Indiana State Legislature

2019 Indiana State Legislature: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Source: Indiana Senate Democrats – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: 2019 Edition

The Ugly

Bias Crimes

This session, Governor Holcomb made it a priority to pass bias crimes legislation. With the governor’s support, Senate Democrats were confident that Indiana would finally get a comprehensive bias crimes law on the books. Sen. Greg Taylor (D-Indianapolis) worked with the Republican author of SB 12, the bias crimes bill chosen to advance in the Senate, to get a clear, concise proposal containing a list of protected characteristics, passed out of the Senate Committee on Public Policy. Once the bill reached the floor, however, the Supermajority removed the list from the bill’s language. Despite protests by the Democratic caucus, Republicans chose to advance the watered down bill. After receiving backlash, however, Republicans took a different route, amending bias crimes language into an unrelated SB 198. Though the language included a list of protected classes, it left out age, sex and gender identity. Democrats fought to get these important characteristics added back into the bill with no success. Governor Holcomb, who promised to pass an inclusive and comprehensive bias crimes bill, mysteriously had a change of heart and decided that a non-inclusive bill that was ageist, sexist and transphobic was sufficient and signed the bill into law once it reached his desk.

All Democratic amendments removed from budget

Every single item that Senate Democrats have fought for over the past four months was removed from the budget in the final days of session. The Democratic Caucus fought to pass legislation that would improve the lives of Hoosiers and every one of our efforts was eliminated. Those efforts included protecting the Lake Michigan shoreline from erosion, providing adoption subsidies for foster parents to keep kids out of foster homes, relief for Hoosiers unable to pay interest fees on property taxes and funding the Mortgage Foreclosure Program requested by Indiana’s Supreme Court to help Hoosiers not lose their homes.

Shifting funding away from public education
The Statehouse Republican budget prioritizes private and voucher schools over public schools. Many schools in urban or poorer communities saw cuts to their complexity funding, and many of those that saw their total dollars increase, still did not receive increases that match the inflation rate. Moreover, funding for private and charter schools saw large increases, sometimes as much as 10 percent.

No teacher pay raises

This year, the General Assembly appeared to be in agreement that raising the salary of Indiana teachers was a priority. Despite that, only Indiana Democrats actually drafted and fought for legislation that would allocate new dollars to accomplish this goal. SB 399, drafted by Sen. Eddie Melton (D-Gary), was the only legislation drafted that would provide school corporations with a grant that would be used to specifically to raise teacher pay. The bill would have granted a 5% increase to teacher pay over the biennial, but it died without ever being given a committee hearing. Sen. Melton again attempted to ensure that a guaranteed teacher raise, offering an amendment to the budget with the same language included in his SB 399; it was defeated along party lines. Another Senate Democratic amendment to the budget would have placed a tax on cigarettes and mandated that some of the proceeds be used to raise teacher pay. The amendment was also defeated along party lines.

Attempt to legalize the shooting of teachers

In March, Indiana made national news when several news articles reported that teachers were left with bruises and welts after being shot with rubber pellets during school shooting simulations. To address this issue, language was added to Senate Bill 1253 that would require teachers to consent to being pelted during training. This came after language, added in committee, banning the practice altogether was removed from the bill. Unfortunately, the new proposal requiring teachers to consent failed to become law after Republican author Representative Jim Lucas stopped it from progressing due to other changes in the bill — changes that would have mandated training for all teachers who planned to carry firearms in schools since there are cheap revolvers for sale that are available in the market nowadays.

Discrimination in publicly-funded private schools

Sen. J.D. Ford filed a bill this session, SB 344, and also offered an amendment to the budget to bar private schools receiving state voucher funds from discriminating against their students, staff and teachers. Both his bill and his amendment were defeated by the supermajority. Sen. Ford fought for this language in response news that Roncalli High School, which has received over $6.5 million in tax dollars, is terminating the employment of two employees simply because of their same-sex marriages.

Standoff
Continue Reading2019 Indiana State Legislature: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

A Brief History of Indiana’s Marriage Discrimination Amendment

I try to follow and post about the Indiana’s Marriage Discrimination Amendment every time it’s come up in the Indiana State Legislature, and here is a short history that I’ve been able to cobble together from past posts. This is mainly a testimony to my sketchy blogging more than anything else, as I seem to have often failed to follow up on posting about the outcomes of various bills. I’ll attempt to update this page with more research on bilerico.com and the Indiana legislative archives when I we are not in the middle of a legislative fight and when my internet is a lot more reliable than it is today.

In January of 2014, HJR-6 was re-named HJR-3 and introduced to the House Judiciary Committee. It got stuck in committee because it didn’t have the votes to move, so Brian Bosma moved it to the Elections Committee where it passed.

In January of 2013, HJR-6 (which is now the current bill HJR-3) was filed but never made it out of the House Judiciary Committee. Lawmakers indicated that they preferred to wait until the Supreme Court rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act were announced.

In March 2011, HJR-6 (which is now the current bill HJR-3) was being pushed through the state legislature for the first time. The LGBT Community held a rally to protest it.

In February of 2008, SJR-7 died after Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City refused to hear the legislation in the House.

In January of 2008, Representative Eric Turner, ranking Republican on the House Rules and Legislative Policy Committee, tried to amend a property tax bill to add SJR-7 after it looked like it would never make it out of committee to be heard.

On April 3rd, 2007, SJR-7 died in committee, unable to make it out of the Indiana House of Representative’s Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee.

On March 29th, SJR-7 testimony to the House Committee for SJR-7 revealed that the language in it had been rejected for the federal version of this amendment by Robert Bork because it was too ambiguous.

In the spring of 2007, SJR-7 became was being pushed through a house committee.

On February 8th of 2007, SJR-7 passed the Indiana Senate and was sent to a House committee to be heard.

On January of 2007, SJR-7, an Indiana Marriage Discrimination Amendment was re-introduced to the State Lesgislature.

On March 8th of 2005, we held a rally to oppose SJR-7, the first wave of an attempt to pass the Indiana Marriage Discrimination Amendment. This was the language of SJR-7:

DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Definition of marriage. Provides that marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Provides that Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Notice the second sentence of that bill – at time, we noted how flawed the language of the second sentence (different language than today’s HJR3, but still really flawed and problematic) was.

Prior to SJR-7 in 2005: There was a great deal of awareness in Indiana that a Marriage Discrimination Amendment was probably coming. There was an attempt to pass one on a federal level in 2003-2004 before the plan was blocked in Senate and the failure of Massachusetts ban on same-sex marriage and subsequent marriages triggered a flurry of activity in red states like our when opponents of same-sex marriage rights realized their days were numbered.

I really think there was a prior attempt at an amendment in the late 1990s or early 2000s, because I recall when I was more politically active in LGBT Fairness that we covered the issue and when we were fighting the state statute. I don’t have specific bill numbers or information about those attempts yet.

Continue ReadingA Brief History of Indiana’s Marriage Discrimination Amendment

IYG and the homophobic Indiana State Legislature

Indiana Youth Group is a social advocacy group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth that has been around since 1987. They provide lots of important services to help young LGBT people in Indiana, including counseling and social services for at risk youth, advocacy on their behalf in schools, and health education. IYG has been a big part of the lives of several generations of LGBT folks. I was a part of IYG when I was young, as was Zach Adamson, our esteemed city-county council member, business owner and the first openly gay men to be elected to public office in Indiana.

IYG’s executive director is Mary Byrne, a pillar of the LBGT community for decades. She was the producer of the National Women’s Music Festival for years, and also owned Outword Bound, the LBGT bookstore where Stephanie and I met. Mary was also my landlady for five years, which is why I have personal reason to know IYG is in strong, safe, competent hands. The organization has done good work in Indiana for decades, and like other youth advocacy non-profit organizations, they seek out important sources of fundraising from the community.

A few years ago, IYG applied for the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles Specialty Plates program. This program is a win-win for the state of Indiana and for non-profit organizations. They produce specialty plates at a low cost, and members of the non-profit and their communities can promote the plates and receive part of the revenue, with the rest of the profit benefiting Indiana. Specialty plates have become an important part of fundraising for non-profit organizations, and an important revenue source for Indiana as well.

IYG Plates

IYG had to fight to get accepted into the program – they were initially denied entrance into the program by arbitrary changes in the requirements and a lack of transparency about what the requirements were, and IYG had to go to court to get accepted. It became clear during the legal fight that the BMV’s lack of transparency and arbitrary rule changes were based on homophobia. IYG’s acceptance into the program ended up making national headlines.

Unfortunately, IYG’s new specialty plate didn’t sit well with homophobic people in Indiana, and especially not with homophobic members of the the Indiana State Legislature, who immediately began seeking ways to prevent plates from being issued beyond the first year, and began drafting legislation to alter the way that specialty plates were issued, hoping exclude IYG in future years. Homophobes eventually struck gold, canceling IYG’s ability to issue plates based on another lack of transparency in the rules – organizations were not allowed to issue number plates to organization members who had given them support; something that is a regular practice among non-profits. In addition to canceling IYG’s plates, two other organizations, The Indiana Greenways Foundation and the Indiana 4-H Foundation also had their plates canceled for the same reason. Both organizations believe they were just caught in the homophobic crossfire. Karen Bohn, head of the Greenways Foundation, said she believed the real target was the gay youth group. “I think we were just collateral damage,” she said. “Unfortunately it doesn’t seem very fair.”

All three organizations were in negotiations with the BMV to have their plates reinstated when this past week, those negotiations were abruptly canceled by the BMV, who cited the state legislature’s new licensing commission, run by the state legislature, who will be the final approval for specialty plates. Under the new commission rules, Greenways and 4-H will probably get their specialty plates back, but even state legislatures admit that IYG will be denied due to homophobia:

“It depends on the committee makeup,” [Valparaiso Republican Rep. Ed] Soliday said. “I’d be disingenuous if I didn’t say there are some legislators who are very, very anti-IYG. I tried to separate the legislation from IYG for two years, and there were other folks who constantly wanted to drag it back in.”

Continue ReadingIYG and the homophobic Indiana State Legislature

All hail Greg Ballard, our new Mayor King

Greg Ballard, Mayor King of Indianapolis

It’s official – Governor Pence signed SB 621, the bill that drastically reworks Indianapolis city government to take power away from the Indianapolis City-County Council and hand it over to the Mayors office. If you want to understand a bit more about what this bill does, read more about it here: [The Brutal Republican Power Grab of Indiana Senate Bill 621 (SB 621)]

Congratulations, folks. We now have a Mayor King. You don’t need to worry about what’s going on in city government, because you won’t be able to change it anyway. Your council districts are so gerrymandered that only Republicans can get elected in Marion County, and so much power has been redirected to the Mayors office that the city council and other public offices are rendered impotent anyway.

Also, the rules about how long you have to live in Indianapolis before running for office have been relaxed drastically – so it’s now easy for the white folks who live in Carmel and Fishers and rural areas to “hop the line” and “reside” in Marion County just long enough to get into office and control politics, without actually having to live for very long next to the poors and the blacks and the Mexicans. Because god forbid rich white folks might have to mix with the great unwashed. Rule them via imperial fiefdom – yes. Live next to them? Certainly not.

Continue ReadingAll hail Greg Ballard, our new Mayor King

The Brutal Republican Power Grab of Indiana Senate Bill 621 (SB 621)

This is an Indiana Senate Bill targeted at Indianapolis and designed to take away a great deal of political voting power of Indianapolis residents. If you are a resident of Indianapolis proper, READ THE TEXT of this bill and see the direct impact this bill has on you. Hell, even if you’re not an Indianapolis resident (Carmel, Fishers, Noblesville) you should be opposing this bill. The bill has passed the Indiana Senate and is poised to go through the Indiana House of Representatives, so contact your Representative. Contact info for your legislators is at the bottom of this post.

I’ve mentioned this bill before in another post, but let me break it down more completely.

It does several really heinous things:

1) removes “at large” city county council seats
The goal of this is clear – to reduce Democratic representation on the city-county council. Indianapolis’ city council districts are gerrrymandered like CRAZY. There are far more Democrats than Republicans in Indianapolis, but Republicans have rigged the districts so well (?) that they keep council seats election season after election season. The only way that Democrats get on the city-county council is through “at large” seats where voters can finally put the people they actually want to represent them in office. Eliminating these “at large” seats is terrible for both parties and serves no justifiable purpose from a pure government point of view, but it definitely helps the Republicans continue to have unfair respresentation in Indianapolis city government. (And a side note – there’s also some serious homophobia driving this. Zach Adamson getting elected to an At-Large City Council seat in Indianapolis really terrifies Republicans, so much so that they are trying to eliminate his seat altogether.)

2) makes changes to the Indianapolis goverment roles
The paragraphs about county treasurer, county auditor, and county assessor and controllers are hard to parse – essentially it gives the mayor a lot more power and removes power from other officials and from the city-county council, which means you have less representation.

3) reduces the amount of time someone must reside in Indianapolis before running for elected office.
There’s never good justification for reducing the amount of time someone should live somewhere before running for political office there. In Indianapolis we have a carpetbagger problem with Republicans who don’t live in Indianapolis moving into the city (sometimes from Hamilton County and other surrounding wealthier counties, but also from outside central Indiana) specificallly to try to get elected office in Indianapolis, where they can try to influence politics for Democrats who have been living in Indianapolis all of their lives. It’s a “have your cake and eat it too” win for Republicans, who don’t want to actually live in Indianapolis, but who want to control the politics here.

4) makes counting absentee ballots more difficult in key counties and eliminates ballots from being counted after polls are closed.
Those three counties in the last paragraph are listed for a reason – they’re heavily Democratic. Forcing absentee ballots to be counted in a central location makes it more likely that ballots will be eliminated, and helps the Republican party.

Indiana Senate Bill 621 (SB 621)

Here is the full text of the bill:

Local government issues.

Provides that the consolidated law enforcement department of a county having a consolidated city is a division of the department of public safety under the direction and control of the director of public safety.

Eliminates the requirement that the city-county council approve the director and deputy appointments of the mayor of the consolidated city.

Eliminates provisions that allow the city-county council to require the capital improvement board of managers to make payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTS) for deposit in the consolidated county fund.

Allows the mayor of a consolidated city to appoint two additional members to the metropolitan development commission, and eliminates the appointments of the county board of commissioners (consisting of the county treasurer, county auditor, and county assessor).

Allows the controller of the consolidated city and county to allot amounts appropriated to an office, department, or agency of the consolidated city or county.

Effective January 1, 2016, reduces the membership of the city-county council from 29 to 25 members by eliminating the members elected at large.

Requires a candidate for mayor of the consolidated city to reside in the city for at least one year (instead of five years) before taking office.

Requires a candidate for member of the city-county council to reside within the council district for at least one year (instead of two years) before taking office.

Provides that if the division of the county into city-county council districts is reviewed by a panel of judges, the clerk of the court must keep a record of the method and process of selecting the panel and make the record available for public inspection and copying.

Provides that in Marion County, a township board consists of five (instead of seven) members. Provides that members of the initial five member township board are elected at the November 2016 general election.

Requires absentee ballots in Marion, Lake, and Allen counties to be counted at a central location unless the county election board unanimously adopts a resolution that: (1) requires absentee ballots to be counted at individual precincts; and (2) states the county election board’s basis for adopting the requirement.

1) To figure out your district and state legislators visit this link: District Look Up and enter your address. Contact information – usually a phone number and the legislator’s website – is listed. Call their 1-800 number, or visit their website and find contact information for an email.

2013 Update: This bill was passed by the Indiana State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Mike Pence.

Continue ReadingThe Brutal Republican Power Grab of Indiana Senate Bill 621 (SB 621)

Indiana House Joint Resolution 6 (HJR-6) Marriage Discrimination Amendment

Yesterday, State Rep. Eric Turner filed Indiana House Joint Resolution 6 (HJR6) – the Marriage Discrimination Amendment in the Indiana House. It was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. You can track the status of the bill at this link.

SECTION 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of the State of Indiana is proposed and agreed to by this, the One Hundred Seventeenth General Assembly of the State of Indiana, and is referred to the next General Assembly for reconsideration and agreement.

SECTION 2. ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF INDIANA IS AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Section 38. Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

The second sentence of this bill has a terrible effect on ALL unmmarried couples, not just same-sex couples, in Indiana. In other states, similar language has been used to strip away spousal abuse laws for unmarried partners, leaving domestic partners who are not married vulnerable to violence with no legal protections.

This is the second trip for this bill through the Statehouse; it was passed in a previous year. If it is passed again this year, it will be added to the ballot to be ratified as an amendment by the public.

1) To figure out your district and state legislators visit this link: District Look Up and enter your address. Contact information – usually a phone number and the legislator’s website – is listed. Call their 1-800 number, or visit their website and find contact information for an email.

June UPDATE: Although the bill was introduced into the legislature, it did not make it out of committee in the 2013 legislative season. Lawmakers indicated that they preferred to wait until the Supreme Court rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act were announced.
Continue ReadingIndiana House Joint Resolution 6 (HJR-6) Marriage Discrimination Amendment

Indiana Senate Bill 621 (SB 621)

Bill introduced in the Indiana State legislature this week:

Indiana Senate Bill 621 (SB 621)

The analysis of this bill by Indy Democrat Blog: “Where to begin? It’s pretty easy. Almost everything in this bill is designed to reduce the power of Democrats in Marion County. From reducing the power of the County Commissioners (the Marion County Treasurer, Assessor, and Auditor) to deleting the At-Large seats on the Council, this bill would, as it stands now, reduce the power of the City-County Council in one majorly blue county.”

This was a bill requested by Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard to try to control the city-county council. It significantly tilts the balance of power in city government to the mayor and gives them unprecedented and unnecessary control of the city. It’s out-of-bounds.

1) Spread the word: Make sure your friends and family know about SB 621 and how it hurts our city by eliminating the independent power of the City-County Council and the elimination of the four at-large Council seats.

2) Call the Mayor: Media reports have made it clear – Mayor Ballard requested this proposal. Call his office and let him know that you oppose SB 621. His number is (317) 327-3601.

3) Call your state representative and senator: This bill will be heard in the Indiana General Assembly – call your state rep at (317) 232-9600 and senator at (317) 232-9400 and tell them you oppose SB 621.

2013 Update: This bill was passed by the Indiana State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Mike Pence.
Continue ReadingIndiana Senate Bill 621 (SB 621)

marriage discrimination attached to Gov’s Property Tax Bill

Indiana Republican Foul play at work – because looked like SJR-7 the marriage discrimination bill that has failed to pass the Indiana House the last two years, might again fail, Representative Eric Turner, ranking Republican on the House Rules and Legislative Policy Committee, filed a amendment to House Joint Resolution No. 1 (HJR1) a proposed constitutional amendment concerning property taxes.

It’s expected that the Governor’s proposed property tax reform bill, a high-profile piece of legislation, will receive attention and scrutiny. Any threat to it or opposition from Democrats will surely make headlines. However, it’s worth noting that the amendment being discussed is unrelated to property taxes, but it’s being attached to the bill since it’s expected to be approved. This is relevant to homeowners looking for south dallas homes for sale, who may want to keep an eye on any developments in property tax reform.

Don Sherfick of Indiana Equality seems to think that the bill with get a full reading by the House as a result, where Gary Welsh thinks that it will effectively kill the property tax bill, laying the blame for it at the door of House Democrats.

Indiana Equality has a handy lookup form to look up your representatives to give them a call to protest this issue.

Continue Readingmarriage discrimination attached to Gov’s Property Tax Bill

The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette on the Marriage Discrimination Amendment

Courtesy of blueindiana.net, I enjoyed this editorial from the The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette on the plans to re-introduce SJR-7 – the marriage discrimination amendment – into the short legislative session this year (when, of course, there are much more pressing issues like property tax reform that need to be addressed.)

There is no reason for it to pass this year or any year. Indiana has a law that prohibits same-sex marriage. The language of the proposed amendment is murky at best and would create more legal questions than it would answer.

Meanwhile, other states are quietly going the opposite direction from Indiana. Instead of adopting measures that take rights away from citizens, they are expanding rights. In 2007, New Hampshire joined Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey in offering civil unions. And Washington State and Oregon approved domestic-partnership laws to ensure legal rights for same-sex couples. Maine, California and Hawaii already have such laws.

Colorado, Iowa, Oregon and Vermont all banned workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, bringing to 12 the number of states with such anti-discrimination laws on the books. Nearly half of the U.S. population now resides in states that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, according to Stateline.org, an authoritative Web site that reports involving issues with state governments across the nation.

It is foolish for Indiana, still lagging other states in economic recovery, to consider a measure that would alienate any potential investor. It’s even more foolish to consider such a measure when elected officials should be focused on tax restructuring.

Continue ReadingThe Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette on the Marriage Discrimination Amendment

Julia Carson’s replacement should be LGBT Friendly

  • Post author:
  • Post category:Indianapolis

This is really disturbing – one of the names being discussed as a possibility for Julia Carson’s office by the Democrats is Indiana State Representative Carolene Mays, who voted in favor of SJR-7, the amendment to ban equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. More from Jerame Davis on Bilerico:

The passing of Congresswoman Julia Carson has left a gaping hole in Indiana political life. Julia Carson was a great leader and a strong progressive voice. As we consider her replacement, we should not forget the legacy Julia left and who can best live up to the service she provided and the strong support she gave to the LGBT community.

The winner of the special election to fill her remaining term will likely win the seat in the November general election and go on to serve a full term in Congress. This is not a decision to take lightly. Of the names coming forward as likely replacements, one in particular should infuriate LGBT voters in the 7th District.

Carolene Mays is no Julia Carson. She doesn’t even deserve the honor of being named among the possibilities to replace her and it is a disgrace to think she could live up to the job.

On paper, Carolene Mays looks like the perfect replacement for Julia. Mays is the president and publisher of the Indianapolis Recorder, the paper of record for the African-American community in Indianapolis. She is a 3 term Indiana State Representative. She serves (or has served) on numerous non-profit and foundation boards. She’s won numerous awards for service and she’s even a member of the same church Julia attended.

The area she falls most short of Julia is her support of LGBT Hoosiers. As a State Representative, Carolene Mays voted in favor of SJR-7, the Indiana Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Mays has never disavowed her support of the marriage amendment – an amendment Julia spoke against often – and she has shown no indication she would change her vote if it came before her again.

Carolene Mays is no Julia Carson. Either she’s a shameful political opportunist, who worried more about her political skin than the rights of LGBT citizens or she is a true believer in discrimination against LGBT Hoosiers. Either way, she pales in comparison to the Julia I knew.

We could count on Julia to stand up for us; there was no question. She was a regular presence at our Pride festivals. She’s been lionized by the Stonewall Democrats. She was instrumental in helping Indianapolis move forward with an inclusive human rights law. She voted against DOMA. She supported ENDA.

We cannot count on Carolene Mays for any of these things.

Julia was usually right and stood up for her beliefs. She voted against the war and spoke against both the war and George W. Bush long before it was popular to do so. Her funeral was a panoply of leaders and dignitaries who spoke of the fire and determination Julia had for her issues and her constituents.

If Carolene Mays will kowtow to the religious right over something as non-critical as gay marriage, how can we count on her to make the right decisions when it comes to war and peace or life and death?

Continue ReadingJulia Carson’s replacement should be LGBT Friendly