A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Joint Resolution 0007 The anti-Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment passed the Senate 42 to 8. I think it’s an inappropriate mucking about with the Constitution, but if they have to pass it, the Senate made a somewhat sensible amendment. They changed:

Neither this Constitution nor any other Indiana law may be construed to confer marital status or any legal incidents of marriage upon unmarried couples or groups.

to

This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

So, instead of prohibiting the grant of legal incidents of marriage to same-sex couples, it simply prohibits construing statutes to require such a grant. An interesting question would be whether a law specifically granting an incident of marriage to a same-sex couple would be enforceable. For example, a statute saying, “Hospitals shall allow same-sex partners the same visitation rights as married couples enjoy.” Hospital disobeys the law. Then defends, saying that, per the Indiana Constitution, the statute can’t be construed to require them to to confer a legal incident of marriage on unmarried couples. Seems like we might be opening a can of worms with that “legal incidents of marriage” language.

Senate Bill 0360 – Prohibits an insurer (or the state employee insurance plan) from covering surgical treatment of morbid obesity of someone less than 19 years old unless 2 physicians determine that the procedure is necessary to save the person’s life. Passed Second Reading in the Senate.

Senate Bill 0218

Provides that evidence of the failure to comply with the laws concerning safety belt use may be admitted as evidence in a civil action to reduce damages for injury to a person, and may limit the liability of an insurer. Provides that the defendant has the burden of establishing that use of a safety belt would have reduced damages.

An amendment was defeated that would’ve allowed admission only where there was a signed confession or a conviction of failing to wear a seat belt. The bill passed second reading and will presumably be voted on by the Senate in the near future. I think I support this measure. On the one hand, you take your victim as you find them, but, on the other hand, anti-seat belt activists usually cite personal choice and freedom as the reasons they shouldn’t be burdened. With freedom comes responsibility, so I figure it makes sense to make people exercising their freedom bear the additional loss they sustain as a result of that exercise of freedom.

Mary Beth Schneider has an article for the Indianapolis Star entitled 1,500 bills big and small vie for attention. She mentions that most bills will slip by without any kind of media attention. I don’t know that I’d call myself “media attention” but even this blog, with its focus on legislation and sometimes shotgun approach to coverage missed most of the ones she points out. The only one I paid real attention to was concerning a poet laureate. (I’m pleased to say that PSoTD was actually kind enough to pick up on that one.)

The other bills mentioned in Ms. Schneider’s article:
SB 301 and HB 1171 — Cheerleading safety;
HB 1238 and HB 1106 — Car headlights
HB 1091 — Anti-panhandling
SB 103 — Attendance officers in schools
HB 1474 — Yearbook photographers
HB 1276 — Animal treatment by chiropractors
HB 1365 and SB 208 — Pest control and groundhogs.

One thing it would be interesting to know is how much the volume of bills considered by the legislature changes with the technological ability to generate the volume. I know anectdotally from long-time LSA employees that the number of bills considered by the General Assembly has increased with computer technology. Cause and effect is a bit hard to determine, but how do you suppose the legislature would deal with 1,500 bills if each one had to be typed (or, going way back, hand-written maybe) along with each amendment, committee report, etc., etc. Oddly, our ability to process text may be increasing how regulated we are as a society.

Tammy Webber, for the Indianapolis Star, has an article entitled Bill, EPA may help with sewage woes.

She reports that the Senate will consider Senate Bill 620,
which would let communities change water-quality standards during storms — meaning waterways would not have to be clean enough for human contact for up to four days. That would protect the state from lawsuits while lawmakers work to solve the problem. The goal, apparently, is to give communities some leeway as they work on improving their water treatment facilities so they handle overflows better even if they can’t treat every drop of water in an overflow.

Theodore Kim, for the Indianapolis Star, has an article entitled Speed limit debate is revving up in Indiana

Basic premise – opponents say higher speeds equals more accidents, injuries, and deaths. Proponents say that folks are already mostly driving 70, why not legalize it. I’m with the proponents, favoring higher speed limits, but I think the opponents are probably correct and the proponents are being disingenuous. There will be more injuries, accidents and deaths, and people will drive faster than they did before if the speed limit was increased. But, nevertheless, the odds of being in an interstate accident are relatively low, and I want to drive faster. Probably immature of me, but there you have it.

The Journal & Courier has an article on Indiana’s Do Not Call list being put under attack. Basically, a banking organization is seeking a ruling from the FCC saying the recently passed, and less restrictive, federal do not call list preempts Indiana’s older, more effective, Do Not Call List. This report is almost exclusively of the “man-on-the-street” variety. There is an interview with banker, Gary Neal, who apparently thinks that Banks should be able to call you when your CD is about to expire so they can contact you with exciting new CD opportunities. Meanwhile, Edward Viney thinks that Do Not Call lists generally are illegal because they put telemarketers out of work and do not stop political telephone calls.

I’d like to pat myself on the back because I saw this coming. When the federal law was coming down the pike, I wrote to Representative Buyer and asked him to make sure that state law wasn’t preempted. Guess my little letter may not have done much good. Although, according to this FCC website more restrictive state laws are authorized. Perhaps the banks’ argument is a bit more nuanced. I mentioned this previously here. (Though, reviewing that link, apparently I haven’t completely weeded out all online poker comment spam.)

Today, there is an Indy Star article on school vouchers entitled, Voucher plan for schools gaining steam.

Here is the basic problem with vouchers: Some kids are more expensive to educate than others.

If we don’t really care if the difficult to educate kids get some level of education, we can let the schools kick out the problem kids and probably make a voucher system work. If schools know they only have $x per kid to meet their education goals, they can just kick out those kids who cost more than $x to educate. Under the current system, the more easily educated kids are, in effect, subsidizing the less educable children.

If we do want to educate the hard-to-educate children (and I think we should), then a straight voucher system doesn’t work because it lets the easily educated children leave and take all of their money with them, including the dollars that were previously being used to subsidize the problem children.

Now, if we had enough money to let the old school receive just as much money as ever while the child who wanted to change schools headed for greener pastures with some additional money; then I suppose a voucher system could work. But, if we’re going to require a school to keep the problem child and take money away from the school every time an easily educated child leaves, then we’re putting the school in a trick bag that it won’t get out of.

Police chief and legislator at odds over level of cooperation Apparently there is some tension between the New Castle Police Chief, Jim Nicholson, and Representative Tom Saunders over the level of cooperation given by the Saunders family. Saunders turned over the car and had his attorney working on voluntary statements before being subpoenaed. Nicholson, who has apparently closed the book on the case in his own mind, would have apparently preferred that Rep. Saunders drive his son to the jail and provide the police department with a signed confession on their way through book-in. Maybe I’m exaggerating, but if I were the Saunders’ attorney, I’d lean toward the “don’t tell ’em a thing” school of thought. So, coming from that point of view, I figure the Saunders are being remarkably forthcoming.