More Firings on the Way?

I’m hearing rumblings that more bodies could hit the floor over at the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. Agency Director Heather Bolejack is already on paid administrative leave pending an investigation into improper activities allegedly involving travel and no-bid contracts. Now the agency’s Board of Trustees will meet Friday to discuss “personnel” matters. Sources within the Institute tell me three to five more employees could face disciplinary action. Stay tuned.

Another Appeal

The Indiana House of Representatives filed its appeal to Judge David Hamilton’s ruling banning sectarian prayers in the Chamber. In the 60-page document, the House argues that there is nothing in past case law that prohibits the invoking the invoking the name of Jesus in legislative prayers. It also goes on to say the ban is unworkable and interferes with the “internal workings of a co-sovereign legislature.” Keep it tuned.

Here we go again! Republican, (and in the interests of full disclosure) friend, Jeff Drozda says he will introduce legislation in 2007 to bar same-sex couples from adopting children. The legislation is in response to an Indiana Court of Appeals decision that ruled unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, could jointly adopt children. The Attorney General, Steve Carter, hasn’t decided whether he will appeal the decision, but Drozda wants to cut the issue off at the pass, by introducing legislation banning such adoptions.

While I understand and sympathize with Drozda’s desire to have children raised in a healthy environment, I don’t believe that simply because one has gay parents, they are automatically raised in an unhealthy environment. Some argue that children raised in “gay” environments will become gay as they try to emulate their parents’ lifestyles. However if that were the case, then how do you explain straight parents who end up with gay children?

And if we are going to ban adoption by same-sex couples then let’s take this to its logical conclusion. If someone who is gay has a child, should that child be taken away from the parent and raised by “hetros”? If a gay gets someone pregnant should they have to pay child support if they are considered to be an unfit parent? If a parent has a child and the parent later comes to terms with his or her sexual orientation and later comes out of the closet, should their child be taken away from them?

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, there are close to 800,000 children in the adoption/foster care system. With so many kids in need of a home, and not enough “hetros” to go around, do we really want to limit children from being in loving homes with caring parents?

I spoke with Sen. Drozda this morning, and while Jeff opposes same-sex adoption he says he wants to get a debate going in Indiana. He hopes the legislature will come up with a rule to address conflicting court decisions on the adoption of children by same-sex couples.

I am all for making adoption easier so children end up in loving homes, but I don’t think sexual orientation should be an automatic disqualifier. If anything, gays have more discretionary income than “hetros” so they can provide a better quality of life financially, on average so a gay couple is likely better to provide for a child than a “hetro” couple. But I guess having a child in perpetual foster care for his entire life is more preferable.

Tippecanoe Politics is a new Indiana blog whose focus will be on politics and news from Tippecanoe County, but will be reporting on various political news from around the state of Indiana.

The Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court is announcing that cameras will be allowed in Indiana Courtrooms. Justice Randall Shephard said the pilot program would be set up in eight courtrooms across Indiana. Cameras would be allowed on a trial basis in some courts in Indianapolis, Muncie , Crawfordsville, Ft. Wayne, South Bend, Evansville and Boonville. Stephen Key of the Hoosier Press Association says their objective will be to show that justice can be done with a camera in the Courtroom. Many critics cite the O .J. Simpsom case in 1994 as the reason many cameras have been barred in the lower courts. Only one TV camera, three tape recorders and one still camera would be allowed in the courtroom at a time. In addition, the trial judge and all parties involved in the case must agree to the cameras presence.

I hear a favorable decision is expected this afternoon on whether TV cameras will be allowed in Indiana Court rooms. Stay tuned…

I spoke this morning with Sen. Brent Steele (R-Bedford) about his run for the top job in the Indiana State Senate. Steele is cordial, down home and very likeable. However his position on the “Lifetime” health care benefit for lawmakers may run him into some trouble. Steele told me he’ll end the benefit if that is the caucus position, however he says he’ll recommend that lawmakers take it upon themselves to end the benefit, knowing what it did to Bob Garton in his primary. Some conservatives may have an issue with this because they want the benefit eliminated altogether. My money is still leaning toward Tom Weatherwax of Logansport, for now. Stay tuned.

I’ve been on the phone for the past few days talking to members of the Indiana State Senate about who their next leader will be. Three names keep popping up as possible contenders for the job of Senate Pro Tempore. They are current Majority leader David Long, Tom Weatherwax of Logansport, and Brent Steel of Bedford. There is another name, Mike Young of Indianapolis who I will get to in a second. However, based on my conversations here is my assessment of each man’s chances of winning.

Long – Long made his intent known this weekend in the Fort Wayne Gazette. While he is the current majority leader, there are still some hard feelings out there. A few years ago when former Senator Murray Clark tried to go for the top job, Long reportedly threw his support behind him only to change at the last minute and go for Bob Garton. This created some very hard feelings I was told and some people in the chamber have very long memories. In addition the lifetime health care benefit, that Long supported earlier this year did not help matters much also.

Weatherwax — Weatherwax is from Logansport and has the support of a lot of his fellow Sentors. He’s been called a compromise candidate who could provide a break from the old way of doing business. He also has more time and experience in the chamber than another compromise candidate, Brent Steel. He’s said to be a good unifying force for the Senate.

Steele — I spoke with Steele Monday afternoon. He’s also a considered to be a compromise candidate, who could unify the chamber. He does not have as much experience as Weatherwax, but as one Senator put it, could bring “principled conservative leadership” to the chamber as well as “geographical diversity.” Steele says he would limit his turn as Pro Tempore and move his office into the open area with his fellow Senators so he could stay closer in touch with his fellow Senators. He also says he wants more Senators involved in the decision making process and not have such top heavy management.

Young — Young has about as much chance getting elected Pro Tempore of the Senate as I do becoming the grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. While his colleagues speak politely about him in public, privately they grit their teeth at the thought of Young running the chamber. He is lobbying hard for the office, apparently calling House members for support (even though they can’t vote for the job). The Senate is a cordial body who does not need a bomb thrower who will raise the ire of the press with his bombastic (and that’s putting it mildly) statement. Mike is also from Indianapolis, so you can forget that noise.

The interesting dynamic in the Senate race is that there are not enough votes for any one side to pick the next leader, so a compromise candidate will have to be in order. I would not be surprised if Weatherwax does beat out Steele. Both are conservatives and have cross-over appeal, however Weatherwax has more time in the chamber so it is more likely when Senators decide who to go for Weatherwax would likely get the nod. Regardless whomever gets the job, expect it to be temporary. As one Senator put it to me, “Whoever gets the job, they will be like Pope Benedict XVI. More of a transitional figure than anything else.” Stay tuned! “Vae puto deus fio!”

As you’ve likely heard by now, my Democratic friends are appealing a federal judge’s ruling upholding Indiana’s Voter ID law. They filed the notice last week. In Judge Sarah Evans Barker’s opinion, she said the Democrats failed to cite any example of voter disenfranchisement. Democrats cited some examples in a news conference, along with Howard Dean, chairman of the National Democratic Party. State Party Chairman Dan Parker cited some examples of voters being turned away from the polls, but after reviewing a memo by the co-counsels of the Indiana Election Division, those turned away may be more about misinformation than malice. First of all under Indiana law, election laws are to be construed liberally in favor of the voter. With that as our basic premises, let’s begin.

In one instance the Democrats cite a newlywed couple from Marion County who were both registered voters had gotten married since they last voted in 2004. The husband was allowed to vote but the wife was not because her name changed and it did not match her photo ID. She was denied the right to vote. She should have been allowed to vote. According to the memo, the woman would have voted under the use of a fail-safe provision in voter ID law. All she would have had to do was write the information in the poll list before she received the ballot. And later the voter registration office would have had to have changed the name. That was it.

Another example the D’s cite is a story out of the Fort Wayne Gazette where several veterans were turned away from the polls because there IDs did not have an expiration date. Assuming some facts not in evidence, I’m guessing their IDs merely had the term “INDEF” on them which meant indefinite. According the election memo, the ID does meet the requirement and the veterans should have been allowed to vote. First, the IDs have not expired and second the IDs will expire when the veterans die. Seems odd, but remember election laws are to be construed in favor of the voter.

In another example the Democrats cite, a Marion County woman who worked for the post office was turned away from the polls because her ID did not have an expiration date. Using the analysis based on the military ID card, we can construe her expiration date would be when she ends her employment with the post office.

One instance the Democrats cite, which is more about birth certificates than voting, a woman was denied an ID because she did not have a birth certificate. She presented several forms of ID but because she did not have a birth certificate she could not get the ID. This is legitimate and don’t be surprised if some changes are made in the law next year regarding people over a certain age, born out of state who need an ID but may not have a birth certificate and accommodations are made to get some form of ID.

The point of all this in three of the four examples my Democratic friends cited in their press release, these could have easily been addressed. To me it seems more about the misinformed, rather than actual malicious intent. So I don’t think the disenfranchisement argument will work. I do think the Democrats can go the legislature next year and amend the photo ID law so that these types of problems are easier addressed. I would recommend that is where my friends put their efforts. It would have a lot more appeal than the one they’re trying to get in front of the 7th Circuit.

Indiana Democrats are filing an appeal to overturn the state’s voter ID law. Democrats say they can cite numerous instances of voters being turned away from the polls because of voter ID. However that proof may not do them much good as appellate courts usely only go by the record from the trial court and don’t accept new evidence. Sources also tell me that it is likely changes will be made in the voter ID law to clean up any technical glitches. One those glitches is better defining what it means that a voter’s name must “conform” with that on the ID. Stay tuned…

What a difference a day makes, or in the case of the Indiana Primary, 10 weeks or 36 years makes. 36 years was how long Senate Pro Tempore Bob Garton will have served in Office when he steps down later this year after losing to challenger Greg Walker. 10 weeks is how 7th Congressional Candidate Eric Dickerson ran his primary campaign. In a way the elections involving both men signify some interesting dynamics in the changing face of Indiana politics. My basic thought is this, when Hoosiers vote against incumbents, they vote for change. And they vote for change, something is really f*&^%$# up.

I wrote on these pages a while back that I couldn’t predict the election’s outcome, but nothing would surprise me. I am not surprised. Garton’s refusal to go after his opponent and, more importantly, refusal to give up the “free” health care benefit were his downfall. Walker tapped into a very simple theme of change. The 1970 vehicle he drove around in, didn’t hurt either.

Dickerson campaigned in his “RV” going from door to door. Franklin spent a lot of time going to party functions. What’s interesting about the 7th Congressional District is that Dickerson may be the GOP’s best hope in getting Julia Carson’s seat. Unlike previous opponents, Andy Horning and Marvin Scott, Dickerson is not an ideologue and he can connect with regular people whether they live in Meridian-Kessler or 25th and Central. Being able to make that connection may make a major difference. He also has a healthy respect for his opponent, unlike his predecessors.

I can also argue that the Republican establishment is probably doing a serious post-mortem on Marion County to find out what happened with some of their establishment candidates.

I am least surprised at Perry Township Jack Sandlin’s loss to former Beech Grove firefighter Gary Koons. Sandlin was the victim of overconfidence and underestimating how much he was disliked. The firefighters who opposed him were organized and mad, two things not wanted in opposition.

Hamilton County Prosecutor managed to hold on to her office by her pantyhose by beating challenger Paul Felix by 140 votes, by latest reports. I think this was a wake-up call for Leerkamp. To be in office for more than 10 years and almost loose by to an upstart, shows something “ain’t right” in the HC.

What this election does go to show that 1)If you’re an incumbent, be afraid if you have a credible challenger. 2)If you’re a credible challenger, feel inspired. 3)If you’re the voter, don’t think your vote doesn’t matter. 600 people changed the course of Indiana politics for next decade or so.