Bill to Eliminate Straight Ticket Voting Introduced

Senator Mike Delph has introduced a bill to eliminate straight ticket voting at the general election ballot box in Indiana.  Straight ticket voting does very little or nothing to support the strength of the voter in Indiana.  Instead, it gives uncanny amounts of support to political parties, since the masses of uneducated voters will often choose to simply pull a straight-party vote rather than taking time to learn about the candidates they are voting for.

Of course, this bill was instantly met with resistance (and by instantly, I mean I've only HEARD that it's going to be SB 35 because the General Assembly doesn't even have information about the bill up on their website as of this typing).  The prevailing attitude among those that are opposed to this legislation is that it tells voters how they can or cannot vote.  Frankly, that is simply wrong.

Fellow blogger Jon Easter, of the Indy Democrat Blog was seen commenting on at least a couple of threads on Facebook regarding this issue.  This comment, in particular, stood out to me:

If I wish to vote straight ticket, then I should have that choice. He assumes that I don't know what I'm voting for when I choose to use the straight ticket choice. I don't use it every time, but, when I do, I know what the heck I'm doing.

 First, even without straight ticket voting available, you, as a voter, still have that choice.  All you have to do is go down through the ballot and vote for those members of the party you choose to support.  Second, I trust Jon Easter to be an educated voter and know "what the heck" he's doing...but frankly, I don't trust most voters to do the same.

Don't get me wrong here.  I'm not saying that voters are stupid or idiots or anything of the sort.  I'm only saying that, for the average voter, many of the small local races don't feel important to them.  Few voters choose to research those races and discover which option they truly support.  And if that voter chooses to vote straight ticket rather than doing that research then they just might vote for someone they don't at all believe in, or quite possibly disagree with wholeheartedly.  

Of course, eliminating straight ticket voting doesn't eliminate that problem outright.  But it may go a long way in beginning to slow it down.  You see, many of those straight ticket voters may not vote in every race that is on the ballot the way they currently are.  They may look down the ballot and say, "you know what, I don't know anything at all about this race or its candidates....I'm gonna take a pass."  Or, they might say, "You know, I know nothing about this race or its candidates.  I'm gonna check them out and try to learn some more before heading to the ballot box."

Either way, we, as voters and citizens, win as a whole.  I think everyone should vote.  I think everyone should make themselves as informed as possible and vote on every race they can.  But I also believe that voting blindly for candidates in races that you neither know, care about, have researched, nor understand does you no favors.  It does no other citizens any favors, either.

Not every voter is Jon Easter.  They don't all live and breathe politics and politicians.  And if they can't even bother to learn more about the offices they are voting for, or the candidates in those races, then I don't think that making them at least scroll down the ballot for their name and/or party identity is really that bad of a thing.

P.S. - Just in case you were wondering, straight ticket voting has been on a very steady downturn over the last few decades.  According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, there are only fourteen states that still have straight ticket voting.  Indiana is one of them.  Let's not let this issue turn into another Sunday alcohol sales...let's not become the laughing stock of the nation by being the last state to get it right.

***UPDATE*** While I was typing this post, Jon Easter also posted on Indy Democrat Blog about this topic.  Check out his post "Delph Wants to Spoil Ballot on Straight-Ticket Voting."  Jon has a very high quality blog that is definitely worth a few minutes of your time each day.

Sunday Alcohol Sales: Hoosiers Now Alone

Connecticut just passed a bill that will allow retail alcohol to be sold in that state on Sundays.  This makes Connecticut the 49th state to allow Sunday alcohol sales.  That's right, Hoosiers...you're the last man standing.

Sometimes it's good to be the lone wolf.  When you're blazing new trails or experimenting with a new idea, it is perfectly fine to be the only one doing something.  When you're the last one to move away from an arcane way of doing things, though, it just means you're the slowest to adapt to the future.  It means you are not willing to accept change and head into an inevitable future.

States are designed to compete with each other.  It was built into the design of our country via the Constitution.  When it came to free markets, the constitution supported them at that level.  The states were designed to be able to do pretty much whatever they wanted within a few simple federal guidelines.  By doing this, states would have good reason to come up with new and better ideas for running themselves.  People of a certain philosophy could gather into areas than ran the way they appreciated most.  States that ran the best would be a draw for new citizens.

The exponential growth of the federal government over the years has removed much of that ability for states to compete for the better of us all.  Still, in areas like alcohol sales, the states still have most of the control.  (It should be noted that the drinking age is not one of those areas.  While states officially can determine their own drinking age, the feds play a funding game with them that says if a state has a drinking age lower than 21, then they get less money.)

The biggest fighters of Sunday alcohol sales in Indiana may not be who you would think: liquor stores.  Liquor stores despise the idea of Sunday sales.  They believe many of them may go out of business if Sunday sales are allowed.

How does that work?  Well, in Indiana we're so accustomed to not being able to buy alcohol on Sunday that we go out on Saturday and get our "Sunday beer."  On Sunday, the liquor stores are closed for business.  No staff to pay.  No lights to turn on.  The furnace or air conditioner can be turned down for the day.

If Sunday sales are allowed, though, liquor stores will have a choice to make.  First, they can keep their bills the way they currently are by just being closed on Sunday.  But, since Sunday sales are available, they will probably lose their "Sunday beer" business on Saturdays to stores that are open Sundays.

If the liquor store opens up on Sunday, they'll have to pay the extra money for staff and lights, etc. But, since we've been so accustomed to getting "Sunday beer," then a lot of the Sunday revenue will not be increased sales, but just sales that shifted to Sunday from Saturday.

Plus, major retailers like Wal-Mart and CVS that are already open Sunday will now be able to sell alcohol on that day.  Unlike the liquor stores, though, there will not be an additional cost for them to do so.  They are already open Sundays, and thus already have a staff on duty, the lights on, and the temperature set.  There is no additional cost for them.

Yes, if Sunday sales are legalized here in the Hoosier State, some liquor stores may close.  Most, though, will still be there just as they are today.  It's the economics of a free market.  Not every business should stay open forever.  Inevitably, times change, and some grow from change while others stay still or go away.

Will Sunday sales potentially hurt some people?  Yes.  There's not a law you can enact that won't.  It's time for Indiana to get it together, though, and join the rest of the country in the 21st century on this issue.  It's time for Indiana to no longer be the last one grasping to the past.  It's time for Indiana to allow Sunday alcohol sales.


(And Sunday car sales, too...but that's another story.)

Senate Bill to Ban Alcohol and Lap Dances at Strip Clubs?

One of the benefits to being a person who keeps an eye on politics is that you have lots of friends and acquaintances that keep their eyes on politics, too.  That means that when there's a lot going on, like there is right now with the bills introduced in the Statehouse, you have others catching things that you might have otherwise overlooked.  That was the case with my posting yesterday, and it's the case with this post.  Thanks to Audrey Miller-Queckboerner for posting a link to this bill in the open-to-the-public Libertarian Legislative Thinktank on Facebook.

Today, I'm taking a peek at SB 183, authored by Senators Jim Banks, Dennis Kruse, and Scott Schneider.  This bill requires a little bit more deciphering than the one I covered yesterday, as it is a little bit more complicated in the number of issues it covers.  I did contact Senator Banks seeking explanation in clear language of exactly what he hoped to accomplish with this bill, but have not yet heard a response. (That message was only recently sent, and I will update here if I hear back from him.)

Jim Banks (R)




SB 183 consists of several small pieces, and they seem to ultimately have one goal in mind:  Shut down the state's strip clubs.  Sure, the bill doesn't specifically call for strip clubs to close, or for them to be made illegal.  But the bill does seem to take aim at many of the features of strip clubs, which would doubtless cause most of them to close.  Let's take a look at the bill, starting with the synopsis.



Synopsis: Sexually oriented businesses. Defines "sexually oriented business". Prohibits the sale or use of alcohol at a sexually oriented business. Establishes certain requirements concerning persons who own a sexually oriented business, and prohibits the establishment of a sexually oriented business in certain locations. Provides that a person less than 18 years of age may not enter a sexually oriented business, prohibits an employee who is regularly in a state of seminudity from touching a patron, and establishes requirements concerning the design, size, furnishings, and hours of operation of a sexually oriented business. Specifies that a sexually oriented business that repeatedly violates certain requirements is an indecent nuisance and is subject to abatement in the same manner as other indecent nuisances.



Right off the bat, one thing sticks out to me.  This bill prohibits the sale or use of alcohol at a "sexually oriented business."  Wait a second...no alcohol at strip clubs?  Are you serious?  The idea is so laughable that on first reading I believed that the bill's definition of a "sexually oriented business" surely was more geared around adult bookstores than strip clubs.  Reading further into the bill, though, I'm forced to believe that the bill includes both.



Scott Schneider (R)



"Establishes certain requirements concerning persons who own a sexually oriented business."  Depending on what requirements lie within, this doesn't seem so bad.  There are plenty of industries that have requirements as to who can own or work for them.  If these requirements state things like pimps and prostitutes cannot be the owners, then I do not object based on the current illegality of those jobs.  Not having pimps or prostitutes own a strip club seems like a reasonable step to keep those clubs from becoming brothels. That does appear to be the way the bill is written, so I won't dwell on it further.

"Provides that a person under 18 years of age may not enter a sexually oriented business."  No problems with that.

"Prohibits an employee who is regularly in a state of seminudity from touching a patron" This seems to be directly aimed at lap dances.  The definition of semi nudity according to the bill involves the showing of any part of the female breast below a horizontal line drawn across the top of each breast's areola.  So, basically, not only would nude breasts qualify, but so would "side boob" and "bottom boob."  I've never understood why the bottom of the boob was somehow dirtier than top, but it seems to be a common thought. 

In the case of this bill, not only would a stripper with her top off be unable to give a lap dance, but even if she left her top on during the lap dance, but took it off while she was on stage.  The bill specifically states:

An employee who regularly appears in a seminude condition in a sexually oriented business who knowingly or intentionally touches a customer or the clothing of a customer while on the premises of the sexually oriented business commits unlawful touching at a sexually oriented business, a Class C misdemeanor.

So lap dances are allowed only if the stripper keeps her clothes on both during the lap dance and while dancing on stage.  So, really, lap dances are not allowed.

Beyond lap dances, the bill also addresses some of the specifics of stage dancing.  As noted, if stage dancing is allowed, lap dances are not.  In addition, stage dances can only occur if the club is >600 sq ft (probably not an issue to most clubs), if the stage is at least 18" from the floor (again, probably not much of an issue), and if the dancer is at least 6 feet from all patrons when in a "semi-nude" state.  This basically means that the "front row" seating in most strip clubs instantly becomes illegal, as does any dancer having her top off while walking through the general seating area of the club, even immediately after completing a stage dance.

The law goes on to state that all "sexually oriented businesses" must close by midnight each day. I'm really not sure what could possibly be going on after midnight that isn't possible before midnight, but it's still part of the bill.

The biggest concern most clubs will have from the bill, though, is undoubtedly the alcohol provision. 



Dennis Kruse (R)



Sec. 11. A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally sells, furnishes, barters, uses, or consumes an alcoholic beverage on the premises of a sexually oriented business commits use of alcohol at a sexually oriented business, a Class C misdemeanor.

That's right.  As I pointed out earlier, this bill would ban alcohol in strip clubs.



Give me a break, Senators.  This bill is not about doing anything but putting all strip clubs in the state out of business.  You've not had any luck making the clubs themselves illegal in the past, so now you try to get rid of them by dismantling them from their foundation up.  No alcohol + No lap dances +No nudity in proximity of attendees = No strip clubs.  We know what you're up to, here.

Why Are We Wasting Our Time With The Lord's Prayer?

My good friend Bryce Palmer is a Baptist Pastor.  I've always had the utmost respect for him because (unless he's secretly Dexter) he lives the life he preaches about.  I fully admire people that can be committed to living the lifestyle they hope you would live.  It somehow doesn't feel like an intrusion when they aren't hypocrites.

Yesterday, on Facebook, Bryce made a great comment regarding prayer in school and why it is a bad idea.

"Religious people in America think they want prayer in schools and government, that is, until it's a prayer to Allah or any other religious god."

And he's right.  For the most part, supporters of prayer in school don't truly support prayer in school, they support Christian prayer in school.  Can you imagine the outrage if prayer in school was allowed, and little Sally and Johnny came running home telling their parents that they prayed to Allah that day?  All hell would break loose (pun intended.)

And that's exactly why prayer in school and government has been regularly ruled as unconstitutional.



 Nonetheless, State Senator Jim Tomes has introduced SB251, which allows public schools to require the Lord's Prayer be recited each day. Specifically, the bill states (emphases mine):

"In order that each student recognize the importance of spiritual development in establishing character and becoming a good citizen, the governing body of a school corporation or the equivalent authority of a charter school may require the recitation of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of each school day."

The wording above goes to prove my above point that supporters of prayer in school only care about Christian prayer in school. If this bill was solely about building a basic spiritual development, then why would you write a bill calling for a very specific Christian prayer given to us by Jesus in the Christian Bible? If generic spiritual development was your goal, why not just call for prayer in general?

Senator Tomes (R)

The answer, of course, is that Tomes isn't interested in schools having prayer in general.  He's interested in the schools having Christian prayer.

All that is moot, though.  My question is why is Tomes bothering with this bill to begin with.  Even if it this bill should be passed, it's a waste of time and money.  As I've recently stated on another issue in another blog, this bill would have absolutely zero chance of withstanding a court battle.  Introducing this bill is introducing a bill that has no chance of ever being a standing law, and would almost definitely lead to court battles that cost the taxpayers lots and lots of money.

Amusingly, this bill has had a fiscal impact statement written for it.  It states:

"There could be some minor impact in deciding the version of the Lord's Prayer to use..."

LOL. I know it's not the job of those writing these statements to weigh in on the potential costs of court battles due to the legislation, but I still somehow find it hilarious that this sentence is used to describe the costs involved.

Senator Tomes, I agree with you that our children can use a little bit more spiritual recognition in their lives.  Let's accomplish that by encouraging parents to discuss their religion and spirituality with their children.  Let's accomplish that by being involved in our houses of worship and supporting ministries to get kids involved with.

But, please, let's not do that by introducing legislation that has no chance of being anything but a drain on taxpayers' time and money with no chance of ever being law.  C'mon...you know better.

• Thank's to Masson's Blog for tipping me off to this bill's introduction.
• If you live in the Evansville, Indiana area and are looking for a church to call home, please look Bryce up.  I'm sure he'll be happy to help you in your search.

Let's Ban Novelty Lighters and Any Different National Anthem Singing! It's Important!

Every year the State Legislature is flooded with a ton of new bills.  Every year there's a decisive one or two that seems to fill the news coverage of what those bodies do.  Aside from those, though, there's always a mess of bills introduced that the public en masse don't pay any attention to, and the media doesn't bother mentioning.

Some of those bills are worthwhile additions to the Hoosier State, but get little attention because they aren't controversial, they pass easily, and thus there isn't any "news" to them.  Others, though, are a waste of time.  Laughable, really.  Let's look at a couple of those.

Rep. Randy Frye (R)

First on today's docket is Randall Frye's HB 1056.  HB 1056 is a bill introduced to ban the sale or distribution of novelty lighters.  It also charges the State Fire Marshall with "to identify and publish a list of novelty lighters."  Identify and publish a list of novelty lighters?  Really?  Is this what we want our State Fire Marshall spending his time and our tax dollars on?  Can you even fathom the enormous number of varieties that novelty lighters come in?

I'm sure I know this bill's origin.  Somewhere out there in Hoosierland, some kid picked up a novelty lighter and played with it like it's a toy.  The result: a home was destroyed.  Maybe someone was hurt.  Perhaps killed.  I'm not in any way trying to say that is not tragic.

The problem, though, is this bill blames the lighter for the fire.  It's the same flaw in most gun legislation: someone was irresponsible with proper gun safety and storage and someone got hurt.  Is it the irresponsible person's fault?  Of course not...it's the gun's fault.  Let's ban them.

So now poorly thought out gun law comes around and is used to attack novelty lighters.  It's not the responsibility of parents or babysitters to keep dangerous items away from kids....it's the responsibility of the manufacturers to stop making them in the first place.

And why just novelty lighters?  I'd bet good money that if you looked at how many fires were caused by novelty lighters, and how many were caused by regular lighters or matches, regular caused more many, many times over.  Let's ban ALL lighters and matches...duh.

And while we're at it, let's make sure that no one ever, ever, ever sings the National Anthem in ANY way except for the way that we are used to hearing it.  That's exactly what Evansville Senator Vaneta Becker is proposing in SB 0122.

Senator Vaneta Becker (R)

Becker's bill requires all public schools and universities to be legally required to enter into a contract with anybody ever singing the national anthem at one of their events.  The contract must stipulate that the singer will not deviate from legally set requirements on the music and singing style used or face a (oh noes!!) $25 fine.  The institution would be required to record the performances and keep those recording for at least two years, in case there is a complaint filed.

Again, don't get me wrong here.  I know exactly what Becker is TRYING to accomplish....she's just horrible at accomplishing it.  She doesn't want anybody to get up in front of an audience at one of our public institutions and intentionally destroy the Star Spangled Banner.  It's happens, and there are very few among us like it when it does.

But sometimes a singer out there deviates from the traditional presentation of the national anthem and the audience says, "wow!  That was amazing!"  Such performances would also be illegal under this bill.

There's another side to this issue that is the main reason I think it is a total waste of time.  The First Amendment.  Frankly, if this bill were to be passed it would have absolutely zero chance of surviving a court battle based on the First Amendment.  The courts have ruled over and over again that even things like flag burning are protected free speech.  To think that legally requiring a very specific style of singing to be entered into by contract and fine those that do something else has any chance of staying law for very long at all is just naive. And those court fights are expensive.

These bills are a waste of time, and would lead to a waste of taxpayer money. These are the kinds of bills that go through our legislature every year, mostly unnoticed.  These are the people we elect to office.  These are the kind of things that they think are important enough to pass laws on.

These are the kind of things that make me horribly disappointed in those that represent us.

Dems Don't Show, GOP Cries Foul; I Make Predictions...



Surprise! Okay, not really.

For the second day in a row, the Indiana House Democrats have stayed "in caucus" on what was supposed to be the second day of the legislative session.  Really, it's just a fancy term to say they didn't show up to do business.  They didn't head out of state and stay in a motel (yet), but they decided to not show up for work all the same.

 

And the issue?  Yep.  Right to work legislation being proposed by the Republicans.  It's deja vu all over again.

 

The Dems say they are only filibustering, and are arguing this year that the Republicans are trying to "cram through" the legislation.  An interesting point of view on a topic that's been on the agenda for two sessions now. Nonetheless, the Dems are demanding that the Republicans allow public hearings around the State on the issue before heading into the House chambers for a vote.

 

The Republicans are crying foul.  They say the Democrats are failing to show up for the work they were elected to do, and are stalling the completion of other important pieces of legislation as well.

Minority Leader Bauer

House Speaker Brian Bosma and Minority Leader Pat Bauer have been, as you might expect, the faces of the two sides of the argument.  Bauer, as part of his statement that these actions represent a filibuster, also stated that the Democrats do not intend to leave the state.

The statement seems to indicate that the Democrats are, at least currently, considering returning to the Chamber soon.  Failure to do so could not only begin building a $1,000 per day fine (something the Dems are not scared of, since the tab would likely be picked up by unions, like last years for the most part was,) but also potentially lead to the legislators arrest.  Fear of arrest is exactly why they left the state last year, and why they may again in 2012.

Speaker Bosma

I have my thoughts on right to work, and they lie somewhere in between the Democratic and Republican sides of the issue.  In lieu of an argument here, I'll lay out my predictions for the future.





1. The Democrats, as they have announced, will continue to deny a quorum in the House. 
2. Sometime between a week and two weeks into this, Bosma and Bauer will reach an agreement "in the interest of getting business done" that will allow for some of the public hearings on the matter. 
3. Bauer and the Democrats will call for a large number of these to take place in heavily unionized towns like Kokomo.  Bosma and the GOP will call for a small number in towns that are hardly unionized at all.  There will end up being about 10 of these forums and they will be in a mix of union and non-union towns.
4.  The turnout at these hearings is going to be 90%+ against right to work in the union towns, and 75%+ against right to work in the non-union towns. 
5. The Democrats are going to shout from the rooftops that this is a clear indication that public sentiment is strongly against passing right to work. The Republicans are going to point out the fact that the reason the anti right to work turnout was so strong was because unions, both from Indiana and other states, flooded the cities where the forums were taking place and skewed the numbers.  They're going to make a note of the fact that many of the participants were paid by the unions to make the trip and be there.
6. The GOP will point to a handful of public polls that will have been done that show the public as a whole supports right to work. 
7. They will return to the Statehouse and vote the right to work legislation into law.
8. (unless the Dems walk out again realizing that the legislation is still going to pass...a definite possibility.)

I'm interested in how you think this will play out.  Please leave your thoughts on how this will in the comments section below.

Indiana One Step Closer to Discrimination in Our Constitution

The Indiana State Senate passed the gay marriage amendment by the disgustingly wide margin of 40-10.  Since the House has already passed the same bill, the first of three steps required to add discrimination to the Indiana Constitution is now complete.

Changing the constitution in Indiana requires two consecutive, separately elected legislatures to pass the bill.  If that occurs, the amendment must then be passed by the voters.  Should that happen, the amendment then becomes part of our state's defining document.  I talk more about this in my first blog on this issue, Gay Marriage in Indiana....Constitutional Discrimination Coming Soon!

There is already a state law banning gay marriage in Indiana.  Adding a constitutional amendment is unnecessary and redundant.  (Those two words describe so much of what government does...unnecessary and redundant.)  Proponents of the amendment love to say that the amendment is necessary to prevent activist judges from changing the law as it currently is.  The truth, though, is that attitude towards gay marriage is changing at an exponential rate.  Lawmakers know that within a very short number of years there will to be plenty of support to pass legislation making gay marriage legal and recognized in Indiana.  If they can pass an amendment now, then public approval of gay marriage will mean it will still take several years before it can be legal.

If this amendment passes another legislature and the voters, then our only hope to eliminate this discrimination will be...*gulp*...the federal government.  That's right, the feds.  If this amendment becomes a reality then the only way it could ever get removed from our constitution in a short period of time is if the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional on the federal level.  That process could take even longer than the process of re-changing our amendment.

This is what our legislators are banking on.  They are begging for this to get passed now so that it will take years and years for it to ever get changed again.  They know that public opinion will soon demand recognition of gay marriage, so they take steps now to smack down that public opinion.  And that's what they consider a victory.

The bright side to all this is that there are still two more steps that must be taken to change the constitution.  After the 2012 elections, another State House and State Senate must pass the amendment, and then the voters must give it the green light.  We have time to make our opinions known, but we must be loud and we must start now.  Start talking to people and start calling and emailing legislators today to prevent an embarrassing horror from happening tomorrow.