Sen. Doriot has introduced SB 605 creating the Indiana-Michigan Boundary Commission. The members will be five professional surveyors, one of whom must be from one of the boundary counties of Elkhart, LaGrange, LaPorte, St. Joseph, or Steuben County. The commission is to oversee the resurvey and placement of new boundary monuments for the Indiana-Michigan border. In particular, the survey is required to install “relatively permanent monumentation at the mile post positions and other positions at or near lakes or large rivers as established by the original government survey of October 1827.” However, they aren’t allowed to replace lost monuments unless the State of Michigan participates in the project.

This one appealed to my sense of history. Also, for some reason, it brought to mind the Lou Riccetti character in Joel Rosenberg’s “Guardian of the Flame” series. The conceit of the series was that a bunch of college students who played something like Dungeons & Dragons got transported into the fantasy world. One of the students was a civil engineer who was excited because, in our world, all of the great projects (e.g. Hoover Dam, the Interstate System) had been done and now civil engineers were confined to small bore projects. I’d imagine this project would be kind of fun for a professional surveyor. Who gets to survey something like a state boundary now?

Rep. GiaQuinta introduced HB 1522 which would require overnight camps to be licensed and require criminal background checks for employees and volunteers of the camps.  An “overnight camp” means “any area or tract of land established, operated, or maintained to provide more than seventy-two (72) continuous hours of outdoor group living experiences away from established residences for: (1) educational; (2) recreational; (3) sectarian; or  (4) health purposes to ten (10) or more children who are less than eighteen (18) years of age and not accompanied by a parent or guardian.” The state division of family resources is directed to create rules for the licensing and inspection of such camp. The main thrust of the provision is to require that the people running those camps and employees and volunteers who have direct contact with the kids are required to pass a national criminal history background check.

Makes sense to me. But, I’m biased in that I was once involved on the periphery of a lawsuit having to do with a kid who was sexually abused by a volunteer at a camp.

Rep. Nisly has introduced HB 1430 which contains this startling language on abortion:

Sec. 4. Indiana’s interest in protecting innocent human physical life from the moment of conception shall be enforced by Indiana government officials and agencies, regardless of any court decision to the contrary.

(Emphasis added). The bill generally abolishes abortion rights in Indiana and includes some hand waving about the 9th and 10th Amendments, natural rights, and the Declaration of Independence attempting to ignore federal law on the matter and the Supremacy Clause. It also directs state officials to refuse to cooperate with the federal government (making Indiana something of a sanctuary state on the subject of abortion).

Mandating defiance of federal court orders is pretty radical and didn’t go so well when Arkansas tried to defy a court order to desegregate the schools in Little Rock. President Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to enforce the court order.

Rep. Nisly has also introduced HB 1469 which would create a “Don’t Tread on Me” license plate.

Sen. Merritt has introduced SB 463 which would mandate that a minor wear a helmet while riding a bicycle, skateboard, skates, or scooter on public property. Public property isn’t defined, but I assume that would include sidewalks, streets, cul-de-sacs, and what have you in addition to parks and other governmental real estate holdings. It would be an infraction, penalized by a $50 fine and potential impoundment of the bicycle, skateboard, skates, or scooter. The impoundment would last until the kid’s parent came to the office and provides “assurance that the violation will not be repeated.” It would also be a violation for a parent to permit a violation by the kid.

My gut reaction is that this is a little micro-managey, but then I know that others have the same reaction to seat belt laws which I think are a great idea that have prevented all kinds of pain and suffering, outweighing the relatively minor government intrusion. So, for me, it’s a line drawing issue rather than a black and white ideological issue.

Rep. Speedy has introduced HB 1337 concerning religious motivated crime. (Sidenote: are the kids still using 1337 for “leet” speak?) It says that a person who knowingly or intentionally causes bodily injury because of the other person’s actual or perceived religion or creed commits a religious motivated crime, a Level 4 felony. A couple of thoughts: first, if this moves they should consider making it causing moderate or serious bodily injury. As luck would have it, I was reading a case where even temporary pain will satisfy the “bodily injury” requirement. Not that I condone that, but if you poke someone in the forehead in a way that hurts briefly, taunting them because it’s Ash Wednesday, I think that should be condemned and even punished, but I don’t know that it’s a Level 4 felony.

I can see where crimes motivated by religion are a bigger concern for society than your run-of-the-mill crime. History is lousy with death and destruction caused by religious conflict. So, there is a rational basis for policymakers to pay extra attention to conflict generated by religion — much as there is a rational, historical basis for taking a closer look at crimes motivated by race and gender. But, my second thought is whether it should be expanded to include not only crimes motivated by the religion of the victim, but also crimes motivated by the religion of the perpetrator. If you stone a woman because you think your religious beliefs require it of you, that strikes me as being a similar problem to shooting someone because you think they’re a Jew or a Christian or whatever religion you happen not to like.

Sen. Stoops has introduced SB 308 regarding Indiana’s partition fence law. First, a disclosure: I’m going to do you, the readers, a disservice. There are many wonders and mysteries to be found in Indiana’s fence law, but I don’t really feel like going back and researching them to provide a fuller description of what they are. I’m just going to look at the bit that’s in this SB 308. My best guess is that Sen. Stoops has some neighbors in his district who aren’t getting along. The current partition fence law says, in part, that when there is an existing fence and a neighbor uses that fence as part of a project to enclose land that wasn’t previously enclosed, the existing fence becomes a “partition fence.” The person who put up the new fencing has to pay the owner of the existing fence 50% of what that existing fence cost. SB 308 would eliminate that provision and provide that the person who built the existing fence is responsible for its maintenance.

I can see this either way. On the one hand, the owner of the existing fence put it up for his or her own purposes, and those purposes continue to be served even if the other neighbor piggy backs off of it to enclose some additional property. On the other hand, the neighbor is a free rider with respect to the existing fence and maybe that isn’t fair either. I’m a city-dweller and maybe don’t appreciate the full importance of fencing, but this law does seem like one of those things that was probably incredibly important for 19th century Hoosiers that seems like a bit of an anachronism in the 21st century.

Sen. Spartz has introduced SB 406 which would mandate marriage counseling prior to a court issuing a final order of dissolution in divorce proceedings where the couple has children. There are exceptions where at least one of the spouses certifies that they’ve been a victim of domestic abuse by the other, the court finds that reconciliation is infeasible, or the court finds other good cause to excuse the counseling. The counseling must be at least two hours long and contain the following content:

(A) Creation of a plan of reconciliation, if feasible.
(B) Education on the effects of divorce on a child’s physical and mental health.
(C) Information on how the parties can minimize the effects of the dissolution of marriage action on the parties’ children.
(D) Provision of referrals to community services for the parties and the parties’ children.

The legislation gestures toward courts entering into agreements with counselors who will waive fees where there is a financial hardship, but my guess is that won’t be especially feasible. I don’t know enough about divorce proceedings or counseling to know for sure, but my guess is that this will mostly be wasted money and effort. If you’re on the brink of finalizing a divorce, I have a hard time believing that a two hour counseling session is going to move the needle very much. Divorce is a huge pain in the ass on its own — people generally aren’t going through the process frivolously. That said, I do like the idea of providing people with information on how to minimize the impact of divorce on the kids and on community resources that can help.

Sen. Ford has introduced SB 441 which would alter the law with respect to interest on money judgments. Under current law, unless you have a contract that provides for a lower interest rate, if you get a money judgment against someone, that judgment accrues interest at the rate of 8% per year until paid. Under the proposed legislation, that interest rate would become the lesser of 8% or “the applicable adjusted rate of interest calculated under IC 6-8.1-10-1(c) as of the date of payment of the interest on the judgment.”  That adjusted rate of interest is “the percentage rounded to the nearest whole number that equals two (2) percentage points above the average investment yield on state general fund money for the state’s previous fiscal year, excluding pension fund investments, as determined by the treasurer of state on or before October 1 of each year and reported to the commissioner [of the Department of Revenue].” This adjusted rate calculation would apply to judgments entered after July 1, 2019, and to unpaid portions of money judgments entered before July 1, 2019.

I will tell you that, as a collection attorney, I sometimes have trouble explaining the basic concept of interest to debtors. (My standard example is along the lines of “well, if I owed you $100, would you rather I pay  you today or pay you in a year?” They, of course recognize that it’s better to have money today than in a year. Then I explain that the 8% is a way of compensating creditors for the delay.) I do not look forward to explaining the mysteries of the “average investment yield on state general fund money.” Nor do I look forward to adjusting the interest rates from year to year on all of the open collection files.

I wouldn’t object strenuously to the General Assembly lowering the interest rate down from 8%. I’m pretty sure it’s been at 8% for the 20 years I’ve been practicing law and the general trend over that period of time has been lower interest rates. But making it variable seems like a big hassle.