Hispanic Vote Made A Big Difference

After the election returns showed Republicans losing big nationwide last week, I predicted that a review of the election outcome would likely turn up a huge drop off in the GOP's support from Hispanics as a major contributing factor to the party's losses--as a direct result of too many in the GOP using immigrant bashing as a wedge issue. Brian Howey picks up on this theme today, noting that Democrats captured about 70% of the Hispanic vote in congressional races compared to the 29% earned by Republicans. In 2004, President Bush captured 44% of the Hispanic vote in his narrow win over Sen. John Kerry (D). Howey thinks the big shift in the Hispanic vote could explain the GOP's losses more than other issues. Howey writes:

Republicans are asking what they did wrong in the 2006 midterms. This is a question with many answers. But few missteps were more foolish - and few will be harder to correct - than those made with Latino voters wrote Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute.

The appointment this week of Cuban-born Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida to chair the Republican National Committee is a good way to make a new start. But the damage done in the last year goes deeper than symbolism, and it will take more than one appointment to undo it.

Though Democrats have been wooing these voters longer and have won the lifetime loyalties of many in the second and third generations, immigrants have been up for grabs - and for more than 10 years now Republicans have been making a hard run at them. That effort was working pretty well. Between 1996 and 2004, Bush and Karl Rove managed to double the percentage of Latinos voting Republican in presidential elections: up from 21% for Bob Dole to a whopping 44% for Bush two years ago.

Other Republicans across the country were making similar inroads. In 2004, Bush advisor Matthew Dowd said that in the years ahead, the GOP would have to keep its share above 40% if it wanted to remain the majority party. But that scenario failed to account for the Republicans who didn't get it - and in the last year or so these naysayers have destroyed everything Bush built.

Republican hard-liners in the House refused to enact the president's immigration reform. They passed a bill making felons of illegal immigrants, not because it was good law but merely to make a political point. They spent recent months demagoguing the immigration issue, first at a series of "field hearings" in their districts and then on the campaign trail, casting newcomers as terrorists and criminals and anyone who seemed to side with them as un-American. The problem was as much about tone as substance - many Latinos are also worried about illegal immigration. But the hard-liners' grandstanding added up, and there was no mistaking the message: Not only illegal immigrants but 30 million Latino voters heard Republicans saying, "We don't like you."

The results were hardly surprising. Last week, Latinos voted 70% to 29% in favor of Democrats. And it could be argued that this shift is what decided the election. According to exit polls, white voters were split more or less evenly between the two parties, with Latinos, Asians and blacks making the difference on election night. In Indiana, U.S. Reps. John Hostettler, Chris Chocola and Mike Sodrel all sided with House hardliners and tried to use the illegal immigration issue. Rep. Chocola is shown talking with a Latino voter after his debate with Democrat Joe Donnelly in Rochester. Chocola ran TV ads splitting with President Bush on the immigration issue. He lost to Donnelly 54-46 percent.

I think Howey hits the nail on the head. Unfortunately for the GOP, I don't think the party leaders fully understand this yet.

NY Times: Pelosi Tempts Disaster

It is unusual to see the New York Times editors take after any Democrat, let alone the first female-elected Speaker of the House of Representatives, but that's exactly what the Times' editors did today in a stinging attack on Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in response to her efforts to put Murtha in the House Majority Leader's position and her decision to appoint the controversial Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) as chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. The Times writes of Pelosi:

Nancy Pelosi has managed to severely scar her leadership even before taking up the gavel as the new speaker of the House. First, she played politics with the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee to settle an old score and a new debt. And then she put herself in a lose-lose position by trying to force a badly tarnished ally, Representative John Murtha, on the incoming Democratic Congress as majority leader. The party caucus put a decisive end to that gambit yesterday, giving the No. 2 job to Steny Hoyer, a longtime Pelosi rival.

But Ms. Pelosi’s damage to herself was already done. The well-known shortcomings of Mr. Murtha were broadcast for all to see — from his quid-pro-quo addiction to moneyed lobbyists to the grainy government tape of his involvement in the Abscam scandal a generation ago. The resurrected tape — feasted upon by Pelosi enemies — shows how Mr. Murtha narrowly survived as an unindicted co-conspirator, admittedly tempted but finally rebuffing a bribe offer: “I’m not interested — at this point.”

Mr. Murtha would have been a farcical presence in a leadership promising the cleanest Congress in history. Ms. Pelosi should have been first to realize this, having made such a fiery campaign sword of her vows to end Capitol corruption. Instead, she acted like some old-time precinct boss and lost the first test before her peers.

As incoming speaker, Ms. Pelosi will be dogged by skepticism — from within the party and without — about her political smarts and her ability to deliver a galvanized agenda. It was a no-brainer for the caucus to end the misguided fight for Mr. Murtha, who belittled the need for reform. Now the pressure is even greater for Speaker-elect Pelosi to recover by leading the House to something actually worth fighting for — starting with credible anticorruption strictures. For this she needs gaffe-wary advisers, among them Mr. Hoyer, who has his own questionable record of flourishing in big-money politics. The new majority — led by a presumably wiser speaker — must realize by now that intramural vendetta is hardly a substitute for productive government.

As bad as Pelosi's attempt at putting Murtha in the Majority Leader's job was, I think her decision to put Hastings in as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is even worse. Hastings, a former federal judge, was impeached by a Democratic-controlled House and convicted by the Democratic-controlled Senate for allegedly taking bribes and committing perjury in the late 1980s. The Black Caucus pushed his appointment over the senior Democratic member of the committee, Rep. Jane Harmon. This has produced outrage from many corners. "Should Pelosi actually follow through and give Hastings the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee, it would turn the House of Representatives into Theater of the Absurd," Mary Laney wrote for the Chicago-Sun Times. Jim Kouri, writing for the Post Chronicle, says that the "idea of putting this sleazebag in a position where he would be privy to the most sensitive national security secrets is untenable."

The Raw Story reported that Pelosi had personal animus towards Harmon because she had not been sufficiently critical of the Bush administration. As NBC's Andrea Mitchell explained, "Pelosi believes Harman "hasn't been tough enough on the Bush administration, on intelligence issues, that she wasn’t, that she was too moderate, too centrist, even though she is the most credible Democrat on all of these issues and has a national following and it is a really nasty fight among two powerful congresswomen."

At Last, A Final Count Of The Votes In Marion County

Ten days after the general election, the Marion County Election Board is finally able to produce final results in all the races in Marion County. There were a total of 203,737 votes cast in Marion County, or 33% of the registered voters. That's about 5,000 more than voted in the last off-year election in 2002, but it is down three points as a percentage of the registered voters. It's also the lowest turnout of registered voters in many years. These final results are still subject to possible recounts.

In that closely watched House District 97, Jon Elrod (R) stretched his narrow win over Rep. Ed Mahern (D) from 5 to 7 votes. It should be noted that the Marion County Election Board voted along party lines not to count 3 absentee ballots which arrived late according to the Star. Even if all those votes had been for Mahern, Elrod would still hold a 4-vote lead. A recount is anticipated. It is unclear to me what the circumstances were for those 3 absentee ballots arriving late, although Doris Ann Sadler says this happens every election and the ballots are simply discarded. If the voter returned the absentee ballot in a timely fashion and election officials simply, through negligence or mistake failed to deliver them to the polls on election day, it seems to me that those votes should be counted. If they arrived late due to the voter's failure to return the ballot in a timely fashion, then the votes should be discarded.

In the Secretary of State's race, Todd Rokita (R) received about 2,000 fewer votes than Democrat Joe Pearson, which has significance for determining ballot placement of the party's candidates and the party affiliation of election inspectors for the next election. Rep. Julia Carson (D) maintained a 10,400-vote lead over Eric Dickerson (R) in the final count for the 7th congressional district. Carson received 53.7% of the vote to Dickerson's 46.2%. That represents Carson's closest race yet. Rep. Larry Buell (R) received about 500 more votes than John Barnes (D) in the close 89th District race. Also, Warren Township Trustee Tom Marendt (R) edged Jeff Bennett (D) by just 7 votes in the final count.

Marion Co Prosecutor Carl Brizzi (R) finished with a much smaller lead than he would have liked. His 6,700-vote victory over Melina Kennedy (D) is much closer than anyone expected. He received 51.7% to Kennedy's 48.3%. Based on the results in the 91st House District, Democrats may take a harder look at Rep. Bob Behning (R) in two years. Behning beat Democrat Tim Huber by less than a thousand votes, receiving 56.8% to Huber's 43.2%. That race received little attention by either party. Also, Democrat Russell Brown finished a little closer to Sen. James Merritt (R) than earlier results. Merritt defeated Brown by about 2,300 votes, receiving 53.9% of the vote compared to Brown's 46%.

What I really find disturbing in the Marion County results is the number of straight-ticket voters. Over 60% of the votes cast were straight-party votes. Democrats received about 11,000 more straight-ticket votes than Republicans, 63,533 for the Democrats to 52,814 for the Republicans. While I'm a Republican, I can think of very few elections in which I've voted a straight-party ticket. The trend towards more straight-ticket voting with a considerable edge for the Democrats doesn't bode well for Republicans in future elections. Unless that trend is reversed, Marion County will soon become a one-party county ala Cook County, Illinois--and all that that implies.

Pence Trounced By Boehner

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) trounced Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) in the race for House Minority Leader by a vote of 168-27 according to the Hotline Blog. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) defeated Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) by a 147-37 vote for the House Minority Whip position. Also, Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL) defeated Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) for the conference chair position. Republicans who were hoping that the House Republican caucus would shake up their leadership after the beating they took in last week's election are going to be very disappointed by today's outcome. Both Boehner and Blunt have shown themselves to be the consummate insiders who practice pork barrel politics and are ethically-challenged. They present a face of the Republican Party that voters resoundingly rejected in this past election. The GOP may have to suffer yet another election defeat before they figure out something is wrong with their leadership.

Lesbian's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Protest Misfires

Julie Benson arrived at an Indiana National Guard recruiting office with a gaggle of reporters to test the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy barring gays and lesbians from serving in the military. Benson, a lesbian, expected to have her application rejected because of her sexual orientation. Instead, the Guard's recruiting office rejected her application because she is overweight. WRTV's Norm Cox reports:

Cameras were not permitted inside the guard office as Benson tried to enlist. Benson said she was rejected because of her sexual orientation, but a guard representative said Benson was turned away because of her weight.

"I spoke with our recruiters, and she was rejected based on physical conditioning and not meeting the height-weight policy to enter into the Indiana National Guard," said Lt. Col. Deedra Thombleson.

"I was specifically told by the recruiter that I was rejected according to the policy and having outed myself because of my sexual orientation," Benson said.

Thombleson said the gender issue did not come up in the discussion. One of the recruiters later clarified that Benson brought it up herself after her application had already been rejected over the physical condition issue.

Benson said she was prepared to be arrested. Police said they won't arrest her as long as she is outside the door and isn't blocking it.

While Benson disputed the reason given by the Guard for her rejection, WTHR's report backs up the Guard's account. "Eyewitness News obtained a copy of the recruiter interview sheet where it indicates a person's height and weight is asked well before the applicant's marital status, WTHR reported." If it's any consolation to Benson, Lt. Col. Deedra Thombleson, who told Cox that Benson was rejected because she was overweight, appeared significantly overweight as well.

Is The Gig Up On Eric Miller's "Nonpartisan" Voter Guides?

A decision announced yesterday by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against voter guides put out by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Sierra Club during the 2004 elections may cast serious doubt on the legality of similar voting guides put out by Eric Miller's Advance America organization, which also claims to be a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. The FEC fined the Sierra Club $28,000 for distributing voter guides the FEC claims "expressly advocating the election and defeat of candidates." In a press release, the FEC said:

“This is one of the most important express advocacy cases the Commission has resolved in recent years,” said Commission Chairman Michael Toner. “I am very pleased that the Commission was able to conciliate this case and provide further guidance to the public on the appropriate scope of the express advocacy test,” added Toner.

The settlement follows a Commission determination that the bar on using corporate treasury funds to pay for independent expenditures applies not only to communications containing so-called “magic words,” such as “vote for” or “vote against,” but also to a broader set of communications that are “unmistakable, unambiguous, and suggestive of only one meaning,” and can “only be interpreted by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the defeat of one or more candidates.” This settlement with the Sierra Club, a 501(c)(4) organization, represents the first major case to consider the reach of the express advocacy test in light of the landmark Supreme Court case, McConnell v. FEC.

At issue was a pamphlet distributed by the Sierra Club in Florida prior to the 2004 general election. The front of the pamphlet exhorted the reader to “LET YOUR CONSCIENCE BE YOUR GUIDE,” accompanied by various nature scenes. The heading of the interior of the pamphlet urged the reader, “AND LET YOUR VOTE BE YOUR VOICE.”

The pamphlet compared the environmental records of President Bush and Senator Kerry and U.S. Senate candidates Mel Martinez and Betty Castor through checkmarks and written narratives. Kerry received checkmarks in every box on all three environmental issues addressed in the pamphlet; Bush received only one checkmark in a single category, and in that category, Kerry received two checkmarks. In the Senate race, Castor received checkmarks in all three categories, while Martinez received none. The accompanying narratives made clear that a checkmark represented a favorable environmental record in the eyes of the Sierra Club. The Commission found that the pamphlet “expressly advocated” Kerry and Castor’s election and Bush and Martinez’s defeat.

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell v. FEC, which upheld most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, two Federal appeals courts had held that, as a constitutional matter, only communications containing the so-called “magic words” could be subject to Federal campaign finance law.

In McConnell, however, the Supreme Court made clear that “express advocacy” was not a constitutional boundary “that forever fixed the permissible scope of provisions regulating campaign-related speech.”

Because the Sierra Club brochure contained “express advocacy,” it was an independent expenditure.” Federal law prohibits corporations from using treasury funds to make independent expenditures and all of the funds spent on the brochure by the Sierra Club came from its corporate treasury.

The Sierra Club, while accepting the settlement with the FEC, put out a blistering press release accusing the FEC of using a "fuzzy definition" of the law, which it deemed unconstitutional for vagueness, in reaching its decision that its voter guides crossed the line of what is permitted. The group said:

The FEC based its finding on a fuzzy definition that most courts have found unconstitutionally vague. Although the FEC attempts to dance around the issue, the Supreme Court’s McConnell decision did not give theCommission the authority to use this smell test. The only clear signal is that the FEC has turned formerly clear terraininto a foggy bog that advocacy groups approach at their own risk. Ironically, the Commission’s regulations specifically say organizations mayproduce voter guides, but now the FEC is telling groups that if they crosssome unknown line, they’ll face fines. The FEC’s action surely will frighten some groups into silence, squelching efforts to educate voters onimportant issues.

Like the Sierra Club, Advance America distributes over 850,000 voter guides to voters, primarily through churches, U.S. mail and e-mail communications each election. As with the Sierra Club's voter guides, Advance America's voter guides do not contain the magical words instructing a voter to vote for or against a particular candidate. It does, however, place a checkmark next to the name of each candidate for each issue on which the candidate agrees with Advance America's position. The group selected 10 issues to rate the candidates. Those issues in this past election were as follows:

• Supports constitutional amendment to repeal property taxes
• Supports constitutional freedom for churches and their ministries
• Opposes expansion of gaming
• Opposes same-sex marriages and civil unions by amending the Indiana and U.S. Constitutions
• Supports pro-life position
• Supports freedom for private and home schools
• Supports educational tax credits for public, private and home schools
• Opposes new government regulation of businesses
• Opposes pornography on library computers

Advance America sent the questionnaires to all candidates to complete prior to the election. The voter guides contained this disclaimer: "The responses listed are based upon completed candidate questionnaires and the responses of the candidates to repealing property taxes with a constitutional amendment. A blank space indicates the candidate's response was either not clearly yes or was no, or that the candidate did not respond, or that the candidate had no opinion." In other words, if a candidate completed the questionnaire by indicating unequivocal support for any of the 10 issues, the candidate received a checkmark for each affirmative response. Any other response yielded a blank space. The voting guides totalled the number of checkmarks for each candidate. A candidate who responded affirmatively to each issue would score a "10" next to his/her name, while a candidate who responded negatively to each issue or didn't respond at all, received a "0" next to his/her name.

While the voter guides themselves do not contain any exhortation like "Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide" as the Sierra Club voting guides did, communications through its website and e-mails to voters as part of the group's efforts to get the word out about the voter guides did contain similar exhortations. The group encouraged voters to "Cast An Informed Ballot" explaining that this was "an important election for families and churches." Miller himself is featured in a video recording explaining how important it was for voters to get a voter guide distributed by the group to let them know where the candidates stood on "important issues" such as same-sex marriage and abortion. He tells voters to do three things: (1) pray; (2) vote; and (3) cast an informed ballot.

There can be no mistaking the fact that the checkmarks next to a candidate's name and the accompanying score represent a favorable "pro family", "pro life" and "pro business" record for the candidate, in the context of how each question is phrased and the accompanying communications Advance America used to distribute its voters guides. Applying the standard used by the FEC in the Sierra Club decision, a reasonable person could only interpret Advance America's communications with respect to the voter guides as containing advocacy for the support or defeat of a candidate. The FEC should similarly investigate Advance America and mete out a civil penalty similar to what it meted out to Sierra Club. The time has long since come and gone for the federal government to put an end to the blatant political activities of these so-called nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations in violation of federal law.

House Dems Rebuke Speaker Pelosi: Elect Hoyer

Immediately following a vote to elect Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives, the House Democratic caucus overwhelmingly voted to elect Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) to the powerful House Majority Leader position over Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). Fox News is reporting the vote was 149-86 in favor of Hoyer, a clear rebuke of Pelosi, who had urged House Democrats to support Murtha. Murtha had claimed just last night on Chris Matthews "Hardball" show on MSNBC that he had the votes to win.

This could signal that Pelosi may become nothing more than a figurehead Speaker. Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) became more powerful during his reign as House Majority Leader than Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL). Murtha, an ethically-challenged politician and advocate for immediate withdraw from Iraq, seemed to have been handpicked by Pelosi to challenge Hoyer more as a personal vendetta according to syndicated columnist Robert Novak than what he offered in terms of leadership. Murtha caused a controversy earlier this week when he referred to a proposed ethics reform package as "crap."

Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 ABSCAM scandal. A hidden camera showed Murtha discussing bribes with undercover FBI agents in full view of a pile of cash sitting on a coffee table in the room. While Murtha declined to take the money during the meeting, he urged the undercover agents to invest the money with close business friends in his congressional district for their best return. Murtha, who sat on the Ethics Committee at the time, never reported the meeting to the Ethics Committee or to the FBI. It is incredible that Murtha was repeatedly re-elected by the voters of his district in spite of this major lapse in ethical judgment.

House Democrats were quite wise to select Hoyer over Murtha. Indiana's newly-elected Reps. Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth both announced in advance they were supporting Hoyer. Senate Democrats would have been wise to have dumped the ethically-challenged Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) instead of electing him as Senate Majority Leader. His close ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff could prove quite embarrassing as Abramoff continues to cooperate with the FBI in an ongoing investigation of political corruption on Capitol Hill.

Governor Daniels Ignores One-Year-Old Study Of Bypass

When Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) met with the Star's editorial staff earlier this week to promote his proposed toll road bypass around Indianapolis, he said he didn't have any studies to support his contentions that it would ease traffic congestion and spur economic development--a real sticking point for the Star. Governor Daniels did not mention that a study completed by the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) just last year found the complete opposite for a bypass which would encircle the entire metropolitan area. It was a study he had in fact been briefed on in the weeks leading up to the announcement of the project according to his own spokesman. He dismissed the report because it compared "apples to apples". "There are so many differences. It's only a small piece of the larger picture," said Jan Jankowski. Here is what the key findings of that the Parsons-Brinkerhoff $850,000 study are according to Theodore Kim:

• An outer beltway would have a mixed impact on travel patterns. Traffic would be cut on some existing roadways but could increase on some feeder highways.
• There would be a "generally negligible impact" on regional development patterns, even as far out as 2040, after a beltway had been open for 15 years. The area that could benefit the most is Madison County, with employment shifting there from Hendricks, Hamilton and Johnson counties.
• Development is likely to occur around major interchanges, including restaurants, gas stations, warehouses and distribution centers and smaller office parks. However, "it will take decades before a significant amount of regional development reaches" the corridor.
• The "relatively low traffic forecasts and the lack of associated land use may be surprising, given the 'build it and they will come' view shared by many people with respect to new roadways." The study cited several reasons for that: The outer belt would be relatively far from the center of Indianapolis and other job centers; it wouldn't have much of an impact on Downtown commuters; and a significant amount of land is still available for development closer to the urban core.

It is quite interesting that the study found that the traffic congestion on I-465, I-70 and I-74 would be relieved very little by a new outer beltway because most of the that traffic is local. In fact, it found traffic would increase on I-70 and I-74. It found a "negligible" impact on economic development because the road would be built so far from the central city, and there was still plenty of undeveloped land nearer the city. It also found that the highway would shift jobs from Hamilton, Hendricks and Johnson County to Madison County in the northeast.

What is equally as troubling as the study's findings is the Governor's lack of candor about its existence. Kim writes:

Neither Daniels nor transportation officials made mention of the INDOT study until asked about it. The study was not available on the agency's Web site Wednesday. Abell said the study was "inadvertently" purged as part of a Web site overhaul and would be restored as soon as today.

Yet, another study appears to have looked at the proposed bypass years earlier according to a story in the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette. According to the AP report, the proposed route is very similar to a nearly ten-year-old federal study of a proposed route for I-69 around Indianapolis. The AP reports:

Tom Tokarski, the head of Citizens for Appropriate Rural Roads, said Daniels’ idea is just a ruse to build the highway without calling it I-69 – a way to circumvent opposition and questions about how the long-planned road would be routed through Indianapolis.

“They’ve always had a problem getting (I-69) around Indianapolis,” said Tokarski, a Monroe County resident. “... They’re looking for a way to fund I-69 – but that is I-69.”

He said the route of the proposed Indiana Commerce Connector, announced last week by the governor, would follow essentially the same path as a partial I-69 route suggested in May 1997 by a federally commissioned study.

Tokarski said a May 1997 study produced by the consulting firm Wilbur Smith Associates identified an outer loop around Indianapolis as one of three ways to get I-69 around the city. That proposed route said the outer loop would generally follow Indiana 9 from Pendleton to Shelbyville and Indiana 44 from Shelbyville to Martinsville, essentially the same route that Daniels identified for the Indiana Commerce Connector, Tokarski said.

The study’s two other alternatives involved adding lanes to Interstate 465 and building a section of I-69 from the northeast into downtown Indianapolis.

Suffice it to say the Governor has gotten off to a rather clumsy start in convincing the public that this new toll road bypass is needed.

Senate Ends Health Care Perk

Following the lead of outgoing House Speaker Brian Bosma (R), newly-elected Senate President Pro Tempore David Long (R) announced today that the Senate will end a generous life-time health insurance benefit for senators and staff. The Star's Mary Beth Schneider reports:

Incoming Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said the Senate met behind closed doors today and decided to revoke the plan, in which taxpayers footed 75 percent to 100 percent of the cost to cover the retired legislator, staff member, spouse -- even after the legislator's death or divorce -- and dependent children.

While the House and Senate are ending the plan through administrative action, there also is likely to be legislation filed in both chambers to repeal the laws that had created the program.

Outrage over the plan, which was adopted in a series of bills in 2001 and 2002, led to the defeat in the May primary election of former Senate President Pro Tempore Robert D. Garton, R-Columbus.

Garton will be among a handful of legislators who continues to receive the insurance coverage. Long said the Senate will not retroactively end the program. In addition, any retirement-age lawmaker or staff member who retires by July 31 will be eligible to be covered by the then-defunct health insurance plan.

The House had made the plan available to any legislator or staff member who left the legislature before the Nov. 7 general election.

Now-State Sen. Greg "The Flogger" Walker (R-Columbus) can claim his first legislative accomplishment. There is little doubt the plan would still be around if the stubborn Sen. Robert Garton (R), the longest serving president pro tempore in the history of the state had managed to beat back Walker's challenge in this past May's primary. It remains to be seen whether the legislature will end the generous retirement benefit in the form of a 4-1 match for their IRA contributions.