A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

SB 101, introduced by Sen. Holdman – apparently a “Son of Ag-Gag” bill – would allow agricultural operations to define their own felonies.

An agricultural operation (as defined in IC 32-30-6-1) may conspicuously post a notice at the agricultural operation’s locations that lists prohibited acts that may compromise the agricultural operation’s trade secrets or operations. The notice must be posted in a manner that is likely to come to the attention of the public.

(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally commits an act at an agricultural operation that is a prohibited act listed on a notice described in subsection (a) commits a Level 6 felony.

There is no standard or review for what acts the agricultural operation can list on its notice. If they list it and you do it; you’re a felon!

Update Apparently (see story by Tony Cook for the Indy Star) this bill is set for a hearing today (Jan. 7) at approximately 3:30 following adjournment of the General Assembly for the day. This is controversial due to the still treacherous travel conditions.

With SB 60, Rep. Boots has introduced a perennial favorite concerning representation of state court judges in mandate litigation. A mandate case is typically one where the state court judge orders the county fiscal body to appropriate more money for the judge’s court. When these mandates are challenged by the county, the judge can hire a private attorney and the county has to end up footing that expense as well.

Contrast this with cases where, for example, someone sues the judge. In that case, the attorney general provides a defense. Sen. Boots proposed legislation would require the attorney general to represent judges in mandate litigation and would preclude reimbursement for expenses incurred by the judge for hiring a private attorney.

The attorney general’s office would likely be a less expensive alternative, but often the judges can find private attorneys who are more skilled litigators. So, I can see pros and cons of this one.

Sen. Taylor has introduced SB 47 which would add black history to the required social studies curriculum along with the Constitution, government systems, U.S. and Indiana history, and the Holocaust.

I’m all for kids learning black history along with women’s history, economic history, labor history, medieval history, the history of science, Native American history, religious history, and, really, history from any angle you can think of. But: a) I’m not a fan of the legislature micromanaging the curriculum; and b) the Holocaust and black history seem oddly specific when compared to government systems and state and national history.

Sen. Delph has introduced SB 35 concerning straight ticket voting. It would remove a voter’s option for voting, all at once, for candidates of a particular political party. Presidential electors are exempt from this prohibition.

The rationale, I suppose, is that one should consider each race individually and should not simply vote for a political party. I don’t disagree with that necessarily. I’ve never voted a straight ticket. However, if we are going to promote voter consideration of particular races and particular candidates; I would suggest that we should go a bit further and remove party affiliation from the ballot.

But, that would not happen, I suspect; because, in reality, this is not about promoting consideration of individual races by voters educated on the particular candidates. Rather, I imagine someone has crunched the numbers and found that voters exercise the straight ticket option to vote for Democrats more frequently than they exercise the option to vote for Republicans. It’s an effort to pick up a few percentage points at the polls.

Sen. Kruse has introduced SB 100 purporting to protect the “liberty” of parents in the upbringing, education, and care of their child.

This piece of legislation is long on rhetoric and light on substance. It declares that “the liberty of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, and care of the parent’s child is a fundamental right.” I gather that right is in a penumbra somewhere.

It then declares that “A governmental entity may not infringe on the right [to direct the upbringing, education, and are of the parent’s child] without demonstrating that the governmental entity’s governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.”

Legislators draft an ambiguous piece of mush like this and then complain when “activist” judges don’t interpret the legislation in the manner the legislators would have liked. One reason for the ambiguity is that, once you get into details and concrete examples, the prospect of passage goes off the rails almost immediately.

I’ll just go ahead and assume this is about sex. Because somehow it almost always is. Or, I guess it could be about, for example, curfews. By imposing a curfew on minors, the government is interfering with my desire to raise nocturnal children. Or, maybe it’s about child labor laws. I figure putting my kid in a factory for 70 hours a week would instill a good work ethic; not to mention provide me a little extra beer money. But, if I had to bet on what’s motivating this legislation; I’d go with sex of some kind.

Sen. Greg Walker has introduced SB 67 which would prohibit use of condemnation powers for the purpose of constructing trails for non-motorized transportation. Specifically, it says that the power of eminent domain can’t be used to take the property of a private person if the proposed use is for bicycling, hiking, running, walking, riding on an animal or engage in “any other purely recreational activity.”

Being against eminent domain generally is one thing. I think it’s simplistic and shortsighted to be against the government taking an individual’s property – but it’s a principled and understandable position. This bill seems like something else again. Eminent domain for more highways, railroads, and utilities is apparently agreeable. But try to improve the community’s quality of life and maybe make it easier for your citizens to be active and, well, no – can’t have that.

Seems to reflect a very narrow view of what constitutes the public good.