so lighters were frequently laying around; and lots of business establishments had baskets full of matchbooks. I think my kids could easily get their hands on our grill lighter, but beyond that, I think they’d have trouble getting fire starting implements. When I was a kid, I had a lot more options if I wanted to make an impromptu flamethrower out of an aerosol can.

Rep. Davis has introduced HB 1088 concerning university payments to members of the General Assembly. It would prohibit universities from paying members of the general assembly unless the contract with the member preceded their becoming a member or unless the payment is for lecturing or teaching at an educational institution, whether on a full-time, a part-time, or an occasional basis.

Over the years, it has appeared that Ivy Tech has had a number of members of the General Assembly, though I’m not sure in what capacity exactly. I imagine this bill is intended to curtail that sort of thing.

Rep. Ober has introduced HB 1075
which voids 312 IAC 9-3-18.6(a)(4) and requires its deletion from the Indiana Administrative Code.

Hence forth, an animal shall not be deemed a “wild hog” solely because it

Has skeletal characteristics indicative of a wild or Eurasian origin including:
(A) skull characteristics of an elongated snout or sloping appearance with little or no stop at the eye line;
(B) a shoulder structure with a steep or razorback (predominate ridge along the back) appearance;
(C) hindquarters proportionally smaller than the forequarters lacking natural muscling found in commercial species;
or
(D) visible tusks.

The section goes on to restrict the possession and sale of wild hogs as well as their importation into Indiana.

The digest for Sen. Kruse’s SB 130 is labeled “Indiana Firearms Freedom” act as is the title of the main chapter. I can pretty well guarantee you that “freedom” didn’t find its way into these parts of the document through the normal Legislative Service Agency drafting process. Someone likely insisted.

Anyway, it basically declares that firearms or firearm accessories manufactured entirely in the state are not subject to federal firearms laws and regulations because, the legislation asserts, they are not part of interstate commerce.

Senators Banks and Yoder have introduced SB 179 which imposes artificial barriers on medical service providers who dispense “abortion inducing drugs”; by which they doubtless mean RU486.

Mifepristone was approved for abortion in the U.S. by the FDA, in September 2000. It is legal and available in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., Guam and Puerto Rico. It is a prescription drug, but it is not available to the public through pharmacies; its distribution is restricted to specially qualified licensed physicians, sold by Danco Laboratories under the tradename Mifeprex.

This is, I’m sure, in response to the brouhaha in Lafayette. Per the legislation introduced by these champions of small government, in order to get their prescription drug, women would have to go to a physical structure that meets particular safety standards and is inspected by the State Department of Health.

There is no rational basis for imposing regulations on the physical structures to which women go in order to get their prescriptions filled that is unique to RU-486 or other abortion inducing drugs that do not require any on-site medical procedures or examinations. This is a fairly transparent effort to indirectly make it more difficult for women to get prescribed medications where doing so directly would be unconstitutional.

It also repeals 410 IAC 26-17-2(f) which provides that abortion clinics in operation before July 1, 2006 are exempt from the administrative code section which provides a great deal of detail about the specifics of the required physical attributes of an abortion clinic (including, under this legislation, a place that is an “abortion clinic” by virtue of dispensing particular drugs even if no procedures are performed.) Abortion clinics have to have a reception desk, a waiting area, a lavatory, and a drinking fountain among other things.

Sen. Becker has introduced SB 154 concerning mopeds. It updates the Indiana Code to refer to mopeds instead of motor scooters and requires them to be registered and insured. The operator has to have an ID card or a driver’s license. So, people who have had their license yanked because of DUIs and whatnot can continue to clog the lanes in front of other motorists.