Comments on Advance Indiana™: Bauer Hints He'll Amend SJR-7

Has anyone been following SB 289:Explanation of pr...

2007-03-16T08:18:00.000-05:00

Has anyone been following SB 289:

Explanation of proposed constitutional amendments. Requires the legislative council to prepare a concise and neutral summary of any proposed state constitutional amendment. Requires the legislative council to distribute a copy of the summary to various entities and post the summary on the general assembly's Internet web site not later than 60 days before the election at which the proposed amendment is submitted to the voters. Requires a copy of the summary to be posted at each polling place. Provides that the legislative council has absolute discretion to determine the contents of the summary, and prohibits the bringing of an action based on the exercise of this discretion.

I especially like the last line ...and prohibits the bringing of an action based on the exercise of this discretion.

Duh!

Does anybody know the status of this bill?

Keep in mind though, that the Dems also want this ...

2007-03-16T08:13:00.000-05:00

Keep in mind though, that the Dems also want this off the ballot in 2010, which is the year for redistricting. So, some may be wagering that they'd be better weathering the backlash in 2008 to be able to come back to majority in 2010.

There are many more twists to this story before it ends.

For once, I hope Bauer does something. When are t...

2007-03-16T06:47:00.000-05:00

For once, I hope Bauer does something. When are the leaders of the republican party going to realize that the future of the party thinks this is the most worthless, pea-brained issue to even be discussing. They need to ask themselves what type of individual does their stance and effort on this issue attract to the party. Idiots.

Let's be clear on this. From a purely political st...

2007-03-15T23:38:00.000-05:00

Let's be clear on this. From a purely political standpoint, Bauer is being told by partisan Democrats to keep SJR-7 off the ballot in 2008. Presidential election years aren't typically good for Democrats in Indiana, and they don't want some wingnut issue on the ballot driving turnout on the extreme right. Watch for who comes out against SJR-7 next week as it is currently written. Bauer will be provided the cover for deep-sixing this horribly-written amendment for the 2008 ballot.

I'm not sure Bauer can be trusted any more, and we...

2007-03-15T21:56:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure Bauer can be trusted any more, and we've let him off the hook by even having this damned thing voted on in the first place. Without a fight, that is.

He foolishly let 5-7 conservative Dem legislators convice him that they lost the majority in 2004 because of this issue.

Which proves how far out of touch legislators really are.

Anywhooo...

The 2008 session is still technically in this biennium. I'm betting that even if we are midly successful this session, and that's a huge "if", this will be back in full force next year. Of course, it'll be a short session, and they have the cover of "emergency issues only." Which is conveniently used sometimes.

Much, much work is yet to be done. But Bauer seems to be suggesting that smart arguments against this amendment will be helpful during committee hearings.

Hear that? SMART arugments. That means solid evidence and examples of feared repercussions.

NOT emotional appeals that fall on flat ears.

NOT some of the hyperbole exhibited at the Statehouse rally.

The Wisconsin bioprofessor leaving the state, that's solid.

Candace Gingrich, uh, that's not solid.

God love her.

"It has always been interpreted in the past that a...

2007-03-15T20:55:00.000-05:00

"It has always been interpreted in the past that an amendment be approved by successive general assemblies in identical form."

I've heard the same: but like I said, and you quoted, the Constitution is silent on the issue of modifications. And I haven't found a case yet that treats the issue. Bauer seems to be indicating in the article that he's been told the opposite is the case.

I should add, Wilson, SJR-7 will be substantively ...

2007-03-15T20:38:00.000-05:00

I should add, Wilson, SJR-7 will be substantively amended if it is amended at all. The House Dems will not make a mere technical change such as moving a comma as some have foolishly suggested.

The Constitution provides the following for amendm...

2007-03-15T20:36:00.000-05:00

The Constitution provides the following for amendments:

Section 1. (a) An amendment to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the General Assembly. If the amendment is agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, the proposed amendment shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their journals, and referred to the General Assembly to be chosen at the next general election.
(b) 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.
(c) If a majority of the electors voting on the amendment ratify the amendment, the amendment becomes a part of this Constitution.

It has always been interpreted in the past that an amendment be approved by successive general assemblies in identical form.

not necessarily. That's the conventional wisdom, b...

2007-03-15T20:24:00.000-05:00

not necessarily. That's the conventional wisdom, but the Constitution says nothing about that. Litigation will ensue.

Yes.

2007-03-15T20:21:00.000-05:00

Yes.

A dumb question: if SJR-7 is amended one jot or ti...

2007-03-15T20:15:00.000-05:00

A dumb question: if SJR-7 is amended one jot or tiddle, does that restart the 4 year clock?