Too Many Specialty Plates?

The Indianapolis Star has a front-page feature today on the growing number of specialty license plates in Indiana. There are now more than 60 organizations and universities which have their own speciality license plate. The Star's Mary Beth Schneider picks up on the mystery of the process:

A review of the applications accepted and rejected by the state shows a process replete with mystery. All of the applicants met the statutory requirements for the plates, which can generate thousands of dollars for groups.

But it's not clear why some were granted while others were not -- although administration officials reject claims that politics influence the decision.

"I don't necessarily have a good reason," Daniels said when asked how the administration chooses between one qualified group and another for the plates. "I can't make a good case for the choice of one versus another."

But, he said, one issue is "how broad the support seems to be and how broad the demand seems to be."

To me, license plates serve three primary purposes: (a) a statewide registration system for all motor vehicles; (b) identification of vehicles for law enforcement purposes; and (c) a source of state revenues. At least one of these purposes is undermined by the specialty license plate program--identification of vehicles for law enforcement purposes.

When police are trying to identify a vehicle which may have been used in the commission of a crime, the first thing they ask witnesses after obtaining a description of the vehicle, did you get a license plate number? Because Indiana has so many special license plates, it is difficult to always know whether the plate on a vehicle is an Indiana-issued license plate or not, let alone trying to remember the license plate number. Making matters worse, Indiana does not use the traditional alpha-numeric sequence utilized by other states in assigning numbers to license plates. Instead, it uses a sequence based upon county identifiers. If you live in Marion Co., a regular Indiana plate will most likely begin with the numbers "49" followed by a single alpha such as "D", which is followed by a series of numbers. If you ask me what my license plate number is, I can only tell you that it begins with "49D". I honestly can't remember the the full number on my Indiana-issued plate, even though I see it on almost a daily basis as I get into my car.

There's a reason most states use an alpha-numeric numbering system for their license plates. Experts have discovered that people are most likely to remember a series of letters (preferably no more than 3) followed by a series of numbers. Also, most states issue a license plate for both the front and back of the vehicle. Indiana is one of a minority of states which issues only one license plate for the back of the vehicle. Studies have shown that people are more likely to identify a license plate on the front of the vehicle rather than the back of the vehicle.

So what's my point? Indiana has lost sight of the essential purposes for having a license plate on automobiles. While seeking to please many groups and organizations with a specialty license plate, the state is severely undermining the law enforcement purposes behind the license plate. It seems to me that we should be placing a higher priority on law enforcement than the vanity of the people behind these organizations and universities.

Religion Raising Its Ugly Head In South Bend Gay Rights Debate

Although South Bend Equality, the leading group behind the enactment of a gay rights ordinance in South Bend, maintains that the issue has nothing to do with religion--"It's an issue of basic fairness . . . and of economic sense," opponents rely heavily on their moral disapproval of homosexuality as a basis for its opposition according to the South Bend Tribune's Lyn Stegemiller. He writes:

South Bend Equality, an organization that supports adding "sexual orientation and gender identity" to the city's nondiscrimination ordinance, maintains on its Web site that the issue is not a religious one.

Yet, faith seems to play a key role for people on both sides of the debate over whether to specifically ban discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in housing, employment, education and public accommodations.

The leading opposition group to the ordinance, No Special Rights, calls on "every citizen of faith" to actively oppose the ordinance Stegemiller notes. She quotes from their website, "This is not an issue of tolerating what people do in the privacy of their own home. This has become an aggressive attempt to force the moral acceptance of homosexual acts as normal on the entire population."

Stegemiller reports that the Catholic Church reprinted an earlier statement from Bishop John M. D'Arcy in opposition to the ordinance and distributed it to members in a church bulletin, which listed the names of Mayor Stephen Luecke and members of the Common Council, along with their contact information. He quotes a statement from D'Arcy explaining his opposition, "At the same time, we must be very cautious lest we validate in law lifestyles and behaviors to which many of our citizens are deeply in conscience opposed."

There are churches supporting the ordinance as well. Stegemiller notes that the First Unitarian-Universalist Church "urged readers of its newsletter to support the amendment by writing to Common Council members, sending an e-mail or attending a common council meeting to show their support."

The ordinance, which will prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in employment, housing and public accommodations, exempts religious organizations. Stegemiller notes that South Bend Equality supports the exemption for religious organizations.

South Bend Council President Opposed to Gay Rights Ordinance

South Bend Common Council President Timothy Rouse writes an opposing view in today's South Bend Tribune in response to the newspaper's editorial in support of a gay rights ordinance so long as it is voluntary. As the African-American minister sees it, there is "no substantial and credible evidence entered into the record that there is GLBT discrimination occurring in South Bend", and "there is no 'compelling governmental interest to remedy discrimination' by creating a special class of individuals who would benefit from special rights." The fact that he could make such a statement reveals more about the disdain he has for gays and lesbians as a group than the tortured logic he offers in support of his conclusion that the council should reject the ordinance.

Rouse first questions, by implication, the integrity of an Indiana Equality poll conducted late last year by the IU Center for Survey Research, which indicated that 79% of Hoosiers favor equal rights for gays and lesbians. Rouse notes that the survey questions were prepared by Ellen Anderson who "has written extensively on various aspects of gay rights and prepared the survey questions." He believes "the survey questions should have been developed by a neutral person so that the survey would not be perceived as being biased in any way." He complains that the poll only surveyed 504 adult residents and "did not provide any information to those polled that current Indiana law does not authorize municipalities to legislate in the GLBT area." There was no reason to include this latter assertion as it is outright false.

Rouse relies on a thoroughly discredited memorandum prepared by a city attorney, Kathy Cekanski-Farran, last December. Her memorandum falsely asserts that local units of government are probibited by the state's civil rights law from adding to the list of groups protected from discrimination, and that "Indiana's Home Rule authority does not enable a city to violate a state law." Cekanski-Farran's memorandum notably ignored an identical ordinance adopted by the state's largest city, Indianapolis, of which no one has publicly questioned its legality more than 6 months after it became law. Despite being assured by leading attorneys more informed on the law than Cekanski-Farran, Rouse and others who oppose the measure based upon their moral disapproval of homosexuality, continue to use this specious legal argument as a red herring.

Instead of enacting an ordinance, Rouse suggests that Mayor Stephen Luecke (D), who supports the human rights ordinance as proposed, execute an executive order addressing GLBT city government employment policies. Of course, such a policy would extend to city employees only, excluding the vast majority of employees who work in South Bend, and it would not address discrimination in other areas, such as housing and public accomodations. Rouse points to a similar executive order issued by Mayor Bart Peterson in 2004, while failing to make mention of the city's human rights ordinance extending protections to the GLBT community. Rouse also complains that the issue has not been studied enough, even though the issue has languished before the council for more than 2 years.

Rouse can hide all he wants behind behind these phony issues. Minister or not, Rouse's words communicate but one message to South Bend's GLBT community: The government should not tell me I can't discriminate against a group I morally disapprove of. Of course, never mind that those same laws already protect Rouse from two forms of discrimination: religion and race. Are those special rights too Mr. Rouse?

Assault On Ex-KKK Leader Possibly Tied To Effort To Rebuild Organization

HOMOSEXUALS AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TARGETED BY HATE GROUP
Indiana State Police investigators are trying to determine if the recent assault on former Ku Klux Klan leader Jeff Berry by his son, Anthony Berry and another man, were tied to the men's efforts to reinvigorate the KKK. Not surprisingly the current focus of the hate group is closely aligned with focus of Christian fundamentalists--homosexuals and illegal immigrants. The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette's Angela Mapes reports today:

Two men charged in the beating of former Ku Klux Klan leader Jeff Berry are believed to be involved in recent efforts to reinvigorate the Klan in northeast Indiana, a state police detective said.

Fred Wilson, 21, of the 200 block of North Elm Street, Albion, was arrested Friday and charged with battery, a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Wilson is the second suspect arrested in connection with the beating.

He is accused of throwing a chair at Jeff Berry, 53, and punching him the evening of July 1 during a party in Spencerville. During the same argument, Berry’s son, 31-year-old Anthony Berry, beat his father in the head with his fist, critically injuring him, according to court documents.

Anthony Berry was arrested Tuesday on an aggravated battery charge.

Computer-generated fliers recently distributed in downtown Auburn listed post office boxes in Auburn and Albion as contacts for the Ku Klux Klan. State Police Detective Mark Heffelfinger confirmed that the Albion post office box is registered under Fred Wilson’s name and that the Auburn box is registered to Anthony Berry.

The brochure denounces homosexuality and “illegal immagrants.”

Based on the information on the fliers, Anthony Berry and Wilson appear to be acquaintances or friends who have been involved recently in Klan activity, Heffelfinger said. Heffelfinger would not comment on whether Anthony Berry’s or Wilson’s apparent involvement with the Klan had anything to do with the argument
that led to Jeff Berry’s beating.

In the 1920s, the KKK reigned supreme in Indiana, controlling the Indiana legislature and all state-wide elected officials. The group, which has historically been comprised of white Protestants, used its political clout to target minorities with whom it differed, such as blacks, Catholics, Jews and immigrants. While Christian fundamentalist groups abhor comparisons of them to the KKK, their legislative goals are often similar. Christian fundamentalists are the leading forces behind current legislative pushes against homosexuals and illegal immigrants.

South Bend Gay Rights Vote On For Monday

The South Bend Common Council will decide at its meeting on Monday whether to add sexual orientation and gender identity to its human rights ordinance. The South Bend Tribune's Jamie Loo writes:

Since July 2004, the council has received more than 2,000 pages in research on the topic including court decisions, maps, articles and ordinances in other cities. In her time as council attorney, Kathy Cekanski-Farrand said, it’s the heaviest volume of research the council has ever received for an ordinance.

That’s not counting the hundreds of voice mails, e-mails and letters received by individual Common Council members, she said.

All nine council members are expected to be present for Monday night's vote. A close vote is anticipated.

IBJ Reports On "The Edge" New Law Provides Realtors

A second publication has ended the news blackout in coverage of Indiana's new "Realtors Protection Law", which is intended to stifle competition traditional real estate brokers were facing from discount brokers. The Indianapolis Business Journal's Tracy Donhardt describes "the edge" traditional realtors are afforded under the new law:

A new state law backed by Realtors that critics say stifles cut-rate competition already has prompted a discount brokerage, California-based HomeYeah!, to shutter its operations here.

The law, which went into effect July 1, spells out minimum services all licensed residential real estate brokers must offer, regardless of whether customers want to pay for the services.

Realtors, who are members of the National Association of Realtors, say the law helps ensure brokers provide clients the help they need to navigate the complex home-buying process. But critics say Realtors are trying to suppress competition to protect the 7-percent commission they typically collect on home sales.

HomeYeah! and other low-cost brokers list homes on their Web sites and on the local multiplelisting service, or MLS, for a flat fee, generally about $500. MLS listings, which are managed by local boards of Realtors, also are posted on national site Realtor.com.

But effective July 1, all brokers had to be available to handle offers and ounteroffers, to assist with paperwork, and to answer questions. That put HomeYeah’s $499 option, which provided sellers a six-month listing on its Web site and the local MLS, outside the law’s boundaries.

Another Home-Yeah! option—putting home listings on the company Web site but not the MLS—also didn’t comply. “The company didn’t want to participate in Indiana since the law destroyed two of its models,” said John Slimak, former president of HomeYeah!’s Midwest division, which was based in Indianapolis. HomeYeah!, which was launched in Indiana in 1999, typically carried 60 to 90 listings at a time.

The legislation's sponsor, Rep. Tim Harris and the Realtors Association lobbyist, Karl Berron, demonstrated to Donhardt just how shameless they are in defending the new industry law. They continue to falsely assert that the intent of the legislation is to protect consumers despite accusations from the U.S. justice department that such laws are purely anti-competitive. “What we’re not trying to do is put anyone out of business,” Harris told Donhardt. But she notes his own self-interest in the new law, noting that Harris "has been in the real estate business 12 years and works as a title insurance agent in Grant County."

Berron tells Donhardt that "he’s surprised by what he considers the unwarranted negative reaction to the law here and elsewhere." “It’s a licensing issue, not a marketing issue,” he said. “It’s just patently not true that this business model or that model is being eliminated. There will still be a wide range of services around.”

Shannon Riegle, a former HomeYeah customer thinks differently. “It’s frustrating. Why can’t we just choose what we want ourselves? Competition is supposed to be there for a reason.”

The Indiana Law Blog has more, just click here.

Rudy To Seek GOP Nomination For President

Conservative columnist Robert Novak tells us that former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani will seek the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. Novak notes that Guiliani is running at the front of the pack in recent polls:

The former mayor of New York was on top of last month's national Gallup poll measuring presidential preferences by registered Republicans, with 29 percent. Sen. John McCain's 24 percent was second, with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich third at 8 percent. National polls all year have shown Giuliani running either first or second to McCain, with the rest of the presidential possibilities far behind.

Realistically, Guiliani doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination. It will, however, be beneficial to the party to have a candidate in the race who is pro gay rights and pro choice. Novak says he'll have to change his position on one of these issues if he wants to win. Novak writes:

Republican insiders respond to these numbers by saying rank-and-file GOP voters will abandon Giuliani once they realize his position on abortion, gay rights and gun control. Party strategists calculate that if he actually runs, he must change on at least one of these issues.

Actually, there is little reason for Guiliani to modify his view on any of these issues. Everyone else likely to enter the race will be running in lock step on these cultural wedge issues. Standing apart from the other candidates will be his greatest asset.

NY Court Criticized For Adopting Indiana Court's Logic

Arthur Leonard, in an analysis of New York's highest court decision upholding a ban on same-sex marriages, criticized the court for using logic adopted by the Indiana Court of Appeals in Morrison v. Sadler, a 2005 case in which the court ruled that Indiana's Constitution permitted a ban on same-sex marriages. Leonard writes of Judge Robert Smith's majority opinion:

Seizing upon an illogical argument previously embraced by the Indiana Court of Appeals, a majority of New York’s highest court ruled on July 6 that it is rational for the Legislature to have excluded same-sex couples from marriage in order to encourage heterosexuals, who might carelessly or accidentally conceive children, to marry . . .

Smith’s opinion is irrational even in its mode of organization. So eager is he to begin with the ending that he prefaces his analysis with the stark declaration, “We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.”

Smith’s “rational basis” discussion echoes the recent ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals in Morrison v. Sadler, appalling in its bizarre rendition of vacuous stereotypes. The Indiana court theorized that while same-sex couples can only have children as a result of deliberate intention through adoption or donor insemination, opposite-sex couples can have children through carelessness, accidents (broken condoms, drunken orgies, what have you), or indirection, and thus the Legislature could rationally believe that the purpose of providing the rights and benefits of marriage should be used as an incentive to corral those careless breeders into bonds of matrimony.

Of course, Smith utterly fails to explain why not letting same-sex couples marry advances this goal of getting opposite-sex couples to do so.

The New York court's opinion in Hernandez v. Robles did not specifically adopt the Indiana Court of Appeals' logic in Morrison v. Sadler by reference, although the court does cite the opinion in a discussion of other states which had found their state constitutions permitted legislative bans on same-sex marriages. The logic used by the two courts, however, in finding the legislature's actions rational is strikingly similar as Leonard points out.

Bolejack's PR Flack Unhappy With Abdul

Abdul Hakim-Shabazz posted this small item over at Indiana Barrister yesterday concerning former Indiana Criminal Justice Institute executive director Heather Bolejack:

Just when I thought things were settling down at the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, I hear that things might have actually been worse under former director Heather Bolejack's reign than previously thought. Sources tell me officials are looking into possible grant mismanagement to the tune of nearly $1 million. Stay tuned...

That drew an angry response from Bolejack's public relations agent, Ernie Reno, President of Avatar Communications Group. He accused Abdul of engaging in "vilification" of Bolejack that "borders on slander" and "ignorantly regurgitat[ing] baseless claims." Reno attacked the Inspector General's report as "exceptionally long on allegation, conjecture, speculation and presumption, but strikingly lacking in substance." He challenged Abdul to find "any hard evidence" to "prove fraud, nepotism, monetary gain or any of the other criminal or ethical acts presumed to be committed by Ms. Bolejack." To read Reno's full statement, click here.