A Republican caucus has selected Suzanne Crouch of the Vanderburgh County Council to fill the House seat left open by Rep. Becker’s departure to fill the seat left open when Sen. Server left to serve on the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. The musical chairs will continue when the Vanderburgh County GOP fills Crouch’s seat.
Court of Appeals charts murky waters of civil litigation
In the case of Brimhall v. Brewster (PDF) the Court of Appeals charts the murky waters of 41(E) motions, nunc pro tunc orders, service by publication, and default judgments. More of the former two than the latter. Basically, a plaintiff files suit, doesn’t get service, doesn’t respond to a 41(E) motion, has a 41(E) dismissal entered, has it set aside by a nunc pro tunc order, serves by publication, and enters a default judgment.
The Court of Appeals says you can’t do that. Unless a 41(E) order says otherwise, a dismissal is with prejudice. You can’t use nunc pro tunc orders except under limited circumstances and this isn’t one of them. The dismissal stands, and the defendant skates.
Excellent rant
A pretty excellent rant from BottleOfBlog (via the Poor Man). A little taste:
They have no convinctions.
They have propaganda.
And if you stupidly adopt one of their “talking points” today as a principle, as a conviction, as a value today, you’re going to look like a fucking idiot tomorrow.
You’re outraged that John Kerry said “fuck” today? Tomorrow, Dick Cheney says it on the floor of the Senate. You’re appalled at the 82nd Airborne providing security in Kosovo today? Tomorrow, they’re directing traffic in Baghdad. You’re incensed at governement spending today? Tomorrow, you’re going to have to defend the biggest deficits in the history of the world and the unheard of increases in discretionary spending.
You’re pulling your hair out at the unheard of gall of Democrats asking a Supreme Court nominee to disclose his political and judicial positions? Tomorrow, you’ll be demanding a Supreme Court nominee to disclose her political and judicial positions.
Yesterday, you’re all for the “rule of law”. Today? The world is full of prosecutors out of control!
1998 Congressional Research Office Report on DST
Continuing my obsessing on Daylight Saving Time and time zones, we have a 1998 Congressional Research Office Report on Daylight Saving Time kindly forwarded to me by Mr. O’Malley. I’m going to bury the full text below the fold, but he points out that the most interesting bit of new information (new to this forum, anyway) is mention of an analysis of the effect of year round daylight saving time.
DOT, charged with evaluating the plan of extending DST into March, reported in 1975 that ‘modest overall benefits might be realized by a shift from the historic six-month DST (May through October) in areas of energy conservation, overall traffic safety and reduced violent crime.’ However, DOT also reported that these benefits were minimal and difficult to distinguish from seasonal variations and fluctuations in energy prices.
Congress then asked the National Bureau of Standards(NBS) to evaluate the DOT report. NBS found no significant energy savings or differences in traffic fatalities. It did find, however, statistically significant evidence of increased fatalities among school-age children in the mornings during the test period, although it was impossible to determine if this was due to DST.
The full text of the Congressional Research Office Report is below the fold.
98-99 C Daylight Saving Time
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
NUMBER: 98-99 C
DATE: February 9, 1998
TITLE: Daylight Saving Time
AUTHOR: Heidi G. Yacker
DIVISION: Congressional Reference Division
TEXT:
Summary
Currently, in most parts of the United States, timepieces are moved forward one hour in the spring and back one hour in the fall to provide an extended daylight period during the summer months. This is known as Daylight Saving Time (DST). Much debate and many changes led to this present practice. This report provides a brief history of the issues surrounding DST, an outline of the legislation that created and modified it, and a list of references to more discussions. Whenever the law or regulations governing DST change in the United States, this report will be updated.
Development of Daylight Saving Time
| TABLE OR GRAPHIC NOT SHOWN HERE; |
| please order document |
| for complete material. |
Daylight Saving Time (DST) is not a new concept. In 1784, when Benjamin Franklin was Minister to France, an idea occurred to him: in that part of the year when the sun rises while most people are still asleep, clocks could be reset to allow an extra hour of daylight during waking hours. He calculated that French shopkeepers could save one million francs per year on candles. In 1907, William Willett, a British builder, Member of Parliament, and fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, proposed the adoption of advanced time. The bill he introduced was reported favorably, asserting that DST would move hours of work and recreation more closely to daylight hours, reducing expenditures on artificial light. There was much opposition, however, and the idea was not adopted.
During World War I, in an effort to conserve fuel, Germany began observing DST on May 1, 1916. As the war progressed, the rest of Europe adopted DST. The plan was not formally adopted in the United States until 1918. ‘An Act to preserve daylight and provide standard time for the United States’ was enacted on March 19, 1918 (40 Stat 450). It both established standard time zones and set summer DST to begin on March 31, 1918. The idea was unpopular, however, and Congress abolished DST after the war, overriding President Wilson’s veto. DST became a local option and was observed in some states until World War II, when President Roosevelt instituted year-round DST, called ‘War Time,’ on February 9, 1942. It lasted until the last Sunday in September 1945. The next year, many states and localities adopted summer DST.
By 1962, the transportation industry found the lack of nationwide consistency in time observance confusing enough to push for federal regulation. This drive resulted in the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-387). The Act mandated standard time within the established time zones and provided for advanced time: clocks would be advanced one hour beginning at 2:00 a.m. on the last Sunday in April and turned back one hour at 2:00 a.m. on the last Sunday in October. States were allowed to exempt themselves from DST as long as the entire state did so. If a state chose to observe DST, the time changes were required to begin and end on the established dates. In 1968, Arizona became the first state to exempt itself from DST. In 1972, the Act was amended (P.L. 92-267), allowing those states split between time zones to exempt either the entire state or that part of the state lying within a different time zone. The newly created Department of Transportation (DOT) was given the power to enforce the law. Currently, the following do not observe DST: Arizona, Hawaii, the part of Indiana in the eastern time zone, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
During the 1973 oil embargo by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), in an effort to conserve fuel Congress enacted a trial period of year-round DST (P.L. 93-182), beginning January 6, 1974, and ending April 27, 1975. From the beginning, the trial was hotly debated. Those in favor pointed to the benefits of increased daylight hours in the winter evening: more time for recreation, reduced lighting and heating demands, reduced crime, and reduced automobile accidents. Opposition was voiced by farmers and others whose hours are set by the sun rather than by the clock. With later sunrises and sunsets, they were unable to arrive at work on time after morning activities or participate in evening activities. Another major concern was children leaving for school in the dark. The Act was amended in October 1974 (P.L. 93-434) to return to standard time for the period beginning October 27, 1974, and ending February 23, 1975, when DST resumed. When the trial ended in 1975, the country returned to observing summer DST (with the aforementioned exceptions).
DOT, charged with evaluating the plan of extending DST into March, reported in 1975 that ‘modest overall benefits might be realized by a shift from the historic six-month DST (May through October) in areas of energy conservation, overall traffic safety and reduced violent crime.’ However, DOT also reported that these benefits were minimal and difficult to distinguish from seasonal variations and fluctuations in energy prices.
Congress then asked the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) to evaluate the DOT report. NBS found no significant energy savings or differences in traffic fatalities. It did find, however, statistically significant evidence of increased fatalities among school-age children in the mornings during the test period, although it was impossible to determine if this was due to DST.
During the 96th, 97th, and 98th Congresses, several bills to alter DST were introduced, and the debate continued. Final action came in the 99th Congress with the enactment of P.L. 99-359, which amended the Uniform Time Act, changing the beginning of DST to the first Sunday in April and having the end remain the last Sunday in October. Since then, bills have been introduced to move the beginning of DST to the last Sunday in March and the end to the first Sunday in November. No action has been taken on these bills.
Changing an Area’s Time Zone or Moving an Area On or Off DST
Moving a state or an area within a state from one time zone to another requires either a public law or a regulation issued by DOT. In the latter case, DOT recommends the following procedure. The request should be submitted by the highest political authority in the area in question. For example, the governor or state legislature generally makes the request for a state or any part of the state; a board (or boards) of county commissioners may make a request for one or more counties. If the request is made by a legislative body, it must be accompanied by certification that official action has been taken by that body.
The request should document evidence that the change will serve the convenience of commerce in the area. The convenience of commerce is defined broadly to consider such circumstances as the shipment of goods within the community; the origin of television and radio broadcasts; the areas where most residents work, attend school, worship, or get health care; the location of airports, railway, and bus stations; and the major elements of the community’s economy.
The General Counsel of DOT considers the request and, if it is found that a time zone change might benefit commerce, a proposed regulation is issued inviting public comment. Usually a hearing is held in the area so that all sides of the issue can be represented by the affected parties. After analyzing the comments, the General Counsel decides either to deny the request or forward it to the Secretary of Transportation. If the Secretary agrees that the convenience of commerce would benefit, the change is instituted, usually at the next changeover to or from DST.
Under the Uniform Time Act, moving an area on or off DST is accomplished through legal action at the state level. Some states require legislation while others require executive action such as a governor’s executive order. Information on procedures required in a specific state may be obtained from that state’s legislature or governor’s office. Although it may exempt itself, if a state decides to observe DST, the dates of observance must comply with federal legislation.
Past Legislation
P.L. 89-387, April 13, 1966, Uniform Time Act of 1966 Established uniform standard time to be observed in established time zones. The standard time would be advanced one hour within each time zone beginning at 2:00 a.m. on the last Sunday in April and turned back one hour beginning at 2:00 a.m. on the last Sunday in October. States were allowed to exempt themselves as long as the entire state was exempted.
P.L. 92-267, March 30, 1972, [Uniform Time Act Amendments] Allowed states split by time zone boundaries to exempt the entire state or that part of the state in a different time zone from DST. The states affected are: Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Oregon, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.
P.L. 93-182, December 15, 1973, Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act of 1973 Established a trial period for year-round DST beginning January 6, 1974, and ending April 27, 1975.
P.L. 93-434, October 5, 1974, [Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act]Amended P.L. 93-182 to restore standard time from November 1974 through February 1975.
P.L. 99-359, October 8, 1986, [Fire Prevention and Control Authorizations Act]Amended the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to begin DST on the first Sunday in April. The end of DST would remain at the last Sunday in October.
Bibliography
Bartky, Ian R., and Harrison, Elizabeth. Standard and daylight-saving time. Scientific American, v. 240 (May 1979): 46-53. T1.S5
Chapman, Fern Schumer. Business’s push for more daylight time. Fortune, v. 110 (Nov. 1984): 149. HF5001.F7
Clark, Edie. Daylight nuisance time. Yankee, v. 60 (April 1996): 14. AP2.Y25
Coren, Stanley. Daylight savings time and traffic accidents. New England Journal of Medicine, v. 334 (April 4, 1996): 924. R11.B7
—–. Sleep sliding away. Saturday Night, v. 111 (April
1996): 19, 20, 22. AP5.S27
Early to bed, early to rise. Time, v. 127 (June 2, 1986):
27. AP2.T37
Ferguson, Susan A., et al. Traffic accidents and Daylight Saving Time. New England Journal of Medicine, v. 335 (August 1, 1996): 335. R11.B7
—–. Reduction in pedestrian and vehicle occupant fatal
crashes with Daylight Saving Time. Arlington, VA, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 1993. 15 p.
New look at extended daylight-saving time. U.S. News and World Report, v. 99 (December 2, 1985): 53. JK1.U65
O’Neill, John. Losing more than one hour. New York Times, v. 146 (April 1, 1996): B11.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Daylight Saving Extension Act of 1985. Report to accompany H.R. 2095, including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office. Washington, GPO, 1985. (99th Congress, 1st session. H.Rept. 99-185).
U.S. Department of Transportation. The Daylight Saving Time study. A report to Congress. Washington, GPO, 1975. 2 v. HN49.D3U65 1975
Vol. 1, final report of the operation and effects of daylight saving time.
Vol. 2, supporting studies: final report of the operation and effects of daylight saving time.
U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Review and technical evaluation of the DOT Daylight Saving Time study. Prepared for the Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, GPO, 1976. p. 125-351. KF27.I5589 1976L
Appendix to hearing on the Daylight Saving Time Act of 1976, 94th Congress, 2nd session. Serial no. 94-109.
Torpor Indy on the Human Development Index
Torpor Indy has an excellent post on the Human Development Index. (PDF) The jist: the U.S. ranks 10th in the list which is essentially a ranking of how good a country is for its citizens. Our 10th place showing is down from 3rd back in 1999. And Torpor Indy suspects we’re worse off than our 10th place showing suggests. The top 10: 1 Norway, 2 Iceland, 3 Australia, 4 Luxembourg, 5 Canada, 6 Sweden, 7 Switzerland, 8 Ireland, 9 Belgium, 10 United States.
Interim study committees
The minutes from the September meeting (PDF) of the Census Data Advisory Committee records a pretty interesting debate on the issue of provisional ballots. The Democrats seemed to be concerned that provisional ballots aren’t counted as quickly or as fully as regular ballots and that a challenge to a citizen’s right to vote will automatically relegate them to provisional vote purgatory with almost no chance of adverse consequences for a challenger who does so maliciously or frivolously. Julia Vaughn of Common Cause Indiana stated that Indiana was among 5 states with the lowest rates of counted provisional ballots. Much of this discussion was in response to a draft bill being considered by the committee:
Senator Craycraft asked Mr. King if the draft was proposing that any challenged voter must vote a provisional ballot. Mr. King responded that Senator Craycraft’s characterization of the draft was accurate.
According to the October 3, 2005 minutes of the Commission on Courts (PDF) Representative Richardson has requested an opinion from the attorney general as to whether garnishees should be considered defendants in small claims and civil cases. At issue is whether Plaintiffs with judgments seeking to garnish wages to collect from Defendants are required to pay the $10 “additional defendant” fee before adding garnishees to the case. Currently, most Clerks of Courts seem to be taking the position that they are defendants and are requiring the fee. However, this is likely out of an abundance of caution in that, if they do not collect a fee they are supposed to, they could find themselves personally liable.
The August 10, 2005 Minutes of the FSSA Evaluation Committee has a lot of discussion of issues in the news just lately about Mitch Roob’s plan to privatize (err, “localize”) FSSA functions. The committee was apparently meeting again today.
If you’re interested in these things, check out LSAs 2005 Study Committees page which has a list of the committees.
Update Mike Smith has AP article stating that the interim committee reviewing BMV issues declined to take any action or make any recommendation about Silverman’s actions shutting down BMV branches. However, they did recommend two drafts, one of which apparently tightens up notice requirements for public hearings and the other of which requires BMV branches that issue photo IDs to remain open on the day before and the day of elections. This last one was proposed by Rep. Rogers as an effort to mitigate to some extent the new requirement that before a citizen can exercise his or her right to vote, he or she must produce a state or federal photo ID.
Representative Dvorak has a blog
I just stumbled across the blog of Representative Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend). It’s pretty good too! Not just the bland platitudes one might expect from an elected official. Actual substance. He apparently has a strong interest in the state’s technological infrastructure, and he’s getting married in November. Congratulations Representative!
Time zone debate pretty much the same 20 years later
Jim Bognar was kind enough to retrieve and forward Federal Register entries (PDF) concerning the 1985 proposal to move the southwestern counties of Vanderburgh, Gibson, Posey, Warrick, and Spencer from the Central Time Zone into the Eastern.
It’s interesting to note that not much has changed, not even the point person on time zone issues. Joanne Petrie had the job then, and she has the job now. I’ll bet she was really, really excited to hear that Indiana was opening that can of worms once again. Really, the State of Indiana should probably be responsible for picking up her salary.
The new wrinkle, obviously, is that the eastern part of Indiana will be observing Daylight Saving Time, and that could change the equation somewhat. But, some salient points from the Register entry:
Close Seat Belt Loophole, Receive $15 Million
Niki Kelly, writing for the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, has an article entitled, Legislators Cool to Feds’ Seat-belt bait. Apparently there is a cool $15 million in it for Indiana if they close the loophole that allows drivers and passengers in pickup trucks and SUVs plated as trucks to do without seat-belts while requiring drivers of cars to buckle up. Rep. Stutzman, the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, is reportedly cool to the idea. Gov. Daniels is non-committal. The ever crusading Sen. Wyss supports the idea, but isn’t interested in tackling the issue once again unless the Governor throws his weight behind it.
I’m a libertarian minded kind of guy, and I’m as cranky as the next Hoosier about issues that seem trivial to the outside viewer, such as Daylight Saving Time and a one class basketball tournament. But this business about opposing a seat belt requirement, I just do not get. The government gets into our business in a myriad of ways, almost the least of which is telling us to buckle up when we drive. There is virtually no down side to doing it, and the upside is enormous. Nobody gets worked up because the government tells them they have to use brake lights when they stop (or have brakes on their car). The seat belt is just another piece of safety equipment we’re required to use when operating a motor vehicle.
I don’t have time to get into the details just now, but I think technically, as the law is written, operators of most pickup trucks have to wear seat belts anyway. It has to do with the definitions in title 9. The definition of truck is tied to its primary use for hauling property whereas the seat belt law, I think, applies to passenger vehicles or something along those lines, tied to the purpose of transporting people. Most of the pickup trucks used in Indiana are used primarily to transport people and not property. But, after years of everybody assuming that the seat belt law doesn’t apply to pickup trucks, I don’t suppose that sort of hair splitting would be successful.
Anyway, with all of Governor Daniels’ grandstanding about fiscal austerity and finding federal money where it’s available, he should be consistent and go after the $15 million before he decides to do more nickel and diming of state employees by cutting their sticky-note allowance or something.
Journal Gazette on License Suspensions
The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has an editorial entitled Due process for drivers. Basically, they’re urging that the BMV not be allowed to administratively suspend a license. I sympathize with the sentiment. Having your license jerked for no reason then not being able to have it reinstated without waiting on hold for 3 hours before being redirected to a new number where nobody picks up and no voice mail.
Be that as it may, the editorial doesn’t account for my little neck of the license suspension woods. I do subrogation work for automobile insurers. Someone hits the insured, that person can’t or won’t pay for the insured’s damages, the company picks up the tab, and then sends me after the at fault driver. Under Indiana law, if you get a judgment against someone arising out of a motor vehicle accident and the person doesn’t pay the judgment within 90 days, you can ask the BMV to yank their license. Another interesting little twist — the license doesn’t get reinstated just because you file bankruptcy.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 604
- 605
- 606
- 607
- 608
- …
- 686
- Next Page »