A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has an editorial on Sen. Kruse’s creation “science” bill, SB 89. It would allow a school board to require creation science to be part of the school curriculum, presumably as science.

According to the editorial, this legislation is particularly inappropriate for the short session (ostensibly reserved for housekeeping and emergency items), is doomed to legal challenge (and therefore, legal bills), and then, failure:

If Kruse’s “creation science” bill is approved, a legal challenge is inevitable, according to Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.

The U.S. Supreme found Louisiana’s creation-science law unconstitutional. Since the 1987 decision, efforts to chip away at the teaching of evolution have taken different approaches, but none have revived the creation-science approach offered in Kruse’s bill.

“The law is very, very clear on this,” Scott said. “If this bill is passed, it is going to be challenged, and they will lose. The case law is so strong against them.”

Sen. Kenley’s SB 139 modifies the “e-verify” provision that took effect this summer. It requires every service contract a political subdivision enters into to have a requirement that the contractor use the federal government’s “e-verify” system for verifying that the contractor is not employing illegal immigrants. The contractor is also required to sign an affidavit.

This can become a hassle for nickel & dime contracts — for example, service contracts with poll workers for a day or so of work. All kinds of contracts with local government have to be revised. On big ones where more time has to be spent thrashing out the details, it’s no big deal; but on small ones, the required paperwork can be silly when compared to what’s going on with the contract. It’s the kind of bureaucracy that makes people hate government. Sen. Kenley’s legislation would create a $50,000 threshold before the e-verify provisions would apply.

Sen. Lawson’s SB 134 imposes a duty on those over 21 to inform on those under 21 who are in possession of alcohol and on property owned or leased by the adult. Oddly, it’s o.k. not to report if the underage person is in college or, at least, “at a postsecondary educational institution.” (There are also exemptions if it’s religious or in the presence of the kid’s parents.)

But, unless there is an exemption, a 21 or older adult commits a Class C infraction for failing to inform (Class B if there are 6 or more minors.) The duty to inform requires you to:

(1) prohibit the minor from possessing an alcoholic beverage on the person’s property;
(2) confiscate the alcoholic beverage, if this can be done without breaching the peace; and
(3) immediately contact the minor’s parent, guardian, or custodian, if possible.

This should be popular among those complaining about the nannystate.

SB 117 is a backtrack from recent legislation that required an unopposed municipal candidate to be left off the ballot. This legislation would provide that, if there is an election for any candidate for municipal office in the municipality, then all of the candidates must be listed on the ballot.

For all the sound and fury over the use of “may not” versus “shall not,” I would note that this legislation – in accord with the legislative style manual (“To negate discretionary authority, say ‘may not'”) – continues the use of “may not.” This still means that, under the described circumstances, an election isn’t permitted.

SB 115 is a decennial effort, modifying the population parameters used to identify particular localities for the purpose of implementing legislation specific to particular places in the state. For example,instead of using “Tippecanoe County,” the legislation will say something like, “a county having more than 148,000 but less than 170,000 people.” (And, with the 2010 census, apparently that range is changing to 170k – 175k). So, every ten years, the parameters have to be changed throughout the Indiana Code. Why not just use the name of the place? Excellent question.

It’s sort of a workaround for Art. 4, sec. 22 and 23 of the Indiana Constitution which provides:

Section 22. The General Assembly shall not pass local or special laws:
Providing for the punishment of crimes and misdemeanors;
Regulating the practice in courts of justice;
Providing for changing the venue in civil and criminal cases;
Granting divorces;
Changing the names of persons;
Providing for laying out, opening, and working on, highways, and for the election or appointment of supervisors;
Vacating roads, town plats, streets, alleys, and public squares;
Summoning and empaneling grand and petit juries, and providing for their compensation;
Regulating county and township business;
Regulating the election of county and township officers and their compensation;
Providing for the assessment and collection of taxes for State, county, township, or road purposes;
Providing for the support of common schools, or the preservation of school funds;
Relating to fees or salaries, except that the laws may be so made as to grade the compensation of officers in proportion to the population and the necessary services required;
Relating to interest on money;
Providing for opening and conducting elections of State, county, or township officers, and designating the places of voting;
Providing for the sale of real estate belonging to minors or other persons laboring under legal disabilities, by executors, administrators, guardians, or trustees.

Section 23. In all the cases enumerated in the preceding section, and in all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, all laws shall be general, and of uniform operation throughout the State.

On the face of the laws, anyway, they aren’t “special” legislation. “Hey, this applies to any county that’s within those population parameters.” But, the population parameters were specifically targeted at particular places, and the laws were changed when the census numbers changed. And everybody knew these bills were intended as special legislation.

Prior to 2003, the Indiana Courts had been mostly willing to look the other way at this pretense. But, then the Indiana Supreme Court decided South Bend v. Kimsey. (Here is a decent primer on the subject.) I haven’t followed the issue very closely in quite some time, but my sense is that not a lot of laws have been successfully challenged under Kimsey. Nevertheless, it looks like with this legislation, the General Assembly is going to drop the pretense on a lot of statutes and just use the place name.

Sen. Broden’s SB 101 alters the statutory definition of “bicycle” and then sets standards for passing them on the road. Sorry unicyclists; you’re screwed.

Currently “bicycle” is defined as a foot propelled vehicle irrespective of the number of wheels in contact with the ground. The proposed legislation defines it as:

A vehicle:(1) propelled solely by a human powered foot crank or hand crank; (2) operated by one (1) or more individuals; and(3) having two (2) or more wheels. The term does not include a child’s ride-on toy or a skateboard.

It then requires drivers (or other bicyclists, I suppose)to allow at least three feet of clearance between the vehicle and the bicycle; and not return to the original lane until the vehicle is safely clear of the bicycle. You can go into a no-passing lane, if it’s necessary and if it’s safe to do so. It’s a Class C infraction if the driver does not comply with the statute.

Sen Kenley’s SB 98 would give counties flexibility to use their general funds for highway maintenance even in the absence of an emergency. Currently, the general fund is available to pay personnel expenses for the highway department but not for other costs of maintenance.

My understanding is that the other funding sources, currently used for highway maintenance, have been declining in recent years (not that county general funds are exactly overflowing). The state distributes to the counties revenues from gasoline tax, special fuel tax, and the motor vehicle registration fees. In addition, counties may have and use county motor vehicle excise surtax; county wheel tax; county adjusted gross income tax;
county option income tax; riverboat admission tax; and/or riverboat wagering tax.

Sen Boots has introduced SB 106 concerning the sale of cold beer in grocery stores and drug stores. It would allow such sales if the beer was brewed in Indiana by a microbrewery and if the sale did not exceed 3 cases worth of beer.

I can’t imagine this will succeed, but I like it. Standing in the way – the package liquor stores who don’t want the competition on cold beer; mass produced beer companies and out-of-state microbreweries who don’t want the Indiana microbreweries to have an unfair advantage on distribution.

I like the cultivation of Indiana’s rather good craft beer industry, but, aside from my personal preferences, I can see arguments that this might not be the wisest policy in general.