Senator Kruse Speaks Against Referendums

Today's JG has an article from Niki Kelly about referendums and how they have become a controversial point in this legislative session. I want to point out that referendums are not an affront to representative democracy; when used properly they merely give the people a direct voice in those issues that are most critical to them. The governor gets this difference:

Daniels certainly doesn’t want Indiana to become like California, where voters sometimes have to trudge through 100 pages of ballot initiatives on numerous public policies when they cast a ballot.

“That is not a system I would recommend in Indiana. Most of those things I believe should be taken care of in the people’s house,” he said.

But Daniels believes there are some local decisions that voters should have more direct involvement in, such as building a new school or library.

Of course state Senator Dennis Kruse believes people should NOT have a say outside of the normal voting process.

“I’m a strong proponent of the republic. I do not like the referendums and don’t think we should have them,” he said. “We were elected to make decisions. To me, we are shunning our responsibility when we want to shove it off on public opinion.”

Kruse said it is “dangerous” to have the masses vote on some issues.

“Everyone can’t be informed like elected representatives are. We spend months and months on issues, talking to all the interested parties,” Kruse said. “The regular person can’t do that.”

Here we have yet another elitist telling us he's vastly more informed than us lowly citizens. And the very idea of the citizenry voting on important matters is somehow "dangerous". I mean how could we possibly know whether or not we can afford more taxes or need another school? These decisions are clearly beyond the mental capacity of us plebian lowlifes.

And yet despite all of his hollow objections Kruse still voted for referendums. Was he for them before he was against them? He's also the sponsor of a bill to ban cell phones from automobiles because he got into a wreck while fumbling with his own phone. Perhaps the voters of Auburn will wise up and send this guy packing but until then at least voters can use the referendum to protect us from out-of-touch politicians like Kruse...

Misleading JG Story on Property Tax Bill

The end of Niki Kelly's story about property taxes in today's JG is misleading. Here's the part of the story covering the constitutional amendment to cap property taxes at 1%:

The Indiana House also was to consider House Joint Resolution 1 to place circuit breaker language into the Indiana Constitution.

House Democrats wanted to pass the bill in the form that Gov. Mitch Daniels preferred, but House Republicans wanted to debate additional issues.

“The Democrats packed their ball up and went home,” House Minority Leader Brian Bosma said. “It appears they were not sincere about entertaining constitutional caps.”

Even though the House resolution died, the Senate measure remains alive and can be acted on by the House.

Kelly doesn't mention why the bill was killed. As I wrote yesterday, the Republicans added an anti-gay marriage amendment to the property tax bill. First, that's just stupid and second it's against house rules since the amendment is clearly not germane to the bill. For Bosma to try and spin this as anything but his fault is laughable. And Niki Kelly should not have left the most important fact out of the story...

UPDATE: You can read Kevin Knuth's take at the Allen County Democratic Party's blog

UPDATE2: In the comments Kelly points out that the story does contain the reasons why the bill was killed - they are in the second paragraph. My confusion (and perhaps others) stemmed from the fact that Bosma's quote regarding this bill was at the bottom of the story

House Democrats Are Wrong On Referendum

The state legislature is moving on property tax reform but the Senate and House versions are beginning to diverge. The House Democrats decided that referendums should apply to everything but the schools:

Among the biggest changes made: The House voted 50-44, along party lines, to limit referendums on building projects to only those projects not used for education, such as sports stadiums and swimming pools.

Rep. David L. Niezgodski, D-South Bend, offered the amendment, saying he feared schools would suffer with needed buildings left unbuilt.

Rep. Jeff Espich, R-Uniondale, said limiting referendums tells voters the legislature thinks they're not bright enough to understand what's in their own best interests.
"Do you think the people we serve are stupid or dumb?" Espich asked Niezgodski, who replied that he thought nothing of the sort.

The idea that referendums will kill all school projects is simply not based in reality. Most states have a referendum for bonds and they still build schools.
The fact is nearly half of my property taxes go to the schools so any serious proposal to slow government spending and/or property taxes HAS to account for that.

The best way to account for that is by letting the people vote on how their money is spent. Electing school board members won't get the job done because the public doesn't know what the upcoming expenditures or projects will be and therefore they have no way of determining which candidates they should support. No candidate is going to say "I will never support any project" - their answer is going to be more nuanced, as it should be. Yet that's exactly what proponents against the referendum suggest voters should be able to determine.

Don't be fooled. This is a money issue pure and simple. The ISTA, construction interests, etc are fighting this because it will mean an end to their elitist ways. Allowing the people to determine how their money is spent on massive spending projects should be at the core of the Democratic Party agenda. It saddens me to see that on some levels we're still a party beholden to special interests. It will be up to the Senate to hold their ground and demand that referendums be applied across the board.

In fact call Senator Wyss and let him know that the referendum is a dealbreaker - (800) 382-9467

Referendum Discussed at State Legislature Hearing in Fort Wayne

Last Wednesday the Indiana House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing here in Fort Wayne to get input from public officials and citizens on the issue of property taxes. Evert Mol, leader of the successful FWCS facilities project remonstrance, spoke before the committee about the need for a referendum process. His remarks are transcribed below:

Last year Fort Wayne saw why we’re unable to slow the rise in property taxes in spite of taxpayer opposition. In February, in a process similar to the one that played out in Indianapolis a few years ago, our school board by a 6 to 1 margin approved a $500 MM bond issue for a capital project. In June that project was defeated in a remonstrance by a margin of 7 to 2. How could a board elected to represent the interests of taxpayers as well as the schools misjudge taxpayer sentiments by that much?

One reason is that the public meetings and hearings before the February vote were designed to sell the project, not to listen to objections from taxpayers. But in any case the only way to really know what taxpayers think is to allow them to vote. Lacking requirements for a ballot referendum, we had to initiate and conduct a remonstrance, a massive petition drive, to give taxpayers that voice. Without a remonstrance, taxpayer objections would not have mattered and property taxes, already set to increase by an average of 15%, would have gone up another 20% over the next 5 years. In a city the size of Fort Wayne a remonstrance is an expensive and time consuming proposition. It’s an undue burden for taxpayers. Last year’s change in the law allowing all registered voters to participate will make the process even more daunting next time.

Although this particular project triggered a remonstrance process which seems to be designed to discourage opposition, many projects go unchallenged and the taxpayers have no voice. Who would go to all that trouble for smaller projects, say $50 MM or $20 MM even if they weren’t justified, knowing that the winning the remonstrance doesn’t even stop the project, but merely delays it for a year. Yes, the new proposal is supposed to be “substantially different” but how do you define and enforce that requirement except through the courts?

Construction projects are a major factor in rising taxes. Elected officials have repeatedly shown they are unwilling to stop them or scale them back, so taxpayers need a viable means to vote on them. A petition drive is not a viable means for most taxpayers. They need to be able to vote on projects in a ballot referendum as the governor has proposed. Yes, that forces the taxing entity to work harder on their costs and justification. But it will not mean, as Senator Kenly told me, that “nothing will pass”. In fact the success rate in states with referendums is higher than it is in Indiana with remonstrances.

The Governor called the remonstrance process “klutzy”. Having done one in a large city, I think “insane” is a better word. No other state forces its taxpayers to do this. It’s time Indiana joins them.

Evert Mol
Fort Wayne

Ax The Townships

The JG has an excellent editorial in today's paper describing why the state should eliminate township assessor positions:

Of Indiana’s 1,008 township assessors, 567 lack the certification that qualifies them to determine the values of property. In essence, more than half of the people in key positions to determine the amount of property tax bills are unqualified.

Accurate assessments are the foundation of the property-tax system, essential in determining whether property owners pay their fair share in comparison with other property owners. When assessments are wrong, some people get an undeserved break, and others pay more than they should.

The fact that we have unqualified partisan assessors makes absolutely no sense. In fact I would suggest we go one step further and eliminate the entire township construct altogether. It's a wasteful, antiquated bureaucracy that adds no real value. Does anybody really believe we need a layer of government for every 6x6 mile square in the state?

The services provided at the township level could easily be rolled up to the county (or city) which would likely save taxpayer dollars and provide better service. If state officials are serious about saving money then they can start by axing all the townships...

Indiana House Democrats Take the Right Approach on Property Tax Vote

The JG front-paged a piece about the upcoming vote on Governor Daniels' property tax package. Democrats, who control the house, have rightly decided that the Governor's plan should be treated as a package and voted on as a package:

But he said Thursday that House Ways and Means Chairman William Crawford, D-Indianapolis, would author Daniels’ bill as one piece of legislation and that early hearings were in order.

“I took the time and deliberation to determine how you do a major, complicated bill,” said Bauer, who has often sparred with Daniels. “I believe when the governor proposes a package you treat it as a package, and the governor concurred.”

This is the right approach to take. Any plan will begin to fall apart if they treat it in a piecemeal fashion and begin removing bits and pieces. Unfortunately, that's the way Republicans that control the Senate have decided to tackle the problem:

Senate Republican leaders said earlier that they planned to introduce at least 10 bills incorporating parts of Daniels’ plan Nov. 20 and have hearings on them in December, when lawmakers usually are not in session.

That is simply a terrible idea. If the Senate wants to use the Governor's plan as a framework to develop their own plan - fine. But carving a plan up into individual bills is surely asking for disaster...

Voter ID Unless You're a Legislator

I found this video humorous in light of the Supreme Court taking up Indiana's voter ID law. No word back from Mitch Harper yet on whether or not this happens at the Indiana General Assembly...



UPDATE: Mitch Harper responds - This is a great video - very well done. Excellent journalism which shows what local television can do.

It was a very common practice for years. It is now prohibited by rule as it should be.

One aside here:

The video shows a legislator casting a vote for Texas legislator
Dan Branch, who is noted by name.

Dan and I were both at Georgetown University for the summer study and intern program, The Institute for Comparative Economic and Political Systems.

That program is now known as the Fund for American Studies. Among those who I recommended in later years for the program were Tom Fox of Fort Wayne and Andy Buroker of Indianapolis.

Tom is the legal administrator for Baker & Daniels in Fort Wayne. Andy is an Indianapolis attorney and has served as national chairman of the American Heart Association.