« Ind. Courts - Tour of county courthouses is revealing | Main | Law - [Updated] More on the federal Terri Schiavo law »

Friday, March 25, 2005

Ind. Law - More on "Bringing daylight saving time back to life"

I love this headline to an AP story by Mike Smith today as published in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette: "Alderman parts curtain to save daylight-time bill." It implies we are seeing the inner workings of the General Assembly, revealed. But what we really see is just another curtain, and then another ...

The story rehashes much of what was posted here yesterday, leading up to Senator Garton's suggestion:

Garton suggested that daylight-saving time proponents try another tactic: Remove all the provisions of one bill and replace them with the daylight-saving time proposal. The maneuver is commonly called a “strip and insert,” and Alderman said he is likely to pursue it in committee next week.

He first must identify a Senate bill and get permission from its author to take that kind of step, but he said he was confident he could create a new home for daylight-saving time. * * *

House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, said it was an “extraordinary” tactic to turn to. But he said it was worth trying in part because Democrats prevented votes on the daylight-saving time proposal and other House bills by boycotting the floor on the deadline day for legislation to clear its house of origin.

Even if it gets to the House floor again, it might not pass.

It is a polarizing issue among lawmakers and their constituents, and similar efforts to impose statewide daylight-saving time have failed at least 24 times over the past three decades.

If it passes the House, it would be sent to the Senate Rules Committee. Garton is chairman of that panel and said he would give it a full public hearing and a chance to advance to the full Senate.

This session marked the first time in 10 years that a bill mandating that all of Indiana change its clocks twice a year, as is done in 47 other states, made it to the floor of either chamber in the General Assembly. [emphasis added]

Actually, House rules make it more difficlt than outlined above to "strip" a Senate bill and insert new provisions. As noted in this 3/4/05 ILB entry:
The House Committee could "strip" the Senate bill and substitute different subject matter via a motion to "Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following ...". However, this would require written consent of the Senate author and co-author(s) and the House sponsor and co-sponsor(s).
(The rule is House Rule 120, quoted in full near the end of this ILB entry from 3/2/05.)

So stripping a Senate bill in the House requires finding a Senate bill in the House authored/sponsored by perhaps four people, all of whom are willing to give up on this bill that has already passed the Senate. But in addition, what would be going into the bill that has already their names on it would be daylight savings time. How to achieve such consensus may be behind another curtain.

Other stories today on this topic: "Time-change effort keeps on ticking", a story by Jennifer Whitson in the Evansville Courier& Press; "New light shines on controversial bill," a story by Martin DeAgostino in the South Bend Tribune; "Daylight-saving proposal faces challenge in Indiana," a story by Lesley Stedman Weidenbener
in the Louisville Courier Journal.Her story has a good description of the obstacles:

Garton said stripping a Senate bill completely of its original language and then inserting the daylight-saving time mandate is the best option. That would occur in the House.

But it's no easy task.Before a bill could be stripped and the time amendment inserted, the authors and sponsors of the bill would have to consent in writing. Then, it would have to pass a House committee and survive a House vote.

"The governor believes there is a majority in the House to pass it," Bosma said. "But I wouldn't bet on that particular issue."

Even if it passes, the bill would be sent to the Senate Rules Committee -- whose chairman is Garton -- where it would receive a full hearing.

Then it could receive a committee vote, which Garton said would be close. After that it could go to the full Senate for consideration.

Finally, the Indianapolis Star has an editorial titled "Running out of time."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 25, 2005 03:32 PM
Posted to Indiana Law