A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Sheila Kennedy has a righteous rant about a good many things, but in particular the “imperial mayor” bill for Indianapolis going through the General Assembly. Traditionally, I have not paid much attention to Indianapolis-specific issues because: a) I’m not there; and b) The Indianapolis blogosphere has been pretty active. I’m not sure if “b” is as true as it once was.

In any event, Sheila describes part of the imperial mayor bill:

The imperial mayor bill is an invitation to corruption. While most of the media attention has been on the proposal to eliminate the at-large council seats, the most dangerous parts of the bill give the mayor control of the Development Commission and remove council oversight of many–if not most–spending decisions. It effectively removes important checks and balances on administrative behavior at a time when local media oversight is virtually non-existent. Actions by the Development Commission can move big money; for one thing, the Commission can ensure successful financing for a project that would otherwise be unable to secure such backing. The current appointment structure was intended to prevent decisions based upon cozy relationships and political connections rather than sound principles of land use. The imperial mayor bill will facilitate cronyism.

The refusal to allow Indianapolis citizens to decide for ourselves whether we want mass transit is the most infuriating action taken in a legislative session that has produced plenty that is infuriating. The notion that a study committee is needed is laughable–Central Indiana transportation organizations have studied the matter for the last twenty years. Let’s call it what it is: a giant “fuck you, Indianapolis” from the General Assembly to the region that generates the bulk of the state’s tax receipts.

This activity by the legislature makes the mayor’s office look almost like a regency on behalf of the General Assembly. The legislature grants extraordinary powers to officials it favors; and it legislates directly for the city where it fears the locals won’t make the correct decisions. The citizens of, say, Knightstown don’t receive anything like this level of attention or interference.

I’m not going to go crying for Indianapolis – I’ve seen one too many of its fine citizens oblivious to the existence of the rest of the state. But I can certainly appreciate why it’s citizens might feel that local affairs are being micromanaged by state government.

Rep. Niezgodski has introduced HR 33 – urging the study of the topic of the operation of riding lawn mowers by children under twelve years of age. The resolution suggests that letting younger kids operate riding mowers might be a crime.

I guess I don’t have a problem with a study committee. It just caught my eye as being oddly specific. Is it better if they’re using a push mower?

SB 400 is sort of a State’s Rights nullification effort, making it a crime for state officials to assist federal officials where the state official “knows or should know” the federal action violates the federal or state constitution. It passed the Senate by a vote of 31 – 17. I have been advised that it was heard in the House Committee on Courts and Criminal Code but failed for lack of a motion. In other words, after a bill is heard, a committee member has to make a motion that the bill be passed out of the committee in its current form or as amended in a particular way. None of the committee members made such a motion, so it didn’t receive a vote.

I don’t know when the committee deadlines are or have a good recollection of the procedural arcana, but my guess is that because it didn’t receive a vote, the committee could still make such a motion at a later date and vote it through. But, if it didn’t receive a motion on the day of the hearing, it seems doubtful that it would be passed out of committee later. In any event, my opinion is that the federal Supremacy Clause makes this a dicey proposition at best.

Potentially interesting development for SB 373 which would prohibit a person from taking unauthorized photographs video of agricultural or industrial operations “with intent to (at its broadest) directly or indirectly harm the business relationship between the business and its customers.

It passed the Senate on a 30-20 vote. In the House, it was referred to the Committee on Agricultural and Rural Development where it passed on a 9-3 vote. Normally, the next step would be Second Reading on the floor of the House where members of the House would be entitled to propose amendments and then Third Reading where the full House votes on the bill. However, this one was referred to the House Judiciary committee. I know enough about the process to understand that this is unusual. I don’t know whether it is significant, in particular. It’s not uncommon for bills to go to Ways & Means as a second committee where the bill has a notable financial impact. My best guess would be that this is going to House Judiciary for consideration of the constitutional, free speech implications of this bill.

The House adopted by voice vote HR 63 which invites vendors of small arms to relocate to Indiana. Simple resolutions are essentially useless, but the General Assembly passes a number of them anyway. The form of the resolution is a laundry list of “Whereas”s ostensibly representing uncontested truths followed by the coup de grace of the “Be It Resolved” section. Here are some of the “Whereas”s:

Whereas, All power is inherent in the people and all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on the people’s authority and instituted for the people’s peace, safety, and well-being;
Whereas, The free, ongoing, and unencumbered manufacture of modern and serviceable firearms and ammunition is necessary to protect these rights;
Whereas, The constitutional rights of Americans to produce and bear arms for the protection of themselves, their states, and their country are being infringed;

Then there is a bunch of bragging on ourselves for our tax policy and wild west approach to firearms. And, in the final “be it resolved” section, the House proclaims, “the Indiana House of Representatives notes that the state of Indiana, being a highly attractive state in which to work and live, invites these companies to move to Indiana and finally be free to work and grow here.” (emphasis added)

This video comes to mind for some reason:

SB 371 which adds more burdens to reproductive rights moved closer to passage today by passing second reading in the second chamber. Several amendments were rejected:

Amendment 5 by Rep. Errington was rejected 30-61. It would have added to the list of things that the State has in its “informed consent” brochure. Currently the brochure has pictures of the fetus, scary stuff about what can happen if you have an abortion, and an announcement that the biological dad is on the hook for child support. Rep. Errington would have added to that, “A statement that contraceptives are available at federally qualified health centers, Planned Parenthood clinics, and other health care clinics at no cost or at a reduced cost.” But, 60 Representatives did not want that to appear in the brochure; notwithstanding the fact that increased use of birth control will reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Leads me to believe that the consequence free sex is just as objectionable as abortion to a number of legislators.

Amendment 6, also by Rep. Errington was rejected 25 – 67. It would have removed from the definition of “abortion clinic” a physicians office that primarily dispenses “abortion inducing drugs” (defined as “a medicine, drug, or substance prescribed or dispensed with the intent of terminating a clinically diagnosable pregnancy with the knowledge that the termination will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the fetus.”) The abortion clinic tag means that the physician’s office gets stuck with the abortion clinic requirements – a bunch of specifications as to the physical plant the office has to have. Nevermind that the physician is allowed to dispense other drugs without all the small government interference.

Amendment 7 by Rep. Lawson would have removed the requirement that the doctor providing the abortion or his/her designee be available 24/7 for followup care. It was defeated on a voice vote.

Rep. Austin’s Amendment 8 was ruled out of order. It would have prohibited a school corporation, charter school, or private school receiving public funds from kicking a student out for being pregnant or interfering with her ability to attend class during regular hours.

Rep. Vandenburgh’s Amendment 1 was also ruled out of order. It would have imposed a lot of restrictions on prescribing erectile dysfunction drugs — just as disingenuously concerned about men’s health as the main bill is about women’s health.

Rep. Pelath also had Amendment 12 which was ruled out of order. I don’t have time to parse it at the moment – something to do with tax credits and an equal pay committee.