Editorial Roundup: Indiana
The (Fort Wayne) Journal Gazette. Jan. 23, 2022.
Editorial: Handcuffs on powers of governor ill-serve state
Indiana's governor oversees the day-to-day management of many of the agencies of state government, but not all. Independently elected Cabinet heads '“ such as attorney general, state auditor, treasurer and secretary of state '“ have more power over their respective agencies than the governor.
Since Indiana joined the union in 1816, the governor and the executive branch of state government have been weaker when compared to the legislative and judicial branches, wrote Linda Gugin and James St. Clair in their 2006 book 'œThe Governors of Indiana.'ť
Gugin, a historian and professor of political science at Indiana University Southeast, wrote governors gained more power in the 1970s. One such power allowed the governor to prepare a spending plan for a budgetary agency run by officials appointed by the governor. Gubernatorial authority over the budget was the 'œgreatest transfer of power'ť to the Indiana governor in two centuries, Gugin wrote.
But over the past couple of years, the General Assembly has pushed to rein in gubernatorial power to set rules for state agencies and to issue executive orders. And this year, as last, the impetus for the legislation is Gov. Eric Holcomb's liberal use of executive orders in an effort to stall the spread of COVID-19.
Last year, legislators passed a bill giving themselves a bigger role in extended health emergencies such as COVID. Holcomb sued the General Assembly. A hearing on the case before the Indiana Supreme Court is slated for April 7.
This year, House Bill 1100 passed through committee Jan. 12. It would limit all executive orders to 180 days unless the General Assembly extends them. Since Jan. 1, Holcomb has issued 30 executive orders related to the state's response to COVID.
HB 1100 also would require all emergency rules created by state agencies be approved by the attorney general's office and limited to 180 days. Non-emergency rules would expire after four years instead of the current seven.
'œMy constituents and generally just about everybody I have talked to in the state of Indiana say no one person should have that kind of authority for an extended period of time without bringing everyone together to talk about it and discuss it,'ť said Rep. Stephen Bartels, R-Eckerty, author of HB 1100, before it was passed to the full House.
The bill should've been placed on the House calendar last week. It wasn't. House Speaker Todd Huston confirmed House leadership is taking a second look into the legislation.
They should.
The General Assembly is a body of part-time legislators. They convene during odd-numbered years for 61 days and even-numbered years for 30 days. Chances are good the next state emergency '“ a tornado outbreak, widespread flooding or another highly infectious variant of COVID-19 '“ will occur when the legislature is not in session.
The governor shouldn't be expected to convene the General Assembly for permission to act in the face of a time-sensitive emergency.
The three legs of our system of government '“ executive, legislative and judicial branches '“ certainly should be co-equals in governance. But the state's chief executive, the governor, should have the power to move with alacrity, empathy and urgency when the health and safety of Hoosiers demand it.
___
Anderson Herald Bulletin. Jan. 22, 2022.
Editorial: Eliminating gun license laws a recipe for disaster
On Wednesday, the Indiana Senate signaled support for a bill that would eliminate gun licensing laws in Indiana, in spite of concerns from the Indiana State Police and the Fraternal Order of Police.
ISP Superintendent Doug Carter said this bill would add danger to police officers, who already work a dangerous profession.
The bill's author, Wadesville Republican Sen. Jim Tomes, argued that criminals already carry handguns while law abiding people must pay for permits.
When deconstructed, this argument boils down to saying, simply, that criminals break the law. If the fact that some people breaking the law renders the law meaningless, then this same argument could be used to abolish every law on the books.
Stop signs and speed limits do not prevent individuals from driving recklessly if they so choose. However, it seems ludicrous to argue that removing all stop signs and speed limits would make our roads safer. After all, why should law-abiding citizens have to follow traffic rules when criminals do not?
Our Second Amendment rights are important, but a careful look at all of our constitutional rights will reveal that they aren't absolute and certain common sense regulations are in place. Free speech is tempered with libel and slander laws and with restrictions on time, place and manner.
A little-known fact about our Statue of Liberty is that about 75 years after its inauguration, a second statue was proposed by Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl. The proposed statue would be called the Statue of Responsibility and would sit on America's West Coast to symbolize twin values of liberty and responsibility.
'œFreedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness,'ť Frankl wrote in 'œMan's Search for Meaning.'ť
Our lawmakers have the duty of finding that balance between liberty and responsibility. To eliminate licensing laws on sheer principle without considering the consequences falls into the realm of what Frankl called arbitrariness.
Gun licensing requirements provide society a means by which to preserve freedom in a responsible manner.
No, it is not a perfect system, and it doesn't eliminate gun violence, but it may reduce the frequency of shootings.
How much gun violence does licensing prevent? Well, if this bill becomes law, we may very well find out the hard way.
___
Columbus Republic. Jan. 20, 2022.
Editorial: School bills again make Indiana laughingstock
Orwellian legislation that would seek to limit what can be taught in Indiana schools is terrible for a multitude of reasons - so bad that once again, the Indiana General Assembly's work product has made the state a national laughingstock.
To the credit of Republican Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray, he pulled the plug on one of the most onerous bills, conceding 'œthere is no path forward for it and it will not be considered.'ť Other similar bills in the House also aim to muzzle education, and they, too, should be abandoned.
Bray halted Indiana's latest legislative embarrassment, Senate Bill 167, after it made an ignominious appearance on the national stage. Sen. Scott Baldwin, R-Noblesville, authored the bill that would have required, among other things, that all school curricula be posted online. It also would have banned the teaching of concepts such as critical race theory, and mandated that schools 'œmay not include or promote certain concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or direct or otherwise compel a school employee or student to adhere to certain tenets relating to the individual's sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.'ť
A teacher testifying at a Senate hearing on the bill noted the problem this would create in teaching, for instance, why the United States entered World War II - to defeat Nazism and fascism. In educating students, the teacher said, 'œWe're not neutral on Nazism and fascism. '¦ We take a stand in the classroom against it, and it's important that we do.'ť
Baldwin felt a need to respond to that. This is what he said: 'œI'm not discrediting as a person, Marxism, Nazism, fascism. I'm not discrediting any of those '~isms' out there, and I have no problem with the education system providing instruction on the existence of those '~isms'; I believe that we've gone too far when we take a position on those '~isms' '¦ we need to be impartial.'ť
The senator said we need to be impartial. About Nazis.
Late-night TV host Stephen Colbert played the entirety of the above exchange to a studio audience that groaned in disbelief at Baldwin's words, and a nationwide home viewing audience surely shook its head - yet again - at Indiana.
After Baldwin's remarks were condemned by the Anti-Defamation League and others, he tried to clarify, saying he 'œfailed to adequately articulate'ť that he thought these 'œisms'ť were a stain on history. 'œ'~Failed to adequately articulate' is a pretty generous way of describing, '~I said the opposite,''ť Colbert quipped.
What legislation like this really wants to do, at bottom, is restrict certain topics from being taught in our schools at all. For instance, America's original sin of slavery. Or our violent history toward American Indians. Or the Holocaust. Or any number of uncomfortable facts of human life on planet Earth.
Besides being bad policy, any court challenge would almost certainly find such language is unconstitutionally overbroad, violates the First Amendment, and strips local school boards of control over curriculum.
But our elected officials in the Indiana General Assembly enact laws virtually every year that, after making the state a laughingstock, get struck down or reversed.
It's as if they never learn.
END