Comments on Advance Indiana™: SJR-7 Proponents May Push For 2008 Vote Even If Amended

This is all good discussion. Ed's points are clea...

2007-03-18T09:32:00.000-05:00

This is all good discussion. Ed's points are clear and salient. Matt's reported rumor is interesting.

While we fiddle, Rome burns. Those who push this Amendment will stop at nothing--NOTHING--to win their battle.

Being prepared for all evantualities is the best defense.

Attend the hearing Wed. morning in the House chamber. Talk with every legislator you can personally corner--whether (s)he is your rep or not.

Stay calm, collected and rational.

And if we have to gird up for a battle on the ballot, God help us. Then, it would be war. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. We probably cannot win that war.

One rumor I've heard is that the bill's sponsor wi...

2007-03-17T15:24:00.000-05:00

One rumor I've heard is that the bill's sponsor will PULL the bill rather than allow it to be amended, and try to get it passed as-is later in the session.

Don't know how reliable that is though.

That's all well and good, and proves my point: li...

2007-03-17T10:33:00.000-05:00

That's all well and good, and proves my point: litigation will ensue, no matter what's in anyone's mind. A possible -- and welcome -- change is to strike part b in its entirety.

There is a case to be made (and sounds like it is being made) that part a, if it passes twice, could go to the ballot in 08. At any rate, it is certainly a live question

I cannot propose to guarantee what the Indiana Sup...

2007-03-17T09:37:00.000-05:00

I cannot propose to guarantee what the Indiana Supreme Court will do; it seems that they like to defer to the legislature, but the logic of the situation suggests that the proposed dodge would be in vain.

First, it is extremely hard to figure out what the limits on change would be since none are discussed. Lawyers will be very familiar with the damage that can be done by the single comma. Would removing the word "not" be allowed? "The proposed amendment" does not, after all mean "The proposed amendment, or something that seems similar to some people."

Second, if the amendment could be changed at the second hurdle, why not at the third? It would make as much sense for the proposed legislative council to replace the second sentence, assuming that this legislature removes it. So you would have the case that one legislature proposed an amendment, a second chose to change it materially, indicating clearly that they did not approve of, at least, the part they changed. Then the legislative council restores the original version to present to the people. That would make a mockery of the obvious intent of the constitutional provision for approving amendments.

Third, it often happens that the Senate passes a bill, and sends it on to the House which does not entirely agree, but passes an amended version. That modified bill does not go to the governor, but must be reconsidered by the Senate. Only a bill that is passed, in exactly the same form, can become law. The analogy is clear and appropriate: only passage of the same language, counts as passage of the same bill.

"If, in the General Assembly so next chosen, the p...

2007-03-17T08:08:00.000-05:00

"If, in the General Assembly so next chosen, the proposed amendment is agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each House, then the General Assembly shall submit the amendment to the electors of the State at the next general election."

If the proposed Conostitutional amendment is changed by the second General Assembly then, in my mind, its not *the* proposed amendment, it's a different one.

Are we reading the same document? The Constitutio...

2007-03-16T17:11:00.000-05:00

Are we reading the same document? The Constitution is not "remarkably clear about amendments."

It doesn't say the amendment must pass in "exactly the same form." Or anything close to that. Nobody has cited any case for support. Marcia Oddi treats this topic well today at indianalawblog.com.

NB: The resolution to this question cuts both ways in terms of the political logic. If it is amended, the Dems have a way to cure the worst parts of the Amendment, and still allow a vote as signalled. If the choice is between amending the Amendment, or voting on it straight up, amending might not be the worst option.

I have way more faith in the Supremes than I do St...

2007-03-16T16:09:00.000-05:00

I have way more faith in the Supremes than I do Steve Carter. He's an opportunistic gasbag and a mediocre attorney.

Nonetheless, the hatefullness which the proponents of SJR7 put forward, probably cannot be stopped.

Yet another reason Bauer should not have been given a "green lioght" from our community, in any form or shape whatsoever. He might have gone forth anyway, but they're living in a dream world if they think this on the 08 ballot is going to help anyone but the far right.

Have the proponents no shame? Typically, they argue strict constructionalist language when deadling with the Constitution. That document is remarkably clear about amendments--exactly the same form.