Just thought I’d mention that I saw a Mike Kole bumper sticker on a truck in Lafayette today. I can confidently say that is the only bumper sticker I’ve seen to date for the Secretary of State race.

Now, just to be a trouble maker, I’d like to posit a hypothetical which is plausible albeit not likely, that would be a great deal of fun to those of us in the peanut gallery.

So, let’s say Mike wins the Secretary of State race. Let’s also say that the November elections result in a 50/50 Republican/Democratic tie in the House of Representatives. Under such a scenario, the law (specifically IC 2-2.1-1-7.5) requires a Libertarian Speaker of the House of Representatives. That law requires that, in the event the House is comprised of equal numbers of Representatives from two political parties, then the Speaker shall be elected by the members of the House affiliated with the political party whose candidate was elected secretary of state. (If this were to happen in a year when the Governor was up for election, then it’s the Governor’s party affiliation that determines the Speaker.)

Assuming there is no Libertarian in the House, I don’t know how the House would legally comply with this provision or otherwise break the tie.

The Star has several endorsements for the Indiana House of Representatives today:

District 25: Jeb Bardon

District 86: David Orentlicher

District 87: Cindy Noe

District 88: Brian Bosma

District 89: John Barnes (challenger)

District 90: Mike Murphy

District 91: Robert Behning

District 92: Robin Olds (challenger)

Just for the Record has a blog entry riffing on a Mike Sylvester post on the subject of increased liquor licenses in Fort Wayne. (Leo Morris also has a post on the subject.) The discussion has to do with increased availability of liquor permits in Fort Wayne in order to assist the municipal riverfront development in the area. The particular quote that raised some hackles was this:

Councilman Tom Smith, R-1st District, leans toward the proposal but only if the city establishes guidelines to select the best applicants, citing as examples businesses that would voluntarily be nonsmoking and not allow video gambling machines.

For the record points out the moral hypocrisy that seems to be involved here. For the Record lets loose an inspired paragraph in reaction:

To that I say horseshit! The whole idea that booze is splendid in exponentially increased quantites, yet smoke and gambling are still a “no-no,” is absolutely preposterous. If you’re gonna crawl up on your “moral” high-horse and spew bull-twaddle, then you best fleece yourself of all the hypocrisy prior to opening your fat trap. This whole thing reeks of bureaucratic tomfoolery.

I don’t know enough about the situation to have an opinion, but I was looking for an excuse to repost that paragraph and to agree that you’ll quickly fall into a morass when you purport to legislate based on morality.

One of the Indiana House races to watch is the one between Jackie Walorski (R-Lakeville) and Bob Kovach (D-Mishawaka) to represent District 21. In some respects, Walorski is the Representative most caught in the crossfire of Governor Daniels most controversial initiatives. She represents a district that falls between South Bend and Elkhart, meaning that Time Zones and the Toll Road are big deals in her district.

Readers may recall the tension between St. Joseph County and Elkhart Counties with respect to the time zone. St. Joseph County wanted to move to the Central Time Zone. Elkhart County did not want to move to Central and also did not want the time line in their back yard, so they did all they could, and were ultimately successful, in preventing St. Joseph County’s request from being granted. So, Walorski was on the front lines of that debate. And, obviously the Toll Road privatization is a big deal in that part of the state. So, the recent allegations that the State is looking into privatizing the South Shore line cannot be welcome news.

Also, I see that James Wensits, writing for the South Bend Tribune, had an article on challenger Bob Kovach’s endorsement by the local construction worker union. Normally, a Democrat getting an endorsement from a union wouldn’t be big news, but in this case it was a bit of a surprise since the construction union was in favor of the Toll Road privatization because it will theoretically result in more construction work in building more roads. Turns out that the union was not at all happy that Walorski voted for “right to work” legislation.

Trying to dig into the race a little bit, I see that Ms. Walorski filed her campaign finance report for the period ending October 13, 2006 this morning. Unfortunately, the only thing available online at the moment is a summary. (Note for those trying to search for her records, she’s registered under the name “Jacqueline Walorski Swihart.”) But, it looks like she’s raised about $180,000 in the past 6 months and has $11,000 on hand still. Kovach’s record is not showing anything filed yet for this period. It looks like the report is not actually due until October 20. So, I have no idea how that kind of money compares to other candidates generally, but for reference, it looks like a bundle compared to this time last cycle where she had received about $30,000 and had about $17,000 left on hand. And Troy “I’ll Never Vote For It” Woodruff, her fellow traveler on the Mitch Daniels Path to Political Oblivion had received about $60,000 this time in 2004. It’ll be interesting to see where all of Rep. Walorski’s money is coming from.

While Kovach was formerly a mayor of Mishawaka and a State Senator, he apparently hasn’t run for state office recently, so there isn’t much in the way of financial records on file. He only has a pre-primary statement on file which shows him having raised $2,500 as of April 7, 2006. But I expect his campaign finance report for the current period will be filed in the next couple of days.

I haven’t seen any poll numbers out of that district or anything, but it seems like if she’s raising that much money, the race has to be seen as competitive — quite a change from 2004 where she took about 65% of the vote.

(H/t Taking Down Words) The Northwest Indiana Times has a story on the potential for privatizing the South Shore Line (railroad from South Bend to Chicago). As readers may recall, a couple of weeks ago, a story came out wherein Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District General Manager, Gerald Hanas, said that State Transportation Commissioner Tom Sharp asked him to look into revenue generating privatization options similar to the Toll Road privatization. The Daniels administration denied any such privatization intentions or desiring any such plans. Daniels denied the report as a “bad rumor.”

Now the board that oversees the NICTD will call a special meeting Friday to discuss reports that the governor’s transportation chief asked the commuter railroad to explore privatization options. Hanas apparently made a similar report to the NICTD in late September.

Board members will be able to discuss the issue with Hanas on Friday. And, Niezgodski said, the minutes from last month’s meeting will be approved so that they can be made public.

Sharp has not commented publicly on the issue, though The Times has made several requests to interview the commissioner. A pair of INDOT spokesmen did not return phone calls Monday.

“We have not heard any response whatsoever from the state,” Niezgodski said.

Seems worth looking into at least. Both sides can’t be right.

Chris Sikich, writing for the Noblesville Ledger, has an article on a name found missing from a ballot in Hamilton County. While voting absentee, Robert Threlkeld, a Democratic candidate for the Hamilton County Council realized his name wasn’t on the ballot.

The error was apparently caused by Elections Administrator Kathy Richardson who accidentally deleted Threlkeld while fixing a prior mistake where Republican Commissioner candidate, Christine Altman had been discovered missing on the ballot.

O.k., this is unfortunate, but mistakes happen. The article reveals something that does seem like a real problem, however. Elections Administrator Kathy Richardson is also State Representative Kathy Richardson.  Jan Ellis, Democratic representative to the election board brought this up in the article:

Ellis, in a phone interview Tuesday, charged that Richardson does not have time to administer elections because she is a Republican representative to the Indiana General Assembly. Ellis also said having a candidate run the election is an unethical situation, although she believes Richardson is ethical.

Ellis said she has not brought that allegation directly to the election board in the past, and did not plan to do so Tuesday. She said she might in the future.

“I think it’s very troublesome conflict of interest to be running for office and to be running the election for which you are running for office,” Ellis said. “I’m surprised that she doesn’t feel the need to resign as election administrator while she is serving as a legislator.”

I’d say she probably has a point. Not so much about the time or ability of Richardson to administer the election. But, at least at first glance, there is at least an appearance of impropriety in administering your own election.

Sylvia Smith gives us some information about what was up with those “polls” commissioned by the NRCC for Mark Souder. It seems likely that the polls weren’t commissioned to obtain information for the Souder campaign or the National Republican Congressional Committee. Instead, according to a Hayhurst campaign volunteer who received one of the telephone calls, the “polls” are really just push polls that misrepresent Hayhursts positions. For example, the Souder-poll tells call recipients that Hayhurst “supports amnesty for all illegal immigrants.”