A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

The ACLU, on behalf of several prisoners, is suing the Indiana Dept. of Correction, seeking a contempt order for allegedly violating a prior order requiring the state to offer kosher meals to inmates whose religious beliefs require it. I don’t know anything about the order in question or the nature of the violations. Apparently the IDOC had been substituting vegan meals for kosher meals in order to cut costs. 

A lot of times, the dynamic in correctional facilities seems to be that they serve food that inmates don’t like – either because they’re cutting costs, because they’re preparing food in mass quantities, because the inmates just don’t like being in jail generally, or some combination thereof. Dietary needs differ for some inmates – for religious reasons in some cases. Often enough, it seems, inmates who don’t actually require a different diet than the general population will feign religious concerns as a way of getting better food or attempting to exert a bit of control over a facility where they have precious little. Having to offer special treatment creates more variables for the correctional facility. In places trying to comply, things get missed. And, I’m sure in others, there is some resistance on the part of the authorities to the inmate’s attempt to exert influence. 

I don’t really get the religious dietary restrictions generally. For earlier peoples who had not yet figured out why – for example – pork made you sick, the rules undoubtedly had a good bit of survival value. But now they seem so arbitrary that I don’t see the sense in requiring our correctional facilities  to go into contortions to accommodate them. (But, if we’re going to have fits over whether store clerks say “Merry Christmas,” I suppose my casual dismissal of dietary laws handed down by the Almighty wouldn’t be mainstream.) I’m sure case law has addressed this, but I haven’t read any of the cases  lately and don’t recall what they say. Seems like the line drawing between those religious concerns that need to be accommodated and those that don’t will inevitably be arbitrary — if I’m a religion of one, converted on the day of my incarceration, to a religion that requires rib eye steaks every day, the DOC isn’t going to have to accommodate me; even if I’m sincere. But it will have to accommodate a request for a kosher diet. Somewhere between rib eye and kosher, the line gets drawn.

Like I said, I don’t know anything about the specifics of the ACLU case, so my mutterings here shouldn’t be regarded as a reflection of the merits of that case or the lack thereof. 

An article by Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune entitled Polygamy remains PR stumbling block for Mormons.

An interesting read, but I don’t know enough about Mormonism to reconcile this article with, say, Jon Krakauer’s “Under the Banner of Heaven.” Krakauer’s account makes Mormonism look to suffer from more than just a public relations problem. The doctrine seems deeply weird — though, I guess I don’t know how much weirder it would seem than any other religion if Joseph Smith had been born a thousand years ago instead of a couple hundred. Age seems to have a way of immunizing the oddities of religious doctrine. And, the way polygamy works seems to involve a lot of coercion rather than a choice made freely by adults with relatively equal power. The extent of its embrace by Mormons is also a matter of some dispute. The article says that Mormons abandoned polygamy over a century ago. Krakauer suggests that the abandonment was more PR than truly embraced by the top echelon of Mormon officials. And, the article hints at that:

Ultimately, the polygamy link to Mormonism won’t go away, either, said Valerie Hudson, a political-science professor at Brigham Young University, until Mormons themselves stop believing that it is the marriage pattern in heaven.

Regular Americans “rightly suspect that there are a decent amount of Mormons — about 50 percent — who believe they will be practicing polygamy again someday,” Hudson said, “if not here, at least in the hereafter.”

Merry Christmas everyone. For starters, just a word on the War on Christmas, ironically, to recognize I shouldn’t be spending time thinking about it. And, yet, it gets me riled up — which is, I am sure, the point of those stoking the fires. Get people emotional and interested for fun and profit. The latest news of interest on this front is learning that the Pilgrims viewed Christmas celebration as pagan or, at least, not sanctioned by the Bible. The Founding Fathers didn’t seem to think much of the day either as they traditionally treated December 25 like another work day.

My guess is that we started celebrating Christmas in a modern fashion sometime after Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol.” And, I’ve been hearing for decades that we no longer celebrate it The Right Way. So, we must have peaked on celebrating properly somewhere between Dickens and maybe the McCarthy Era.

For my part – and it’s probably easier for me to be laid back on the subject because I’m not religious – everyone should celebrate the holiday as they please. And, if they have religious beliefs of their own that preclude them being associated with an event associated with the divinity of Christ, I get that. But, for my part, the holiday is valuable because it’s a time to be with my family and take a moment devoted to them, watching the joy and wonder on the face of my kids; getting my wife a gift as a token of the fact that I love her. And, when they get me gifts, it’s still nice. Even though I could buy the stuff for myself, if I was so inclined, it’s better when it comes with surprise and the knowledge that someone expended the time and the effort because they care for you. The stuff itself is incidental.

Whether Jesus was born any time near December 25 or not, the timing does have an inevitable symbolism that I like because of its proximity to the solstice. The loss of light is at an end; and the sun is beginning its come back. Even though it’s cold and the days remain short, you know it’s just a matter of time before longer days and spring.

Merry Christmas, every one!

Interesting poll results on “the War on Christmas.” By a margin of 71 – 16 (13 undecided), people who identify themselves as being part of the Tea Party movement say they believe there is a “War on Christmas.” This is as compared to the general population where 40% say “yes” and 42% say “no.”

The reason that’s interesting to me is because the Tea Party has been billed as an economic movement, concerned about taxes and deficits. If it were a primarily economic movement, one would not expect much variation from the general public on a manufactured culture war issue. But Tea Partiers are more likely to buy into the “War on Christmas” nonsense than Republicans generally (58 – 27).

The reason, of course, is that the Tea Party isn’t fundamentally about economics. The economic arguments are a proxy for something else — that “undeserving” people are taking from the deserving and undoing the fabric of the country. That’s why they need to “take back” the country. This is just another chapter in the paranoid fantasy of a country that was once “Leave it to Beaver” or something but is being ruined — this time by Godless secularists who are practically spitting on the Baby Jesus every time they say “Happy Holidays.”

I’ve had a chance to go over the Marion Circuit Court decision (pdf) on the challenge to whether Republican Secretary of State nominee, Charlie White, was ever an eligible candidate for the office. The contention has been that he moved out of the precinct in Fishers where he was a town councilman but didn’t update his registration because he would have lost his council seat and, because he was not properly registered as a voter, he was not an eligible candidate.

Time line:

1998 – 2006: Married to Nicole, lived at Broad Leaf in Fishers (14th district); registered to vote at Broad Leaf.
Dec. 2006: Divorced, moves to Pintail in Fishers (14th district)
Jan. 2007: Quitclaims interest in Broad Leaf to Nicole, remains on mortgage; registers to vote at Pintail.
May 2009: Terminates lease at Pintail, moves belongings into Broad Leaf basement.
June 2009: Becomes engaged to Michelle; Nicole has remarried.
November 2009: Leases Overview condo (Fishers 2d district). (Splits time between Nov. 2009 and June 1, 2010 staying with Michelle at Overview and crashing in Nicole’s basement in Broad Leaf)
Feb 22, 2010: Changes registration back to Broad Leaf (Fishers 14th district)
Feb 26, 2010: Buys Overview condo (has paid rent since November.)
May 28, 2010: Marries Michelle.
June 1, 2010: Moves into Overview permanently.
June 19, 2010: Republican party certifies White’s nomination as SoS candidate.
July 15, 2010: Deadline to register to vote to be a qualified candidate.
Sept. 2010: Controversy over registration breaks in the news.
Sept. 22, 2010: Changes registration to Overview.
October 4, 2010: Deadline to register to vote to participate in general election.

Law:

IC 3-8-1-1: “A person is not qualified to run for [office] unless the person is registered to vote in the election district the person seeks to represent not later than the deadline for filing the declaration or petition of candidacy or certificate of nomination.” (So, in this case, by July 15, 2010.)

IC 3-5-5: Chapter for determining residency of a voter or potential voter and a candidate. A person can’t reside in more than one precinct (sec. 3), a person retains residency in the precinct until the person abandons the residence (sec. 4). A person does not gain residency by moving without the intent of making a permanent home in the precinct. (sec. 7)

IC 3-5-2-42.5: “”Residence” means the place (1) where a person has the person’s true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment; and (2) to which the person has, whenever absent, the intention of returning.”

It was pretty clear that White abandoned his Pintail residence — the lease terminated, he moved out. But, he never established a new, permanent residence in the 14th precinct after that. The judge compares White’s stay in the Broad Leaf basement to a stay in a motel while one is looking for a job or to a student’s stay in a dorm while studying. He says that when White began staying with his ex-wife and her husband, they were hospitable, but there was no evidence that this was ever intended as anything more than a temporary arrangement; he was a guest whose invitation could be withdrawn at any time. Because his physical presence at Broad Leaf did not coincide with intent to make it his permanent abode, the court reasoned, White did not establish the Broad Leaf address as a permanent domicile or residence within the meaning of the registration residency statute. “Intent and conduct must converge to establish a new domicile,” the court stated, citing a challenge to Evan Bayh in the 80s.

For my part, I would have liked an analysis of IC 3-5-5-18: “an individual with a nontraditional residence whose residence is within a precinct, but is not fixed or permanent, resides in that precinct.” But, perhaps the Secretary of State – either in person or through the Attorney General did not pursue that argument for whatever reason and waived it.

Something of an aside, and I can’t believe that, even if this decision stands the Republicans wouldn’t get bailed out, but IC 3-5-2-30 suggests that the Libertarians and not the Republicans would be the other Indiana “major party” for ballot access purposes:

Sec. 30. “Major political party” refers to:
(1) with respect to the state, either of the two (2) parties whose nominees received the highest and second highest numbers of votes statewide for secretary of state in the last election; or
(2) with respect to a political subdivision, either of the two (2) parties whose nominees received the highest and second highest numbers of votes in that political subdivision for secretary of state in the last election.

Andysonson at Daily Kos speculates:

To close, let me reclarify what Rosenberg’s ruling and a subsequent agreement from the Indiana Supreme Court could have in store for our state. Democrats could get the top ballot line for every single race in the state (no matter how down in the weeds) for the next three years. Democrats could get inspectors in all precincts, meaning that we control every precinct board in the state. Furthermore, the Indiana Election Commission and all precinct boards would consist of Democrats and Libertarians. With Osili as Secretary of State, we could gain a majority control over the Indiana Recount Commission. The Republican Party could lose major party status in the state, while the Libertarian Party could take their place as a major party. The Libertarian Party could then gain access to primaries, whereas the Republican Party would lose their access to primaries. It would force Republicans into conventions to nominate their candidates, and that would certainly favor state Treasurer Richard Mourdock in his primary challenge against sitting US Senator Richard Lugar. Because the GOP would lose their line on the ballot for the next three years, it would mean that the GOP would have to petition each time they want to get a candidate on the ballot (ballot line access requires signatures equal to 2% of the number of voters in the Secretary of State race; with Charlie White’s votes invalidated in the total, this equates to 14,659 signatures per candidate). With this lowered number of necessary signatures, a wide array of upstart Independent and third-party candidacies could theoretically sprout up.

Like I said, I don’t think this will happen. Even if White’s ouster is upheld; some legal interpretation or statutory fix will come through to keep Republicans and Democrats in the cat bird’s seat with respect to ballot access.

Judge Louis Rosenberg of the Marion Circuit Court entered an order reversing the Indiana Recount Commission, remanding it to the Recount Commission with instructions for them to declare Charlie White ineligible and to certify Vop Osili as the Secretary of State by virtue of him being the second highest vote recipient and only eligible candidate.

I literally have not read anything but the last paragraph of the decision because of work blowing up today.

The Evansville Press has an editorial entitled Non-solution enacted for a non-problem chiding the U.S. House for tackling a non-issue. It seems to be a variation on the saying that, “where there is no solution, there is no problem.”

Give the House Republicans a non-issue, a bill that is going nowhere and that addresses a nonexistent problem and you’ve got a tough bunch of lawmakers on your hands.

Wasting the taxpayers’ money and their own time, the House recently voted 268-to-150 to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating farm dust. The weakness in the GOP scheme is that the EPA has no such regulations, is not proposing any such rules and has no plans to.

Apparently this did provide some rich opportunity for a lot of chest thumping and anti-EPA bloviating. Nothing like creating a strawman and burning him down. Kind of like the War on the War on Christmas.

Rep. Diana DeGette had a good comment:

“This session of Congress has felt to many of us like a trip into Alice’s Wonderland,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said during closing debate. “While our nation struggles with a devastating economy, we do nothing about jobs or getting Americans back to work. Instead, we repeatedly fall down the rabbit hole of extreme legislation, and now with this [bill] … it seems that we’re even having tea with the Cheshire cat.

“To paraphrase our friend the Cheshire Cat, ‘We’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad. You must be mad, or you wouldn’t have come here.’ … [The bill] is a mad solution to an imaginary problem,” she added.

Apparently the House Republicans rejected an amendment that would require a report on how many jobs were created by this legislation.