A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

by 5 Comments

In case you hadn’t heard, President Trump joins the ranks of Presidents Johnson and Clinton as having been impeached by the House of Representatives. As the matter has progressed to the Senate for trial, his supporters have made any number of arguments in his defense, most of them in bad faith. The one that’s currently making my teeth itch, however, is the pseudo-legal argument that the Senate can only remove the President for a crime or “crime-like” behavior. Article II, §4 states:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The “conviction” in that passage refers to a proceeding under Article I, §3, Clause 6 which provides:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

So, treason and bribery are a subset of “high crimes and misdemeanors” but the Framers’ use of the word “other” indicates that there are more. When the Framers wrote the document, the phrase had a long history in parliament:

[A]t the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, the composite term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a well-established, familiar legal term of art that the framers consciously borrowed from longstanding English practice and usage dating back four centuries. That meaning was not so much “vague” as simply broad: a sweeping delegation of power and responsibility to the legislative bodies entrusted with the impeachment power. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” had a broad meaning in English practice and in the American understanding, confiding to the two houses of the national legislature (under the U.S. Constitution, the House and the Senate, exercising their respective roles in the impeachment process) a sweeping range of power to punish what those political bodies determined to be misconduct or abuse of power by executive and judicial officers of a wide variety of types.

The meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was, so to speak, its own distinct thing. It was not a combination of “crimes” and “misdemeanors” as understood in today’s criminal-law sense. It was instead a unique legal term with its own meaning. The framers of the Constitution understood and used the phrase in that specialized sense, consciously adopting a known English-practice term of art in preference to other proposed formulations of the impeachment standard. And the ratification debates uniformly reflect that same broad understanding.

. . .

By the time the Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia in 1787, the term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” had been employed in the English practice of impeachment for more than four centuries. Historians, researchers, and constitutional scholars have plumbed the depths of English practice, discussing and debating the specifics of charges in impeachments dating back as early as 1386. For purposes of understanding the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, however, those details are perhaps less important than the broad observation that impeachment specifically for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” – and frequently employing that very phrase – was a familiar political practice under the English constitution with a broad range of meaning marked by 400 years of experience and practice. [1]

Over the years, the English Parliament had developed and deployed the power of impeachment in its historic struggles to check the powers of the King and his ministers. The House of Commons had impeached and brought before the House of Lords for trial officers of the crown, including ministers and judges, that they believed had violated the constitution or laws; subverted the rights of Parliament or the system of government; abused or misused power; failed to perform the duties of office faithfully and competently; engaged in self-dealing behavior or misuse of funds; or were guilty of oppression, corruption, or other misbehavior or “mal-administration.”

Reflect on those categories for a moment. They describe a broad array of misconduct, not at all limited to criminality, as we today understand it. Not all persons impeached for the described offenses were convicted, of course. But the range of usage and practice – what was considered to lie within the scope of the power of impeachment for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” – was unquestionably broad. That range plainly embraced “political” offenses: offenses against the constitution, laws, system of government, prerogatives of other institutions, or the rights and liberties of the people – as well as common law offences that might be punishable by ordinary criminal law.

. . .

As a matter of English practice and authoritative commentary by the mid eighteenth century, impeachment embraced offenses involving official misconduct not necessarily punishable by the ordinary criminal law.

That’s the legal backdrop. The practical effect is that “high crimes and misdemeanors” means whatever the Congress says it means. Impeachment and removal is a political process and was always meant to be. The Framers undoubtedly hoped that members of Congress would use sound judgment about what constitutes good government when making this determination and hoped that citizens would punish members of Congress soundly at the ballot box when they did not use such judgment; but ultimately there is no legal mechanism for gainsaying what Congress determines is a removable offense. Just don’t let Trump’s supporters confuse you with bafflegab about how removal isn’t Constitutionally permissible. If, as the House has charged, Trump withheld Congressionally approved financial aid to pressure Ukraine into meddling in our domestic elections for Trump’s benefit, such behavior falls squarely within the Constitutional definition of “high crime and misdemeanor.” If Senators don’t vote for removal, it’s not because the Constitution does not sanction the removal, it’s simply because they don’t want to.

Impeachment

by 6 Comments

There are plenty of takes on the impeachment of Donald Trump, but for posterity’s sake, here is another. Donald Trump has been impeached with 230 votes in favor.

I think the impeachment and removal process is an extraordinarily serious thing. I thought the impeachment of Bill Clinton was frivolous, I never supported the impeachment of George W. Bush, and I wasn’t particularly supportive of calls for Trump’s impeachment early on in his Presidency. All that throat clearing aside, I think it was appropriate in this case. Trump was using the power of his office and national security money to shake down the President of Ukraine to have him interfere in a U.S. election on Trump’s behalf. Using the power of the Presidency to invite a foreign power to meddle in a domestic election is exactly the kind of thing the Framers had in mind when they put the impeachment process into the Constitution.

Trump supporters mostly didn’t even try to defend Trump’s actions. They made some half-hearted effort to say that Trump just had an abiding interest in fighting corruption. But this was severely undercut by Trump’s general indifference to appearances of impropriety and the fact that his concern for corruption seemed to begin and end with Biden, not to mention the Trump family’s own struggles with nepotism. What they lacked in convincing argument, Trump enthusiasts tried to make up for in volume, loudly complaining about the process. It’s the sort of defense that will look familiar to anyone who has ever seen a sovereign citizen challenge his speeding ticket. (You don’t have any jurisdiction over me! The flag in the courtroom has gold fringe!) Also, the “it’s a Republic not a Democracy” rhetoric used to promote the sanctity of the Constitution’s electoral college process after Trump lost the popular vote was conveniently forgotten in favor of an abiding concern for the “will of the people” when faced with the Constitution’s impeachment and removal process.

I don’t think the Senate will remove Trump. Tribalism being what it is, I don’t think there is a particular political upside for Democrats. But sometimes you have to do the right thing, and impeachment in this case was the right thing.

(Side note: Tulsi Gabbard voted “present,” which shows you that the Democratic primary voters who have stayed away from her in droves kind of had her number all along.)

Challenge to Election 2016 under the “Guarantee Clause” of the Constitution

by 3 Comments

Friend of the blog, and accomplished Indiana lawyer, Mark Small has become involved in a case challenging the 2016 Presidential Election. Pro se petitioners from Massachusetts petitioned the First Circuit for a writ of mandamus to conduct a new election, alleging that Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees a republican form of government and protection against invasion. Petitioners allege, in effect, that the interference of Russia with the U.S. elections constitutes an invasion that has deprived them of a Republican form of government. The First Circuit denied their request and they have appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Mark has since taken up their cause and has filed a motion (pdf) for the United States Supreme Court to appoint a special master. The petition is currently set for consideration at the Supreme Court’s conference of March 17, 2017. A friend predicted that the Court will decline to hear the case “under the ancient rusted can of worms doctrine.” I tend to agree with that prediction. Then again,  I’m also one of those guys who rolls his eyes and the idea of playing the lottery. That’s based on sound mathematics. And, yet, someone in town bought a ticket that won $435 million.

It’s an interesting idea that is founded on the premise that Russia engaged in cyberwar to alter the election to place its chosen candidate in the Presidency and those sympathetic to him in the House and Senate. (I acknowledge that this “hacked the election” rhetoric is a bit slippery — hacking the actual voting machines is one thing; setting up fake Twitter accounts to promote desired messages is a different thing. There are potentially different levels of interference in the spectrum in between.) Those same bodies refuse to investigate activity from which they benefit. Where is a state or a citizen of a state to go for relief? The argument here is that it’s the judiciary. (Though, you eventually run into that possibly apocryphal quote from Jackson that “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”)

Small argues not only that the judiciary is the branch of government that can provide relief in this situation but also that they have the authority, through a special master appointment, to investigate allegations of election tampering. He first notes that the Founders were extremely concerned by the prospect of foreign powers meddling in our affairs. At the time our Constitution was created, this kind of political intrigue was very much a current memory. Small quotes Hamilton in Federalist 68 when he says:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

Hamilton was writing about how the electoral college was designed to guard against foreign influence. But, Small points out that the electoral college is not independently elected as the Founders anticipated and they are elected “part and parcel, in the same process as that by which vote are cast for the President and Vice-President.” He turns to Madison’s Federalist 43 and its interpretation of the “Invasion Clause” for additional support. Madison said that the provision served to protect states against “foreign hostility” and against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. He reads this passage as supporting the proposition that the judiciary has a role in implementing the protections of the guarantee clause:

In cases where it may be doubtful on which side justice lies, what better umpires could be desired by two violent factions, flying to arms, and tearing a State to pieces, than the representatives of confederate States, not heated by the local flame? To the impartiality of judges, they would unite the affection of friends.

The role of the judiciary is particularly important where the executive and legislative branches are compromised (in this case, they are alleged to be the beneficiaries of Russian interference). The solution is to appoint a special master — sort of an ad hoc investigative arm of the judiciary — to do the following:

a.) Identify those officials, agencies, departments and offices of the United States Government engaged in the collection, analysis, and reporting of data pertaining
to cyber intrusions, and mitigation of effects of intrusions conducted and/or facilitated within the United States by the Government of Russia and or its agents in the year 2016.

b.) Obtain from those officials, agencies, departments and/or offices, and, subject to the discretion of the Special Master, obtain from third parties, whose identities are disclosed to the Special Master, any and all summaries, analyses or reports, classified or unclassified, related to cyber intrusions, more probably than not conducted directly or indirectly by the Government of Russia, and that were determined by those officials, agencies, departments and/or offices to have been related to the November 2016 congressional and presidential elections.

c.) If the Special Master determines the Government of Russia more probably than not committed one or more cyber intrusions involving the Presidential and
Congressional elections in one or more precincts/districts in one or more states in the year 2016, enquire of polling organizations and the election officials in each
of the affected precincts/districts/states to determine the possible impact of those intrusions.

d.) Prepare for the in camera review by the Supreme Court of a report of the findings of the Special Master conforming, to a reasonable extent, to the
standards of Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703 as to whether there were cyber intrusions more probably than not committed by the Government of Russia
which may have impacted one or more of the November 2016 congressional and presidential elections.

e.) If such intrusions probably occurred and possibly caused such impacts, the report would identify any individuals, whether agents of the Government of
Russia or others who probably aided or abetted the intrusions, detail the probable type and extent of each intrusion, describe the possible impact of each intrusion
or pattern of intrusions, and identify the particular relevant election races.

If the results of the investigation showed that the margin of victory was the result of illegal activity and/or espionage and aggression by a foreign power, then the Courts would have the authority to fashion equitable relief including potentially a re-election.

Like I said, I view this as a long shot but, as I also said, someone is hundreds of millions of dollars richer than they were last week because they are far more optimistic than I am.

The Atlantic, for the 3rd time in 159 years, endorses a Presidential Candidate

by 10 Comments

The editors of the Atlantic explain that they have, in the past 159 years, endorsed only two candidates. In 1860, the magazine endorsed Abraham Lincoln. Opposition to slavery had been one of the motivating forces behind the creation of the publication. In 1964, the magazine endorsed Lyndon Johnson — not so much because Johnson was ideal but because Goldwater was so threatening. The Atlantic was rattled because of Goldwater’s proposal to let field commanders, rather than the civilian government, control “smaller nuclear weapons.” Additionally, he had a “preference to let states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia enforce civil rights within their own borders [which had] attracted the allegiance of Governor George Wallace, the Ku Klux Klan, and the John Birchers.”

Despite their preference to avoid being an organ of any particular faction, clique, or political party, Trump’s candidacy is a threat to the country that compels the magazine to express its preference. In their words, Trump “might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.”

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.

This judgment is not limited to the editors of The Atlantic. A large number—in fact, a number unparalleled since Goldwater’s 1964 campaign—of prominent policy makers and officeholders from the candidate’s own party have publicly renounced him. Trump disqualified himself from public service long before he declared his presidential candidacy. In one of the more sordid episodes in modern American politics, Trump made himself the face of the so-called birther movement, which had as its immediate goal the demonization of the country’s first African American president. Trump’s larger goal, it seemed, was to stoke fear among white Americans of dark-skinned foreigners. He succeeded wildly in this; the fear he has aroused has brought him one step away from the presidency.

. . .

Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.

Meanwhile, while Clinton has flaws, they are ordinary political flaws. She is well prepared for the job and has demonstrated an “aptitude for analysis and hard work.”

These are strong words, but they are accurate. There is no equivalency. A Clinton Presidency may be good or bad, but a Trump Presidency would be catastrophic.

July 4, 1923: 100,000 Klansmen celebrate in Kokomo

by 8 Comments

I posted a Twitter comment today where I said:

Been reading about the rise of the Indiana Klan in the 20s (membership rose to 250k). I see plenty of parallels to the Trump movement.

I wanted to elaborate. First of all, I think we all have some fairly specific images when we think of the Ku Klux Klan. I don’t think your average Hoosier Klansman probably fits that image very well. Don’t get me wrong — I think we should still be horrified by the popularity of the movement and what it says about Indiana. But, I don’t think it’s probably fair to impose our present day images on the Hoosiers that joined up.

For one thing, the message was a little more subtle. Klan recruiters like D.C. Stephenson were paid a commission on every new recruit, so they had a tendency to sell whatever the listener wanted to buy. Their primary message was Patriotism and Protestantism. God and country have always been big sellers.

That said, historian James Madison tells us that the Klan’s vision of Patriotism and Protestantism tended to be expressed in negative terms. They were  pretty easily used in an “us” versus “them” kind of way. And the Klan always likes to punch down against less privileged members of society.  In 1920s Indiana, they were defending against “threats” to god & country like Roman Catholics, the foreign born, Jews, blacks, and the old White Cap enemies: the immoral such as adulterers, gamblers, and drinkers.

Your average white, protestant male (sound like any modern day candidate’s constituency?) was pretty ripe to be sold on the movement. The message I get from several history books is that the electorate was pretty simply exhausted by the social change of the past decades. Advance in technology, immigration, the Progressive movement, and very significantly, World War I had changed the social landscape dramatically. The folks on top of the heap at the beginning of that process — even people who are generally pleasant and do not harbor great stores of ill-will toward others — will tend to tire of the change first since it’s not necessarily bringing them any individual benefits.

The 1920s Klan grew like wildfire. Starting from essentially nothing in 1920 and, by 1925, including something like 30% of native-born white men. On July 4, 1923, the Indiana Klan held a rally in Kokomo, Indiana at which D.C. Stephenson was inducted as the Grand Dragon. The rally is considered the largest in the nation’s history, attended by something like 100,000 Klansmen and their families. Doug Linder describes some of the event as follows:

That night, Stephenson, in his newly-won golden orange robe and hood, enjoyed the conclusion of the “Konklave in Kokoma.” A Klan parade, with robed high Klan officials on horseback and a dozen floats wound its way through town.  “Onward Christian Soldiers” blared from a forty-piece marching band.  When the parade was over, the crowd moved to Foster Park and sung hymns such as “The Old Rugged Cross” around a sixty-foot high fiery cross.  Fireworks streaked through the nighttime sky. Stephenson soaked it all in.  He was, he thought, soon destined to be the most powerful man in Indiana.

Now, it wouldn’t be long before Stephenson fell hard and took the Klan with him. (He kidnapped and raped a woman, leading to her death.) But, on that night, he and the Klan were on top.

What brought them there was a change-weary, aggrieved native-born, white male, protestant population. It was a minority of that demographic, but a substantial one coupled with a majority that did not push back hard enough against them. The public statements were often framed in a way that allowed them to plausibly deny the hateful subtext (perhaps even to themselves). Linder, once again:

In fact, Stephenson’s speech that day was entitled “Back to the Constitution.”  He denounced political corruption, American imperialism abroad, and called for an end to deficit spending.  He ended his hour-long, enthusiastically received talk with the cry, “Where there is no vision, the people perish!”  All in all, there was scarcely a phrase in the speech that would embarrass a major party candidate today.  There were better places than a huge rally attended by media from several states to deliver the KKK’s anti-Catholic, anti-black, anti-Jewish message.

Stephenson and Trump have the narcissistic demagogue thing in common. If Trump is not successfully opposed, I predict a parallel trajectory with Stephenson — a scandal with roots in his hubris followed by generations-long shame that so many generally decent citizens supported him.

More on Trump

by 11 Comments

I had an interesting exchange with a buddy of mine about Trump. He is no Trump supporter but suggests that I’m too condescending toward those who do support Trump. I’ve received a similar charge from Aaron Renn (who, incidentally, thinks that Donald “telling it like it is” Trump is just in a “rhetorical mode” and is the candidate most aligned with urban success.)

The tweet that earned me this rebuke was:

I have the same visceral response to Trump bumper stickers as I do to Confederate flags. Probably similar demographics.

This is, perhaps, a little aggressive. But, it’s: a) true that Trump support provokes the same emotional response in me that Confederate flags do; and b) while I couldn’t say what percentage of Trump supporters are nostalgic for the Confederacy, I feel fairly confident that public display of Confederate regalia is a good predictor of Trump support. My friend said that something more common to Trump supporters was resentment of condescending and sweeping generalizations like that. To which I responded:

Condescension can’t be something that bothers a Trump supporter. The guy oozes condescension. It’s his go-to move.

His response to that was where we unearthed something I thought was interesting enough to merit a post. He said:

It’s the love of a bully getting bullied that helps [the average] joe stomach Trump trumping the Press & PC warriors’ snotty arrogance. In the last 45 days or so though, it has become a Bugs Bunny cartoon back & forth of each character pulling out bigger & bigger weapons.

My response:

I think your response gets at something fundamental. And it has to do with how one perceives the power of white men in America. I think Trump supporters see it as eroding. Certainly a lot of the guys who support Trump don’t see themselves as having much power.

Meanwhile, a lot of the folks who can’t stand Trump see his supporters as clinging to unmerited privilege white men tend to have over and above similarly situated women and minorities.

The white guy Trump supporter looks around and says, “Privilege? What privilege? I’m getting kicked around daily.” Meanwhile, the Trump opponent says, “Are you kidding? A black woman in your position would be struggling even more.”

Incidentally – as a privileged white guy myself – my opposition to Trump has little to do with questions of gender or race. I see him as dangerously unqualified without the humility or patience to understand what he doesn’t know. A hothead like that shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the command of our military.

With respect to the condescension charge, I will say that I have spent time trying to see things from the perspective of a Trump supporter. Even having done that, I don’t regard their perspective as justifying the support of this guy. I don’t think most Trump supporters would do me the same courtesy of spending time trying to climb inside my head and figure out why I think the way I do.

Indiana Playing a Role in the GOP Presidential Primary

by 31 Comments

So, it looks like Indiana will potentially play a significant role in the GOP primary. Indiana has a winner-take-all system for awarding delegates, both by Congressional District and at-large. It awards 30 delegates to the winner of the state-wide vote and 27 delegates spread among Indiana’s nine Congressional districts (three per district). The winner of a given district gets those three delegates. Nate Silver, the fivethirtyeight pollster and analyst, says that if Trump wins Indiana, he’ll head into that territory where it will take something momentous to stop him from getting a first ballot win at the Republican convention. If he loses Indiana, the analysis becomes much different:

If Trump loses Indiana, however, that will suggest the race is still fairly volatile week-to-week, that he’s very likely to lose states such as Nebraska that vote later in May, and that the geographic and demographic divergences in the GOP haven’t reversed themselves so much as they’ve become more exaggerated. It will improve the morale of anti-Trump voters and change the tone of press coverage. And mathematically, it will make it hard (although not quite impossible) for Trump to win 1,237 delegates outright; he’d be back to fighting tooth-and-nail for every uncommitted delegate.

Silver thinks this is probably a “must-win” for Trump’s opponents (so, realistically, Cruz — because of Indiana’s winner-take-all status and Kasich having pulled out.)

Former local reporters, Eric Bradner and Tom LoBianco, who have moved on to gigs with CNN, have an excellent piece introducing the nation to Republican politics in Indiana. Among other things, they describe the dissatisfaction of what they call the “Daniels Republicans” with the available choices. These are the suburban moderates living in the Marion County doughnut counties (Boone, Hancock, Hendricks, and Johnson Counties).

Just like the national party, Indiana’s Republicans have been at a crossroads for more than four years, with members struggling to decide whether this is the party of former Gov. Mitch Daniels and former Sen. Dick Lugar or the party of Gov. Mike Pence and impassioned same-sex marriage battles.
. . .
But with Kasich pulling out of Indiana, these “Daniels Republicans” — staunch on fiscal issues and lukewarm on social hot-buttons — appear to be left without a home heading into Tuesday.

Such Republicans will mostly want someone to stop Trump but don’t have much in common with Cruz.

Cruz has not helped himself at all with his basketball gaffe. It’s trivial and shouldn’t be the basis of votes, but when you’re so obviously pandering to Hoosiers with basketball stuff, you can’t get it this wrong — when part of the knock on you as a candidate is that you’re a stiff who can’t relate to regular people. Cruz was in a Knightstown gym where part of the movie “Hoosiers” was shot, having someone measure the rim as a callback to the scene where Coach Dale settles his players before the big game by demonstrating that the dimensions of the court for the state finals at Butler Fieldhouse (now Hinkle) were the same as back in Hickory. But, Cruz flubbed his line:

“You know, the amazing thing is that basketball ring here in Indiana, it’s the same height as it is in New York City and every other place in the country,” Cruz said.

There’s just so much that’s mockable about that moment. The shameless pandering. The gratuitous knock on New York City. And the awkward Cruz revealing himself as a stranger in a strange land. My favorite was the tweet someone forwarded to me, “Cruz: ‘Boys, we’re going to win this election by running the ol’ chain-link fence play.'”

Political Backwater

by 6 Comments

I’ve pretty well abdicated my normal blogging activity for the Indiana Bicentennial history posts. So, it’s probably not surprising today’s news about Kasich and Cruz put me in mind of Indiana’s political history — mainly that we’ve fallen long and hard.  Kasich is basically trading Indiana to Cruz in return for Oregon and New Mexico. He’s suspending his campaign in Indiana and urging his supporters to vote for Cruz while Cruz is apparently doing the same in New Mexico and Oregon. The notion that Cruz would have any appeal at all to your average Kasich supporter is a little tough to buy. Additionally, this reminds me of one of those “Survivor” strategic moves attempted by players who are: a) in a weak position; and b) think they’re smarter than they are. If electoral politics has completely transformed into a reality show, you have to like Trump’s odds.

In any event, the fact that Indiana can be casually traded like a late round draft pick was jarring to me after having spent some time this weekend reading about Indiana’s role in the political campaigns of the 1880s. It was a hotly contested state that Democrat Grover Cleveland won in 1884 with former Indiana governor, Thomas Hendricks as his running mate and that Republican, Benjamin Harrison won in 1888. The state was very evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and, apparently, wildly corrupt in its voting.

Intensely polarized and almost perfectly balanced in partisan strength, “venal Indiana” was notorious during this period for bitterly contested, frequently corrupt elections with miniscule margins between victory and defeat, margins often secured with the votes of nonresident or irregular floaters at two to five dollars each. In a perceptive and persuasive study of the Dudley scandal, historian James L. Baumgardner has argued that aggressive but surreptitious pursuit of the floater vote, while simultaneously accusing the opposition of similar conduct, was standard practice for both parties in Gilded Age Indiana.

The state became important after Reconstruction ended and the white Democrats in the South took firm control of the section. In the wake of the Civil War, northern states tended to be Republican. However, Indiana has long been “the middle finger of the South thrust up into the North.” So, it was winnable and important.

Today’s announcement shows that we no longer have that kind of clout.

 

SJR 2 – Replacing State Auditor and State Treasurer with State Controller

by 9 Comments

Sen. Pete Miller has introduced Senate Joint Resolution 2 which would amend the Indiana constitution to eliminate the Constitutional offices of State Auditor and State Treasurer. Those positions would be replaced by a State Controller whose method of selection, compensation, tenure, and duties would be set by legislation. The change would take effect on January 1, 2022.

I don’t necessarily oppose this change. I don’t see any particular need for the State Treasurer and State Auditor to be separate offices mandated by the Constitution. The devil is in the details of the legislation setting up the Controller position. When you look at the structure of state and local government, you can see that the people who developed that structure had become very ticklish about accounting for government funds and how they were spent. This was, no doubt, borne of experience with corruption. You’d want the Controller to be pretty independent of the General Assembly and the Governor. And, you’d want the books kept in such a way that it would be tough for anyone to cook them.

State forgoes $80 million pre-kindergarten grant opportunity

by 23 Comments

Chalkbeat and Matt Tully have articles reporting that the governor has chosen to drop out of an opportunity to get $80 million in pre-kindergarten education grant funding.

Tully reports that the State’s chances of getting the grant were very good:

Pence’s Family and Social Services Administration had worked with the state Department of Education and others on the grant since the federal government rejected a previous application last year. The state’s odds had greatly improved this year, as the federal government recently announced in the Federal Register that Indiana was among just two states, along with Arizona, that had qualified to apply for up to $20 million annually, for up to four years. The two states were labeled “category one” states; they were eligible to apply for substantially more money than the other 13 states.

The explanation from the Governor’s office was vague, citing concerns about getting involved unnecessarily with the federal government and generalities about “untested and unproven objectives in federal policy.” The cynical mind, however, immediately jumps to Gov. Pence’s presidential ambitions.

Even bearing in mind that our share of this federal money is coming out of our pockets anyway and will now be going to some other state instead, I think we can all agree that forgoing $80 million to improve the education of young Hoosiers is a small price to pay to ease the minds of Iowa and New Hampshire caucus and primary voters.