A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

Masson's Blog

Search Results for: www.indianabarrister.com

Abdul’s small town theory of Gov. Daniels unpopularity

by 25 Comments

Ruth Holladay has already tackled this one, but I have a couple of thoughts of my own on the recent Nuvo article by Abdul on small towns and Gov. Daniels. (Abdul, of course, being, among other things, the Indiana Barrister.)

His theory, essentially, is that small towns dislike the Governor and big cities like the governor. For purposes of discussion, he designates cities with buildings more than 5 stories high as the dividing line. He is correct that Governor Daniels is more popular in Central Indiana, particularly Indianapolis, than he is elsewhere in the state.

Based on a recent survey, Mitch has a 43-49 percent approval rating; definitely not good by any measure. But when you break it down by region, you get a better picture of who’s mad. The governor’s strongest approval ratings are in Indianapolis at 55 percent. Indianapolis has a lot of buildings taller than five stories. The governor’s lowest approval ratings, by region, are all outside of Indianapolis: Northern, 51 percent disapproval; Southern, 46 percent disapproval; Central (outside Indy), 59 percent disapproval. All places where tall buildings are few and far between, the governor is not a well-liked individual.

However, I think this has less to do with Indianapolis as a big city and is more particular to Indianapolis itself. The opposition to Gov. Daniels, Mr. Shabazz suggests, comes from a resistance to change. But, let’s look at what changes were being resisted. Specifically, the article mentions the Toll Road privatization and Daylight Saving Time. When you look at these issues in particular, it is no wonder there wasn’t much resistance in Indianapolis. These things barely meant change at all in Indy. Folks from the Indianapolis area don’t spend much time driving on I-80/90. You can bet there would’ve been a great hue and cry from Indianapolis if the proposal had been to make I-465 a toll road for the next 75 years. And, as for Daylight Saving Time, the main difficulty to date has been with respect to who was going to have the time zone line in their back yard. It sure wasn’t going to be Indianapolis. They are safely insulated by a county or two from that line.

It isn’t the smallness of the population centers that creates the resistance to the change but the proximity to the change. Look at South Bend — strong opposition to both the toll road and to Daylight Saving Time coming from that sector. And why? Because these things have a strong impact on folks from South Bend, because of the proximity. The time line was in their back yard. Governor Daniels threw away his pretense to be in favor of local control of the issue, going so far as to break a law in order to support Elkhart County’s opposition to St. Joseph County’s decision. And the Toll Road, of course, is something northern Indiana’s motorists drive on all the time. No wonder the Governor isn’t popular. And it isn’t because of the smallness of the communities there.

[tags]DST, Toll Road, privatization, Mitch Daniels[/tags]

Three recounts coming for Indiana House

by 6 Comments

There are three recounts coming for the Indiana House of Representatives. Incumbent Democrat Ed Mahern is contesting the election results showing Republican challenger Jonathan Elrod ahead by 7 votes. Democratic challenger Myron Sutton is contesting the election results showing Republican incumbent Don Lehe ahead by 27 votes. And Democratic challenger Larry Hile of Hartford City is contesting the election results showing Republican Timothy Harris ahead by 19 votes.

As the results stand, Democrats hold a 51-49 lead in the House. Their first act was electing Rep. Pat Bauer to be Speaker of the House. The Indiana Barrister notes the election of Sen. David Long to be President pro tem of the Senate and suggests that there could be a battle between conservative senators on one hand, and very conservative senators on the other hand.

Election Endgame

by 21 Comments

I came across a couple of columns this morning commenting on election endgame strategies with general disapproval. First up, Sheila Suess Kennedy, writing in the Indianapolis Star notes that the Republicans are going back to the homophobia well one more time. Energized by the New Jersey ruling that audaciously held that “denying commited same-sex couples the financial and social benefits given their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate government purpose,” we have Republicans hyperventilating about the mortal peril this represents to not only heterosexual marriages but the very American way of life. Conveniently forgotten are lesser issues about troops dying in Iraq to no real purpose, the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, the profiteering of military contractors, the refusal of Congress to implement the the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, warrantless wiretaps of American citizens, the death of habeas corpus, etc. etc.

Meanwhile, specific to Indianapolis and on the other side of the political fence, Abdul sees gamesmanship in the Indy City County Council’s decision to investigate whether Carl Brizzi, Republican candidate for Marion County Prosecutor, misled the Council about jail overcrowding this summer. The subject of the investigation may be worthy, but the timing is suspicious. A week before the election, the Council gets interested about jail overcrowding. Perhaps they were, like Capt. Renault in Casablanca, “shocked, shocked” to find a jail overcrowding problem in Indianapolis. Abdul righteously demands to be plied with Brazilian strippers, good scotch whiskey, and a box of cigars and chocolate if he is expected to be manipulated in this fashion.

For my part, the only last minute antics that have gotten me even briefly agitated are the folks getting worked up about Kerry’s stumbling attempt at humor and the media that enables them. The only way you could say that John “Oh, did I ever mention I served in Viet Nam” Kerry thinks all soldiers are stupid is if you are horribly, horribly ignorant or a liar. And yet, people expressing that view were given hour after hour of cable news time. Liberal media, indeed.

At the end of the day, I’m mildly annoyed that my vote and Abdul’s vote and Sheila Suess Kennedy’s vote are all counted equally with the votes of those who are poorly informed enough that they can be swayed by last minute theatrics and campaign advertisements. I’m happy enough with a system where I can be outvoted. I only wish that the votes were better informed.

Toll Road: Can of Worms for the S.Ct.

by 1 Comment

Niki Kelly has an article on the oral arguments in the Toll Road hearing before Indiana’s Supreme Court. From her write up, it would seem that the Supreme Court might rule against the Plaintiffs, or arrive at a 2 – 2 split which would leave the trial court ruling standing by default, not so much because the Plaintiffs’ challenge fails on its merits, but simply to avoid opening the can of worms they’ve been asked to open. Special legislation — the constitutionally prohibited act of passing a law specific to one group of people or area of the State when more general legislation is possible — is probably the genie that’s been let out of the bottle. The legislature has been passing special legislation under the fig leaf of population parameters for so long that the Supreme Court might be reluctant to wander into the snares that await if it tries to put an end to the practice. I’m not as familiar with State finance issues, but I imagine they’re reluctant to tell the General Assembly how to spend taxpayer money even if the Constitution requires the General Assembly to retire the public debt before it does anything else.

On the other hand, Matthew Tully has a column suggesting it’s tricky business trying to read into Justices thoughts from the questions they ask. Very true.

Theodore Kim has an article for the Indy Star. Lesley Stedman Weidenbener has an article for the Louisville Courier Journal. Mike Smith has an article for the Associated Press.

The Indiana Law Blog has a post on the arguments and provided a link to the Real Audio video of the oral arguments. Abdul at Indiana Barrister attended the arguments in person as did Michael Ausbrook at INCourts.

Abdul gets a lecture

by 2 Comments

Indiana Barrister’s Abdul Hakim-Shabazz got himself a lecture from Rep. Dan Burton  when Mr. Shabazz had the audacity to ask tough questions about Rep. Sodrel’s court-stripping scheme.  He has a good post up on the day’s events. I noticed other blog entries at Advance Indiana and The Howey Report.

In addition to some relevant analysis of Judge Hamilton’s decision, Abdul wishes we could have an Eleventh Amendment: “Thou shall not grandstand and use my name in the process!” Moses didn’t offer any such commandment, so we have to rely on the New Testament instead:

And when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites: for they love
to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets,
that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have received
their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and
having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy
Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee.

And in praying use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Be not therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Mark 6:5-8.

Abdul on the Toll Road

by 3 Comments

Over at Indiana Barrister, Abdul notes that toll road tolls have not gone up in the past 20 years. He characterizes this as the folks in Northern Indiana “basically driving for free.” Perhaps I’m missing something special about the Toll Road, but shouldn’t the bonds on building that road have been retired by now and the tolls eliminated? Is there a principled reason for imposing a tax on that road that we do not impose on the rest of Indiana’s roads?

I can see the reasoning for imposing tolls to pay for construction of the road in the first place if the road simply would not have been built any other way. But once the construction bonds were paid, the tolls should have stopped. I seem to recall hearing that when construction was started that promises were made for an end to tolls once the bonds were paid. At most, it seems to me that tolls should be set at a level sufficient to pay for maintenance of the road and no more.

But, road funding being what it is, I would not be surprised if there is a twist of which I am unaware. I’d be happy to know what that is.

Indiana Barrister

by Leave a Comment

The Indiana Barrister has a post wondering why the House Democrats are making such a big deal out of the fact that the company being sold the rights to the Toll Road for the next 75 years is a foreign company. Personally I agree that the foreignness of the company is beside the point when we are debating whether the sale is good policy. I think the policy question is whether it is a good idea for the State to relinquish control of its transportation infrastructure to a private entity that has the interests of its shareholders as a priority rather than the interests of the citizens of Indiana for a long period of time in exchange for a short term infusion of cash.

However, I suspect that as a political matter, it is a big deal because during his campaign against Governor Kernan, Candidate Daniels made such a big deal about making sure that government contracts went to Indiana companies. I’m sure the Governor has explanations for this contract and all of the other contracts that have gone to outside companies. But, to explain himself, he will have to get into details and shades of grey; and often times it is hard to get the voting public to pay attention to such details long enough for them to sink in. In addition, I think Hoosiers in general are vaguely suspicious of outsiders.

Health Finance Commission considering bill prohibiting reproductive assistance for gays, lesbians, and single Hoosiers

by Leave a Comment

Due to technical problems I’ll not bore you with, I do not have a functioning Adobe Acrobat on my home computer, so I can’t link directly to the proposed bill at issue. However, the Health Finance Committee page contains copies of draft legislation, presumably one of the documents labeled “PD” is the draft that Niki Kelly writes about in today’s Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.

Under the draft legislation:

Gays, lesbians and single Hoosiers would be prohibited from using medical science to help have a child.
. . .
the part of the bill raising eyebrows involves assisted reproduction.

It defines assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.

The bill then requires “intended parents” to be married to each other and specifically says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

A doctor can’t begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child’s being born until the intended parents of the child have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill.

. . .

Some of the required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, hobbies, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans, letter of reference and criminal history checks.

A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents is also required, including individual participation in faith-based or church activities.

The Commission will vote on October 20 on whether to recommend the bill to the Indiana General Assembly.

I think Betty Cockrum of Indiana Planned Parenthood puts it very well, “If we’re going to try to put Indiana on the map, I wouldn’t go this route.”

Update Thanks to Indiana Barrister for the honorable mention and the link to the draft legislation. Analysis of the legislation below the fold.

The draft defines “assisted reproduction” as “a method of causing pregnancy other than sexual intercourse. The term includes intrauterine insemination; donation of an egg; donation of an embryo; in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo; and intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

It defines “intended parents” as parents who enter into an agreement providing that they will be the parents of a child born by means of assisted reproduction or by means of assisted reproduction to a gestational mother. Parents are intended parents even if neither parent has a genetic relationship with the child. The term does not include an unmarried person. (Emphasis added.)

The proposed law applies to a child conceived by assisted reproduction as defined above unless the child is conceived by sexual intercourse, conceived by assisted reproduction where the “intended parents” are the sperm donor and the egg donor (keep in mind that an unmarried person does not qualify as an “intended parent”), conceived by a gestational carrier, or conceived by surrogacy.

  • An intended parent may petition a probate court for parentage only if the intended parents are married to each other. (It bears mentioning that gay and lesbian marriages are not permitted in the state of Indiana.)
  • A physician may not commence an assisted reproductive technology procedure unless the “intended parents” obtain an assessment from a licensed child placement agency. The assessment must require parents to provide the agency with information from both parents including family of origin, “values”, relationships, employment & income, hobbies and talents, “a verified evaluation of the intended parents’ marital relationship”, A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents, include a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities, hobbies, and other interests.

    A physician or individual who proceeds with giving or obtaining reproductive assistance in violation of this law faces 6 months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine. A person who makes a false statement in violation of the law faces a 1 year sentence and a $5,000 fine.

  • Unmarried individuals may not enter into an agreement with a gestational mother if the gestational mother is to be impregnanted by means of assisted reproduction. In addition, before parents may enter into a gestational agreement, the parents must go through an agency assessment which includes providing information on the parents’ participation in church-based activities, among other things.

    I don’t know. Doesn’t sound like limited government to me. More like government small enough to fit into your bedroom.

    I understand that our state legislators would prefer if every child was born into the perfect family. However, I see no reason to subject barren women (and those who love them but don’t want to marry them) to heightened standards simply because they have difficulty conceiving. Meanwhile, fertile, round heeled, trailer-trash girls can go around copulating with anything that moves, popping out kids willy-nilly without a whiff of state interference. Doesn’t sound like equal protection of the laws to me.

    • Indiana Barrister interview of Judge John Tinder

    by Leave a Comment

    The Indiana Barrister has an interview with Judge John Tinder of the Southern District of Indiana. The interview is the first in what is intended to be an ongoing series. The whole thing was interesting, but I was most interested in the non-judicial parts of the interview. I suppose this is because recently my attention was directed to an essay (pdf) in the Winter 2000 issue of Court Review by Isaiah Zimmerman entitled Isolation in the Judicial Career.

    The essay suggests that due to the nature of their jobs, including the need for the appearance of propriety, the heavy workload and the loss of casual relationships with practicing attorneys, and due to the tendency of judges to have personalities featuring introversion, intellectuality, high idealism, and a strong work ethic, judges have a tendency to suffer from social isolation and chronic overwork.

    To be clear, even after reading the interview, I do not remotely have enough information to conclude that any of the above applies to Judge Tinder. But, I heard echoes of the Zimmerman article in some of Judge Tinder’s responses. Particularly:

    There is little on the negative side of this work. If I had to pick one thing, I would say that the most difficult part of the job is the endless flow of work. I would love to be able to go home one day each week, or even one day each month, knowing that all of the things that I could have done to move my workload to completion had been done. In over 18 years in this job, I have never had even one of those days. There is so much to do on so many cases that much goes undone each day. Even in the midst of time away from the office, thoughts will pop into my head about cases that have been lingering too long in my office. Guilt learned from 12 years in Catholic schools and a sizeable number of challenging cases make for a nasty combination. It would be a great thrill to walk into my office some morning to a clean desk to start on a brand new slate of cases. It isn’t going to happen.

    Also, the Judge’s self-deprecating response to the question about his hobbies.

    I am a little embarrassed for people to know about the frivolous ways I spend leisure time, and I don’t want people to think that I ever do anything other than work. Litigants (and lawyers) waiting for decisions don’t like to read about how their judge goofs off. Additionally, my out-of- office interests could be charitably described as eclectic, but perhaps more honestly could be labeled trivial and schizophrenic.

    I was also a bit embarassed for my profession when I read that the Judge was a bit reluctant to mention his extracurricular activities for fear that attorneys practicing in front of him would start tailoring their comments and analogies to his interests. He mentions letting it be known that he was a baseball fan only to be barraged with baseball metaphors in legal briefs and whatnot. Then again, here I am popping off with a bit of psychoanalyis just because the Judge was kind enough to be interviewed by Indiana Barrister and because I happened to read the Zimmerman essay recently. So, sorry about that Judge.