Tag Archives: Indiana

Vote–If You Can

Voter ID laws, as we all know, are a method to prevent voter fraud– in advance, apparently, since there is little or no evidence that in-person vote fraud has ever been a problem. Actually, as any sentient being knows, it is a way to keep “those people” from voting–“those people” being folks more likely to vote for the other party’s candidates.

Wisconsin has a voter ID law, which (like that in Indiana)requires their BMV to issue free ID’s to those who would otherwise be unconstitutionally disenfranchised. A minor scandal erupted when an email from a state official emerged, instructing BMV workers not to issue ID’s unless specifically asked, and not to inform customers that they were available. When an outraged emloyee urged his coworkers to “spread the word” among their acquaintances that people who needed them should ask, he was fired.

This was all about preventing fraud, of course. And I have some bargain beachfront property to sell you…

Of course, these efforts to make voting more inconvenient or difficult–and thus less likely–aren’t limited to Voter ID laws. Here in Marion County, where the incumbent Mayor needs all the help he can get to stay in office, Republicans have adamantly refused to approve satellite voting sites. They cite the expense, an excuse that rings pretty hollow from the party whose Mayor wants us to reelect him because, among other things, he has given money to private developers. (His words, not mine.)

Oh well. That “self rule” thing wasn’t working out so well anyway. Right?

Selling Indiana: Update

This past weekend, the LA Times and the Northwest Indiana Times both had stories about Mitch Daniel’s privatization initiatives.

The Northwest Indiana article reported on the impending default of the private operator of the Indiana Toll Road. While a default would probably not cost Indiana taxpayers–the private operator paid us in advance–it might well cost us what little control we retained over the Toll Road, and depending upon how the default played out, might require some legal fees.

The LA Times article, on the other hand, was the sort of in-depth reporting that has become all too rare nationally, and virtually non-existent here in Indianapolis.  It traced the disaster that was Indiana’s effort to contract out welfare intake, and it is well worth reading in its entirety. High points include a description of ACS ties to Indiana political figures and “movers and shakers”–especially Stephen Goldsmith, Mitch Roob and the Barnes Thornburgh law firm–together with a list of associated campaign contributions, and several examples of the harm done to vulnerable elderly and disabled people who depended on the program.

The Star did do several stories early on, when the failures of IBM and ACS were at their most glaring, and again when Daniels admitted defeat and pulled IBM’s (but not ACS’) contract. And it ran a story when IBM sued the state. But there was no effort to “connect the dots” and nothing even close to the comprehensive investigation provided by the LA Times.

That lack of a full picture matters, because without it, reporters fail to recognize the context within which we must understand related information.

A couple of weeks ago, the Daniels Administration announced that it had received an award from the federal government for cutting the food stamp program’s negative error rate–how often cases are incorrectly closed or denied. The Administration bragged that Indiana’s error rate was below the national average.  The Star dutifully reported the (accurate) claim. What didn’t get reported was the fact that from 2001 to 2007–prior to welfare privatization–Indiana’s error rate had also been below the national average, but in 2008, one year after IBM and ACS took over, the error rate had more than doubled, to 13%.  It was the largest increase in the country, and the celebrated “improvement” was measured from that high point.

Context matters. So does journalism.

The “God Squad” Returns

Just when we thought it was safe to go back in the (political) water….

The New York Times, American Constitution Society and other media have recently highlighted David Barton, a character I encountered back in my days at the ACLU. Barton has spent decades providing phony “historical” ammunition to the “Christian Nation” folks, the ones who populate Fox News and the 700 Club insisting that there really isn’t such a thing as separation of church and state. When it looked like the culture warriors were fading, I assumed he and the other historical revisionists had retreated into whatever strange places they inhabit; apparently, that was wishful thinking. According to the Times, Barton is the “favorite historian” of several of the current GOP Presidential aspirants.

Something tells me Barton and his ilk also have the ear of our would-be Governor, Mike Pence–a man who has never experienced humility or doubt, nor let inconvenient historical evidence shake his serenely theocratic worldview.  Pence was the lawmaker who–when he wanted to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over some of his favorite culture war issues–explained that Marbury v. Madison had been wrongly decided. (For those of you hazy on your history, that was the case that established the right of the Supreme Court to have the last word on whether an act of Congress was consistent with the constitution. And I won’t say it’s been established law for a long time, but the “Madison” of the caption was James Madison). Take that, all you smarty-pants law professors and judges!

With Pious Mike as Governor, Indiana can complete that trip back to the Dark Ages we just began with the most recent legislative session.

Comments

Abuses of Power

For the past couple of months, I have been watching the political shenanigans in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Maine and elsewhere with increasing disbelief, trying to figure out what has prompted such disdain for civility, democratic process and  individual rights.

In the latest bizarre twist from Wisconsin, the Governor and GOP leadership simply ignored an order of the federal court. The court had issued a stay of the law repealing collective bargaining rights, pending an evidentiary hearing on whether it had been passed in a manner consistent with the state’s open door law. The legislature could have abided by the order, or it could have held another vote, after proper notice. Instead, those in charge decided to thumb their noses at a court order.

The belligerent and tone-deaf Governor of Maine unilaterally decided to erase a mural that he didn’t like. It was on the walls of the state’s Department of Labor, and portrayed the history of the labor movement.

In Michigan, the Governor has proposed–and the legislative majority has apparently approved–a bill that gives him unprecedented, nearly dictatorial powers of the sort not seen in the United States (probably because those powers appear to conflict with our constitutional system of checks and balances).

In Indiana, the Republicans who now control both houses have been indulging in some of the most vindictive lawmaking we’ve seen. (A former student of mine who has been lobbying this session recently characterized the chamber as “the Hatehouse.”)  They are busily passing measures to marginalize gays, harass immigrants, and make it difficult if not impossible for women to control their own reproduction. (During arguments over the imposition of a three-day waiting period before women can obtain an abortion, a woman legislator asked that an exception be added for cases of rape; the sponsor angrily responded that such an exception would be a ‘major loophole’ because women would all claim to have been raped! The proposed amendment was then voted down.)

I could go on and on, unfortunately. But the larger question is: what is going on? What explains this epidemic of bullying?

I don’t know if I can explain the “why” of all this, but I think I can characterize the “what.”

One of the goals of this nation’s founders was memorably related by John Adams, who explained that the Constitution was intended to establish a nation of “laws, not men.” We would have a country where the rule of law trumped the exercise of raw power. No one was to be above the law, and the purpose of the law was to limit the ability of those in power to abuse that power. What we are seeing is what happens when people elected to office behave like thugs, using their positions for personal and political aggrandizement rather than for the common good.

The people elected in 2010 talk a lot about the constitution, but their actions betray their absolute ignorance of its central purpose.

Comments

What If They Held an Election, and Reasonable People Came?

This has been a pretty contentious session of the Indiana legislature, and one of the most divisive proposals has been the renewed effort to include a ban on same-sex marriage in the Indiana Constitution.

The amendment is really just a gratuitous effort to marginalize gay citizens, since we don’t have same-sex marriages in Indiana. Proponents want a vote on the issue, not because it is appropriate in our system to vote on other citizens’ fundamental rights–it isn’t–but in order to make clear that the majority of citizens in Indiana don’t like gay people.

They may be too late.

Indiana Equality Action recently commissioned a poll of Indiana citizens on attitudes toward the proposed amendment. The results were shocking–in a good way. Forty-seven percent of Indiana residents oppose the amendment, while 43% favor it. Even more surprising, 65% of self-described Republicans and conservatives opposed it, and 41% of seniors. More predictably, 67% of young voters opposed it.

I want to be clear: opposition to the amendment should not be equated with support for same-sex marriage. (The numbers show progress, but not that much progress!) However, there are plenty of compelling reasons to oppose constitutionalizing discrimination, even when you don’t particularly like the folks who are being singled out, and obviously those reasons have convinced a lot of people that this amendment is a bad idea. The poll also confirmed that Indiana citizens have much higher priorities than bashing gay people: the economy and jobs, education, the state budget, health care, crime and drugs, and taxes all came in well ahead of gay marriage.

Particularly interesting is how quickly attitudes on this issue have changed, even in staid, conservative Indiana.  Clearly that’s one of the reasons the usual suspects have been so desperate to get this amendment on the ballot–every year it is delayed, its prospects for passage dim further.

If the proposal passes this year, as expected, and if a separately elected legislature passes the identical language, it will go before the Indiana electorate for a vote. That means that voters first chance to weigh in on the issue will be nearly four years from now.

I wouldn’t want to bet on the outcome.