Briefing In The Name of Jesus

House Speaker Brian Bosma's prayer case has brought everyone on the Christian right out in full force to use their tax-subsidized dollars to fight Judge David Hamilton's ruling prohibiting sectarian prayers as the official prayers for the Indiana House of Representatives. Groups filing amicus briefs in the case's appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals include Liberty Counsel, Foundation for Moral Law, Alliance Defense Fund, Becket Fund, Indiana Family Institute, Theologians and Scholars, National Legal Foundation, and our favorite Christian hate group, Advance America.

Advance America, which is based in Indiana, hired a law firm in Seminole, Florida, the Gibbs Law Firm, to write its amicus brief in Hinrichs v. Bosma. Apparently, the six-figure retainer fee paid to Advance America founder Eric Miller's law firm, which shares its office space with the organization, doesn't cover such work. This is what the six-figure legal retainer must cover according to the brief:

The staff of Advance America reads and reviews every bill filed in the Indiana General Assembly. They then evaluate each bill and make themselves available to offer testimony before legislative committees. The staff also talk directly with legislators, draft amendments and bills, and inform citizens about various bills being considered in the General Assembly.

The brief is careful to clarify that Advance America is a non-partisan group which does not endorse any candidate or political party [wink, wink, nod, nod]. Describing the group, the brief says:

Amicus Advance America, Inc., an organization located at 101 West Ohio, Suite 660, Indianapolis, Indiana 26204(sic), is a grassroots network that includes over 45,000 families, 1,500 businesses, and over 3,500 churches in Indiana. Advance America is a nonpartisan, tax-exempt, educational entity that informs individuals and organizations about what is occurring in state government and particularly about activities taking place in the Indiana General Assembly. As a non-profit educational organization, Advance America does not endorse any candidate or political party.

Advance America's main argument in its brief is that if Judge Hamilton's decision is affirmed, "the majority of pastors and members whose churches make up the Advance America legislative grassroots network will be prohibited from participating in this important tradition since they believe they are required by their Christian faith to pray in the name of Jesus." Did I read that right? Does the group say, "The majority of pastors and members . . . will be prohibited from participating" in prayer if they aren't allowed to invoke the name of Jesus? Yes, that is indeed what it says. That means some Christians can pray without invoking the name of Jesus. Which Christians would that be do you think?

To support its argument that a "majority of pastors and members" would be prohibited from participating in the legislative prayer as a result of Judge Hamilton's ruling, the group relies on no less of an authority than the Bible. Advance America maintains that the New Testament's Gospel according to John requires Christians to invoke the name of Jesus in prayer. The group cites the following verses from John:

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do. John 14:13(a)

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it]. John 14:14

Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give you. John 16:23

Gee, is that what those verses mean? Does that mean if I pray in Jesus' name that Brian Bosma will no longer be Speaker of the Indiana House after this year's elections, my wish will be granted? I asked it in his name and John 14:13(a) says "whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do." But I don't think Eric Miller would agree with that interpretation.

What I'm really having trouble with is this other Bible verse that seems a little less ambiguous than the Gospel according to John. It's written in the Gospel according to Matthew. And it reads as follows:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. Matt 6: 5.

If I read this verse correctly, I'm instructed by Jesus to pray in secret behind closed doors, and not pray in public as the hypocrites do. Oh but I forgot, Eric Miller and Brian Bosma are both hypocrites, and that's what hypocrites do according to Jesus. Never mind.

Another Reason To Question Reliability Of Voting Machines

An item today in a column by the Ft. Wayne Journal-Gazette's Niki Kelly about the voting machines Allen Co. used in Indiana's May primary raises serious questions about the reliability of Microvote Infinity voting machines. Kelly writes:

Although the May primary has been over for more than a month, candidates still haven’t been able to find out exactly how they won.

Precinct-by-precinct results are often used by parties and candidates to see what parts of the city or county their votes came from and what areas where mprovement may be needed. The results are usually available soon after the election, but this year they still don’t exist.

The first time I ever watched election results being tallied at the county courthourse in Marshall, Illinois where I grew up, the results were handwritten on a chalk board outside the clerk's office precinct-by-precinct. An election veteran explained to me, then a 13-year old, how you could often predict whether a candidate would win long before the final results were tallied. He explained that some precincts favored one party over the other party, and a candidate of that party would traditionally win a precinct by a minimum percentage if it was a normal election. If a candidate's vote was off the traditional mark, that could spell problems for the candidate. Even better, certain precincts it was explained to me are like a microcosm of the county-wide vote. The results in those precincts were generally a mirror-image of the county-wide results. If a candidate carried one of these precincts, it was very likely he/she would carry the county. The total number of votes cast in a precinct also served as a benchmark for total voter turnout.

According to the item in Kelly's column, Allen Co. political observers have only been able to see the raw vote totals for each of the candidates. No information has been available on a precinct-by-precinct basis. Jeanne Nicolet, an assistant director of the Allen Co. Election Board, tells Kelly that the voting machines did not include a program to calculate results by precinct. Kelly also notes that the Microvote Infinity machines were not certified for use in the election, causing even more concern.

Not having the precinct-by-precinct vote totals prevents anyone from discerning whether there are certain irregularities in Allen Co. election returns. The fact that the machines lacked this simple calculating capability tells me that the person who developed the program knew very little about our elections. And the company's internal tester obviously knew little about elections, or he/she would have discovered the error quickly. Regardless, the error leaves little reason to have confidence in Microvote's voting machines.

Democrat Convention Theme: Ditch Mitch

The theme for the Indiana Democratic Party's state convention today can be summed up in two words: "Ditch Mitch." The AP's Mike Smith captures the image from former House Speaker John Gregg, who chaired the convention:

It's time we ditch Mitch and take over the Statehouse," said Gregg, wildly popular among Democrats for his vibrant personality, quick wit and humor. "I walked in the Statehouse today and smelled an odor over there. I came over here and smelled victory."

House Minority Leader Pat Bauer echoed Gregg's comments. "He's the greatest thing we've got going for us right now so let's keep him until November, and then we'll veto Mitch," Bauer said to rousing applause Smith reported.

Campaign memorabalia available at the convention offered more of the same according to Smith. He wrote, "There were buttons that said, 'Keep the Toll Road, Lease Mitch,' and front, plastic car plates that said, 'Ditch Mitch _ The For Sale State,' and 'Indiana For Sale _ They Did What?'"

There was business to conduct as well. The party nominated three candidates for statewide office. Joe Pearson, a former deputy commissioner of the Department of Agriculture under the O'Bannon-Kernan administrations, was nominated to run for Secretary of State. Highland clerk-treasurer Michael Griffin will be the party's candidate for Treasurer. And Judy Anderson, a Vigo Co. Commissioner, has been tapped to run for Auditor.

The party also adopted a platform of the issues on which its candidates will run this year other than against Daniels. Details offered in Smith's report concerning the platform are very sketchy. Smith writes, "The Democratic platform includes seeking affordable health care for all Hoosiers and to 'advocate harder than ever' for implementation of statewide, full-day kindergarten, a passionate goal of the late Gov. O'Bannon that he failed to win in the Legislature."

Do you think the party took a position on SJR-7, or equality in general for gays and lesbians? It doesn't appear so. At least one speaker had something to say about gays. Brian Howey reports, "UAW leader Terry Thurman blasted Republicans for 'privatizing, downsizing, and out-sourcing' and brought the house to laughter when he said, 'I'm 55 years old and I've never had a gay man hit on me.'" I'm not sure how this comment was meant to be taken. Perhaps someone in attendance at today's convention can provide context for the remark.

Feigenbaum On Why You Need To Pay Attention To The Blogs

Ed Feigenbaum is the editor and publisher of the Indiana Legislative Insight and its sister publications, Indiana Gaming Insight and Indiana Education Insight. He began writing his first legislative newsletter back in the late 1980s. He compares his entry onto the scene back then to the arrival of blogs on the Internet today in his latest edition of the ILI. As he describes it:

“How dare they!” was a refrain we often heard repeated, as assorted individuals and entities sought to deny us access afforded to other forms of media, broadcast and print, but we proved our legitimacy and staying power, and others have related to us over the years that this newsletter – and our sister newsletters – have made a significant contribution to the level of policy and political debate in the Hoosier State. As one veteran lobbyist once confided to another, this newsletter had the effect of changing some aspects of legislative behavior, because certain things would no longer go unreported.

Feigenbaum now accepts that he is a full-fledged member of the so-called mainstream media despite the reservations of traditional journalists when he got into the business. Given the journey he has taken, he thinks it is important to take a closer look at Indiana's political blog sites, and so he plans to do that in upcoming editions of his subcription-based newsletter. Feigenbaum tells his writers why they need to pay close attention to some of the blogs:

For one thing, they are an inevitable fact of life now, particularly among some age cohorts. News.com reported Thursday that “Blogs written by so-called citizen journalists are increasingly challenging newspapers for readers. According to a recent study by Forrester Research, blogs and newspaper Web sites now have the same audience share – about 17 percent – among Internet users between the ages of 18 and 24.”

And, as we told you, they appeal to an elite audience, and they typically operate with fewer filters and constraints than the Mainstream Media (even some MSM bloggers – editors among them – seem to publish material on their blogs that some might suggest would not pass muster on the printed page of a conglomerate-owned newspaper, or broadcast over the airwaves of a television station owned by a major corporation).

Feigenbaum notes that the work of bloggers is often winding up in MSM reports. He writes, "While there is some circularity in the process (bloggers will often borrow or expand upon a given post with a “hat tip” to the originating author), you also should understand that the blogs are not only a source of leads for Mainstream Media reporters and for some law enforcement entities, but the more reputable blogs are more frequently turning up cited in the MSM as they break some important stories that the big boys and girls are unwilling to undertake (but more than willing to report about if someone else does the leg work) and fill out others."

Feigenbaum likens the current state of affairs to "the halycon days of the Wild, Wild, West, with no regulation or oversight." He says he will attempt to help his readers "navigate through the Internet equivalent of the OK Corral without injury."

I've known Ed since my law school days at IU-Indy where I first heard him speak as part of a panel discussion on alternative law careers, and I've grown to respect and admire his work very much. When I formerly worked as a lobbyist at a major Indianapolis law firm, I had the opportunity to work with Ed in co-hosting an annual Legislative Conference, which served as a must-attend seminar to know what was going to happen during the next legislative session. Later, as General Counsel to Novanis, I had the opportunity to assist Ed in his efforts to go online. The Indiana Daily Insight is kind of an early forerunner to the blogs. Political types often check it out as a part of their daily activities to make sure they haven't missed anything important. I'm looking forward to Ed's insight on Indiana's political blogs.

Attorney Steals $349,000 From Client And Gets Probation

Sullivan Co. attorney Julia Johnson-Sheffler plead guilty in Sullivan Superior Court to stealing $349,000 from a client trust account. The Daily World reports:

As part of the plea agreement, the former attorney will avoid going to prison; instead, she will spend two years on probation.

The plea agreement was taken under advisement by Superior Court Judge Thomas Johnson, and he ordered a pre-sentence report to be prepared by the probation department. A sentencing hearing is set for 10 a.m. June 29.

Hmmm. Do the words "two forms of justice" come to mind? Even Brad Hiller, the campaign consultant who stole about half as much from the Indiana Senate Republican Committee, had to spend a few months behind bars. A hat tip to the Indiana Law Blog for catching this one.

What's Wrong With Indiana Equality

There are some topics I really enjoy writing about on this blog site. There are other topics I don't enjoy talking about. But sometimes you have to talk about the things you don't like as a way of trying to make them better. And that explains why I am now writing about Indiana Equality.

IE is the currently the state's largest GLBT organization. And if it gets its way, it will be the only voice for Indiana's GLBT community. That is not to say that speaking with one voice is necessarily a bad thing. Speaking with the voice currently being communicated by IE, though, is a bad thing.

My first big problem with IE is how undemocratically it is run. The current and only president in recent memory of IE is by all impressions self-appointed. Other people who serve as officers or board members serve at the discretion of this one person. None of them have the backbone to stand up to her, even when they know how wrong she is. This person's management of the organization is dictatorial and unfriendly. Policy decisions are made with no coherent or rational explanation other than that is what this person says IE must do. Financial records are closely guarded with only very sketchy information being shared with the people it expects to financially support it.

While the organization is reknowned for patting itself on the back for the major progress it has made in this state on matters of gay civil rights, the reality is that our laws are among the worst in the nation. Even when it comes to matters on which it has achieved success, such as a toothless hate crimes reporting law, IE leaders repeatedly misrepresent this legislative achievement as a hate crimes law. It is not, and Indiana is one of only 4 states in the country which does not have a hate crimes law.

When Eric Miller and the Christian right were trumpeting SJR-7 as part of their campaign to demonize gays and lesbians and write discrimination of them into the Indiana Constitution, IE urged a very low profile opposition to it. Others could not accept that, such as Rock Indiana's Pepper Partin. She organized a counter-protest to the State House rally Eric Miller was planning. "You can't do that" she was told by IE leadership. "There can be no rally because the turnout will be very small and we will look weak." "We are in charge, and you have to do what we say." Their approach was to have these secret one-on-one meetings with key lawmakers involving certain members of the IE leadership who understand the political process and are respected by the legislators they assure us. You people you see are just sewer rats who must stay hidden away. Partin, while initially disillusioned by IE's efforts to undermine her rally, ran with her heart and her head. And she succeeded in bringing out more than a thousand members of the GLBT community to protest SJR-7. In the end, even the IE leadership was fighting for a place on the stage to give the impression they had been a part of it all from the very beginning.

Partin, ever the wise one, collected the names and addresses of all the people who gathered for the rally she organized. And we all know how important mailing lists can be for political and fundraising causes. And guess who demanded the list for its own. Ignoring their threats and other efforts at intimidation, Partin maintained the integrity of her list much to IE's disappointment.

The greatest achievement in Indiana by far is the passage of Indianapolis' Human Rights Ordinance. IE, to its credit, reached out to the many other GLBT-related organizations to form a Region 8 coalition to build a grassroots effort after the debacle a year ago when the city-county council first voted down the HRO while IE leadership was confidently predicting its passage. Two Region 8 participants in particular, the Greater Indianapolis Progress Commitee and PFLAG, performed yeoman's work on behalf of the coalition. But in doing so, IE leadership used the guise of the coalition in an attempt to control the activities of other groups within the coalition. In the end, the effort was successful, but there was plenty of credit to spread around, and it wouldn't have been necessary at all had IE not so badly handled the first round of voting on the HRO.

With the success of the HRO, IE is not satisfied with a loose-knit coalition. It insists upon a complete command and control structure that gives it authority to dictate policy to all other GLBT organizations. This aspect of their governing style raised its ugly head in the form of a non-disclosure agreement it is insisting that all coalition members sign as a condition to participation. Any information or discussion at one of its meeting that IE deems "confidential", coalition members are forbidden from discussing with anyone outside the coalition. What happens if someone violates the "gag rule?" An inquisition of sorts will be conducted to root out the leaker, who will be promptly expelled from the coalition. Is this anyway to conduct the affairs of an organization fighting for civil rights? This coalition member won't be signing any such agreement, so that will make AI an ex-coalition member.

No sooner had the HRO passed than we saw legislation offered in the Indiana House of Representatives to void Indianapolis' HRO and other similar ordinances adopted by other cities in Indiana to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination. As debate on the measure began, no one from IE had bothered to alert the GLBT community to the draconian proposal. After AI alerted the community through the gayindy.org list serve and a post on this site, we were assured that IE had been on top of it all along. Their paid lobbyist was on the scene and springing into action. They had met with Speaker Bosma and convinced him to kill the amendment on our behalf, even though the decision had already been made to withdraw it before anyone spoke to the Speaker. He's not such a bad guy they said. The only problem was that neither IE nor the lobbyist were registered to lobby at the time. It seems that someone had not only forgotten to file legally required activity reports for the past year, but had also failed to register the organization and its paid lobbyist to lobby during the current legislative session. Weeks after AI reported on this small detail, late reports and late registrations were duly filed with the Indiana Lobby Registration Commission.

An equally disturbing aspect of the IE leadership is the manner in which it continuously feeds disinformation to members of the GLBT community about various political leaders who have never demonstrated any support for our issues. As a life-long member of the Party of Lincoln, I would like every Republican to be with the GLBT on its issues. But I'm also a realist, and I understand that many are steadfast in their opposition of recognizing any form of rights for members of the GLBT community. And I'm not afraid to call out those Republicans who are particularly strident in their efforts against the GLBT community.

It is quite an anomaly that the IE leadership is controlled by persons who describe themselves as Republicans. Regardless of one's party affiliation, the actions of a politician, not mere words, should determine whether a person is considered friend or foe. I find myself tirelessly arguing with IE leadership about persons they claim are friends of the GLBT community whose record in public office on our issues are abysmal. At the same time, persons who are clearly on our side are taken for granite.

Contrast these two recent examples. Hard-working members of the Indianapolis GLBT community endeavor to help two friends of the cause by hosting a fundraiser for Rep. David Orentlicher (D) and Susan Fuldauer, a Democrat who is seeking to oust House Speaker Brian Bosma, who has pursued the most anti-gay agenda in the history of the Indiana House of Representatives. This sensible act brought disapproval from IE's leadership. "How dare someone else in the GLBT community do something?" "That's our job."

The next example involves the paid lobbyist for IE giving a $500 campaign contribution to the re-election campaign of Rep. Woody Burton (R) during his tough primary battle with Ron West. That would be the same Rep. Burton who sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, sponsored anti-gay parenting legislation, compared homosexuality to bestiality, voted for SJR-7 and has a zero record of support on anything pertaining to the GLBT community. If you would think members of IE leadership would shrink from defending this unconscionable contribution, you would be wrong. That Woody must be one smart politican. He's got the gays and the Christian right fighting for his re-election at the same time. Gee, I wonder which side Woody's going to vote with?

Notwithstanding the horrendous record of IE's current leadership, as luck would have it, a well-intentioned person in a few days will bless them with a generous contribution. He will be rewarded with a seat on the board and patted on the back, but the same failed leadership will be in charge making the same bad decisions it has made time and time again. In the past, I have contributed to IE and supported its efforts in hopes that things would improve, but I'm frankly on my last leg with the organization. A fresh start with free ideas and fresh leaders is needed. I just can't eat anymore of this stale bread that is IE.

Lugar Statement On Gay Marriage Debate

AI Editor Gary R. Welsh has sought in recent weeks to clarify Sen. Richard Lugar's position on the pending Family Marriage Amendment (FMA), which would write into the U.S. Constitution the right of states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages, even if legally recognized in another state. Lugar's campaign manager Nick Weber shared with me a statement Sen. Lugar issued on July 14, 2004, when he voted for a cloture motion to end debate on the amendment so that an up or down vote on its passage could be taken. Nick wrote, "I think the best way to help make the Senator’s position more clear is to give you the entire statement he released the last time the cloture motion on this issue came before the Senate. From what I understand, the vote again will be purely procedural in nature when called down by the Majority Leader."

At the outset of the statement, Lugar makes clear that he supported the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the Senate in 1996, which more or less does what the FMA constitutionalizes. After a lengthy discussion, Lugar's concluding comments make it clear that he wants the Senate to vote on the amendment. He says, "[T]he definition of marriage and legal matters surrounding that definition are legitimate issues that likely will require examination by American society and our government." Lugar does not come out flatly for or against the amendment as I interpret his message; instead, he straddles the fence.

I think it is fair to conclude that he's confident the cloture vote will fail, and that there will be no up or down vote on the amendment this year. To be safe, he will appease the Christian right on the procedural cloture vote, knowing that he won't have to vote up or down on the issue before this year's election. Incidentally, as of today he is running unopposed for re-election. Democrats have not been able to find anyone willing to run against him.

The entire statement is provided below. If you disagree with my interpretation of the statement, please let me know by posting your comments. Sorry to say I told you so Chris Douglas.

U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar Releasing The Following Statement on 7/14/2004

The issue of gay marriage came to the United States Senate in 1996, and I voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act which passed the Senate by a vote of 85-14 and was signed into law by President Clinton. The law ensured that a State does not have to recognize same-sex marriages sanctioned in another state. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that gay couples have the right to marry in Massachusetts. Although sometimes in opposition to state law, gay couples in San Francisco, California; Portland, Oregon; and some municipalities in upstate New York have been given marriage licenses by local authorities.

Proponents of a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage argue that the Defense of Marriage Act and all other federal, state, and local laws banning gay marriage may soon be overturned by “activist” judges or various administrative officials at all levels including the United States Supreme Court. They argue that only the overwhelming pre-emptive strike of a Constitutional Amendment will constrain these judges and officials from creating a national situation in which large numbers of gay couples will seek and obtain marriage licenses, thus undermining the faith-based traditional concept that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Specifically, a Constitutional Amendment offered by Senator Allard is to be considered and voted on, promptly, to meet this suggested emergency. But a Constitutional Amendment requires a two-thirds majority of Senators present and voting, and proponents concede that such a majority will not be obtained in a vote this week. In fact, obtaining such a majority would require a strong attempt to gain bipartisan support after careful study of the best legal language. Such study should take account of many other issues, such as civil unions of gay couples and potential tax, property, and insurance benefits, which have been the subject of state and local consideration and action.

In fact, some proponents of the Constitutional Amendment demand that debate and voting should occur now because they wish to put Senators “on record” prior to Federal and State elections. They hope that Presidential and Congressional candidates might be boosted or hurt by such political polarization, perhaps not appreciating that establishment of such “records” may make efforts to achieve a constructive reconciliation on this issue more difficult in the future.

Strengthening of the institution of marriage might well start with recognition that close to half of all marriages between a man and a woman fail in our country with grievous costs to children, as well as those who attempt to provide a safety net to all parties involved. Congress has acted in bipartisan legislation to help to strengthen marriages and to strengthen families. A number of faith-based initiatives now before the Congress deserve closer and more vigorous attention.

In addition, Congress should watch carefully the progress of litigation and state and local legislation in reference to issues surrounding the gay-marriage debate. The Defense of Marriage Act passed with 85 votes. Bipartisan consensus is obtainable when it is sought after careful study of the wisdom of our course of action. The current Allard Amendment will fail because some members will not have confidence that it is the best formulation, even if we should see the necessity of amending the Constitution at this time.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has suggested that an amendment to be offered by Senator Gordon Smith should also be considered and voted upon. Other Senators have suggested that additional amendments and perfecting of Constitutional language should be permitted because Committee debate did not precede the Senate floor debate. Critics charge that a veritable Constitutional Convention is being proposed, but amending the Constitution is very serious business and the final product must be well understood and drafted to meet the myriad of unforeseen consequences.

I will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the current debate, because the definition of marriage and legal matters surrounding that definition are legitimate issues that likely will require examination by American society and our government. But even as I recognize the importance of the arguments of those Senators who advocate pre-emptive action now, I would observe that their timing could polarize this issue when clearly a great deal more diplomacy and understanding must occur to achieve the super-majority vote that will be required if events cascade to produce the national chaos which proponents predict.

Coroner Hanging It Up After Taylor Student Death Identity Mistake

They won't have Ron Mowery to kick around anymore. The Grant County Coroner, who misidentified a living Taylor University student as one who died in an I-69 crash last month, is calling it quits at the end of the year. Mowery tells the Detroit Free Press that he's not cut out for the job. “I’m a career law enforcement officer,” Mowery said Thursday. “The decision to leave this position is something I decided before this tragedy, which has taken a huge toll on me.”

Laura VanRyn of Caledonia died in the deadly collision of a Taylor University van full of students with a semi-tractor trailer. Her classmate, Whitney Cerak of Gaylord, Michigan was airlifted to a a hospital. Mowery misidentified VanRyn's body as that of Cerak's. Not until Cerak came out of a coma and told VanRyn's family, who had spent weeks by her bedside, that her name was Whitney and not Laura was the mistaken identity discovered. “There was a misidentification and I don’t think you could classify it any other way,” Mowery said today.

Defending Carl & Melina's Law

Just weeks after the city-county council passed its new law barring sex offenders from coming near Indianapolis' parks, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the new ordinance, which should come as a surprise to no one. The grounds for challenging the ordinance are very strong. As the ICLU's Ken Falk points out, it has the effect of banishing sex offenders from Marion County. The Star's Richard Walton explains:

Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director, said the city ordinance effectively restores the long-discarded, punitive practice of "banishment," because it is virtually impossible to travel the streets and highways of Marion County without passing within 1,000 feet of a public playground or other prohibited site.

Drive on I-65 and you pass the Velodrome and a skate park, Falk said. "You can't get from point A to point B in Indianapolis without being in violation."

The suit gives anonymous examples of former offenders who would be hurt by the ordinance. There's the man who received counseling and was awarded joint custody of his son, now 7 years old. The pair frequently visits parks and other recreational centers. Because the man is employed at a place within 1,000 feet of a park, he would breach the ordinance by going to work, the suit says.

Another man votes at a public school within range of a sports field. Because he is not eligible to cast an absentee ballot, the new restrictions would keep him from voting, the suit says. Falk said that even the ordinance's exemption -- lifting the restrictions if the former offender is accompanied by an adult with no record of sex crimes -- is problematic.

Falk said the term "accompanied" is not defined in the ordinance. "If you're within five feet, if you're within 10 feet, if you go with someone and they have to go to the bathroom, do you have to go to the bathroom with them?" he asked.

Well, there you have it. Carl Brizzi and Melina Kennedy got their press releases, and the taxpayers get stuck with a big legal bill to defend an indefensible ordinance in the courts. And not one child will be saved from being a victim.