173 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/05/14 2:15am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Indiana Senate signed off on a controversial bill that would institute random drug testing among certain recipients of social welfare benefits.House Bill 1351, which passed the Senate 34-14 Tuesday, calls for individuals with prior drug convictions who receive benefits from the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to be tested at random. Those who do not pass drug tests two consecutive times would lose their benefits for three months before being allowed to try again.“Drugs control their lives once they get addicted,” bill sponsor Sen. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis, said in the final debate Tuesday. “We are only seeking to try to get people help. Sometimes it is baby steps that lead to dollars down the road that can help these people.”Opponents of the legislation have argued it would be expensive to implement and could have limited influence on deterring drug abuse.“The real abuse in families comes from alcohol, from heroin, from meth, and all those things are out of your system within a couple of days,” Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Portage, said. “The only people who you’re going to catch are the people who have marijuana in their system.”Although the annual costs associated with a TANF drug test program would be minimal — Young said it costs about $110,000 for Monroe County to implement a much larger drug testing program — the start-up costs could be significant, but they are not known at this time. Young said it could cost about $500,000 to implement, but Tallian said it could cost up to $1 million.The bill would allow TANF recipients who lose their benefits to appoint trustees to receive benefits for their children.Because children make up the majority of TANF beneficiaries in Indiana, the number of adult recipients who could be affected by drug screenings is unknown.“Has anyone ever done a survey to find out how many people have criminal convictions?” Tallian said. “You could send the interns out to look that up, but we don’t know that. We have no idea whether it’s 400 people, 10 people or all 4,000 of them.”The bill was passed by the House of Representatives earlier in the legislative session, but because amendments were added in the Senate, a conference committee will have to work through differences. Most of those are details surrounding who would be eligible for a random drug test.But Young said the purpose of the legislation is to encourage drug-addicted welfare recipients to seek help and, more importantly, to ensure their children are cared for and receive the benefits they need.“Coming from a family of nine kids and two parents and having an addiction problem in our family, I can tell you what it means to kids,” Young said. “I know what it means to kids to have someone addicted in your family.”Follow reporter Michael Auslen on Twitter @MichaelAuslen.
(03/03/14 4:36am)
SB 222 would add training for coaches and increased restrictions related to concussions for student athletes. SJR 9 says the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife “is a valued part of
Indiana’s heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good.”
(02/25/14 5:14am)
A house bill could be the first step in creating a statewide requirement for a technical skills-based high school diploma, and a senate bill is addressing the problem of deer on runways.
(02/21/14 2:51am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A bill aimed at forcing future legislatures to review the effectiveness of some tax credit programs is making some local nonprofit organizations nervous.Senate Bill 367, which sets expiration dates in the next few years for several of the state’s tax credit programs, has concerned some nonprofit leaders who fear losing critical sources of revenue.“It could be a really terrible thing for neighborhoods in general,” said Elaine Guinn, executive director of New Hope Family Shelter in Bloomington.“This comes at a time when funding is being cut in every direction.”New Hope provides shelter and services to families experiencing homelessness in Monroe County. The program relies on Indiana’s Neighborhood Assistance Program, which distributes credits to nonprofits that aid disadvantaged populations. These credits can be purchased by donors in exchange for tax credits, worth half the value of the donation. A $100 donation would allow for a $50 tax deduction through NAP.But Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield, who authored the bill, said eliminating tax credit programs such as NAP is far from his goal.“This is a means to require a periodic review and reauthorization,” Hershman said. “If you actually look at the bill, it’s designed to sunset everything to force the General Assembly to look at them.”The legislation ends the NAP and other income tax credits in 2016 or 2017, depending on when they were last reviewed and reauthorized — 2012 or 2013, respectively. It has passed the Senate and will be heard by a House of Representatives committee on Monday.“I’m a big fan of sunset legislation to require you to go back,” Hershman said. “It is completely unrealistic that we would eliminate all these credits.”The last set of reviews, he said, resulted in some programs being scaled back or eliminated completely, while others were expanded if they were deemed successful.Statewide, NAP offers $2.5 million in tax credits, or $5 million in charitable giving each year, according to its website. The maximum value of NAP credits that can be distributed to a nonprofit for sale is $50,000.Last year, New Hope was allocated $16,000 in credits. For them, there’s $32,000 at risk.“We sold ours within about a week,” Guinn said. “I think we did get a pretty decent amount last year.”But, Guinn said, any money counts for a nonprofit that brought in $156,833 in 2011, according to its IRS Form 990. Board President Jim Riley said 70 percent of the organization’s funding comes from private donors.That is why staff and directors at New Hope are concerned by even the possibility that NAP could not be reauthorized in 2017.“Any amount of money we lose, it affects us,” she said. “That’s why it’s critical to us.”
(02/18/14 5:39am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>INDIANAPOLIS — When this all started, the halls of the Statehouse were full of citizens shouting, singing and chanting, trying to make their voices heard. Thirty-five days later, some of the activists had stopped coming. There were fewer calls for “liberty for all Hoosiers” or to “let citizens vote.” The Senate vote passed with a smaller audience, a few dozen onlookers, compared to the more than 100 who had been there in the past.That vote, a 32-17 affirmation of House Joint Resolution 3, ended the same-sex marriage debate in the Indiana General Assembly for this session, but there could be more to come. The version of the constitutional amendment passed by the Senate on Monday and the House of Representatives Jan. 28 must be passed by the legislature in 2015 or 2016 before Hoosier voters will see it on the ballot.Supporters of HJR 3 have been motivated by court cases throughout the country that have overturned laws banning same-sex marriage. That’s why they want it in the constitution — it’ll be harder to overturn.“It began when unelected judges started interpreting the people’s statutes and changing what they said,” Sen. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis, said before voting for HJR 3. “I’d rather have 6 million people decide this than one judge.”Opponents have used economic arguments and emotional stories to drive their point home. But in their final pleas to vote no, Democrats argued the issue is about more than job benefits or a positive business environment.“This is the United States of America,” Sen. Jim Arnold, D-LaPorte, said. “We open our arms to everybody, whether we agree with their opinions or not.”Monday’s session brought out another unexpected no vote for HJR 3. Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, one of the General Assembly’s staunchest opponents to same-sex marriage. Delph announced in a press conference that he would not support the watered-down language presented to the Senate.The original version of HJR 3 included a second provision, which would have banned civil unions and any other legal status similar to marriage for those who are not married. The House of Representatives eliminated that sentence, which had caused controversy and was one of the chief arguments used by opponents, including IU and other major employers.This change is why Hoosier voters won’t see the amendment on the ballot this November. The 2011 legislature had approved the old language, but this version is too different.“The can keeps getting kicked down the road while the culture changes and opponents grow,” Delph said. “The State of Indiana needs to bring this issue to closure once and for all.”THE 10-YEAR BATTLEThis fight didn’t start this year, or even last session. It stretches back through 10 years of failed attempts, dozens of votes and hundreds of expert witnesses.Before this fight began, marriage was something for one man and one woman, by definition of Indiana law. That law is still on the books today, Indiana Code 31-11-1: “Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female.”But a court decision hundreds of miles away called everything into question. On Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down a state law defining marriage as between only one man and one woman.Within three years, 23 states had passed constitutional amendments like the one the Indiana Senate approved Monday, for a total of 26 constitutional bans nationwide. Massachusetts was still the only state where gay and lesbian couples could legally marry.Hoosier lawmakers argued that a constitutional amendment would help prevent judges from redefining marriage and keep the state in line with its history.“This bill will allow Indiana to stay in line with other states that want to preserve traditional marriages,” Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield, said in 2005. “With malice toward no one, this bill would be in keeping with history.”In the time since then, the tide of public opinion has started to turn. Today, 29 state constitutions still ban same-sex marriage, but 16 states and Washington, D.C., perform them.Meanwhile, in Indiana, the General Assembly has played legislative pingpong, sending joint resolutions back and forth in what have proven to be futile efforts to amend the state constitution, which requires overcoming three steep barriers: passage by the legislature twice, with an election in between and support from a majority of voters.“As far as how easy or difficult it is and how lengthy it is to amend the constitution, Indiana is on the far end,” said Steve Sanders, associate professor with the IU Maurer School of Law. “That’s a pretty rigorous set of hurdles to get over.”They came close twice, in 2007 and this January. The first time, a resolution that had been passed by the 2005 General Assembly and the 2007 Senate stalled in a House committee. This year, a drastic language change on the House floor means this is the first consecutive legislature to approve the amendment.“For a while, the people who were controlling the various branches of state government didn’t see it as a high priority,” Sanders said. “A year ago they didn’t even bring it up. Now this year they decided it’s important we do it.”Yet Sanders said the urgency could be short-lived. He thinks the U.S. Supreme Court could have resolved the same-sex marriage debate nationwide by 2016, the next time the legislature will be in the this position again.“I’d say it is highly likely this issue is going to return to the Supreme Court this year. When it gets to the Supreme Court, I think the court is going to strike these laws down. I think they’re going to say same-sex marriage is a constitutional right,” Sanders said. “If not this year, then certainly by the 2015-2016 Supreme Court term, the court’s going to have answered this question, and we’re going to have moved on to other things.”PARTIAL VICTORIESWhen the Senate convened after an hour and a half of delays caused by lengthy party caucus meetings, those present in the chamber stood up for a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. Out in the hallway, the few dozen activists who had gathered to watch the vote through windows said the Pledge quietly. As the familiar phrases drew to a close, their voices rose in unison.“With liberty and justice for all,” they shouted, the sounds reverberating through the Statehouse.Volunteers with Freedom Indiana, a group devoted to defeating HJR 3, had turned up at the Statehouse for every hearing and every vote. Sometimes, pro-HJR 3 activists affiliated with a variety of groups came, too, and little arguments cropped up in the crowded hallways around the windows to the House and Senate chambers, but not Monday.Anti-HJR 3 activists cheered and yelled throughout the debate, but when Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, R-Fort Wayne, announced the final vote, no one spoke. The crowd dissipated, and the Senate moved on with its business.Freedom Indiana didn’t accomplish its primary goal of defeating HJR 3, but the group’s leaders don’t view the session as a complete loss either, Megan Robertson, campaign manager, said.“We’re excited the second sentence was taken out and we’re not going to referendum,” she said. “If you’d asked me a few months ago, I’d have said we’d have a referendum in 2014.”While Freedom Indiana gathered on the top floor of the Statehouse to celebrate a partial victory, some legislators who support a marriage definition amendment were doing the same in the Senate.Sen. Delph and the socially conservative organizations whose leaders joined him in the Monday press conference weren’t the only supporters of HJR 3 who expressed concerns about voting for language that didn’t include the second sentence.Other Republicans, including Sen. Scott Schneider, R-Indianapolis, said they went back and forth about whether or not they could support a constitutional amendment that didn’t ban civil unions and couldn’t be on the ballot this November.“I’m a big fan of one-man-one-woman marriage, and I’m a big fan of the language we voted on in 2011,” Schneider said before voting yes. “Sometimes you have to learn to take half a loaf instead of the whole loaf.”Follow reporter Michael Auslen on Twitter @MichaelAuslen.
(02/17/14 9:24pm)
On Monday afternoon, the Indiana Senate supported House Joint Resolution 3, a constitutional amendment that would solidify existing state law defining marriage as between one man and one woman.Though the House approved the resolution earlier in the session and the Senate voted 32-17 in favor of it, HJR 3 will not be up for referendum in the November election. Significant wording changes in the House — a major alteration that cut in half the version of this resolution passed by the 2011 General Assembly — ensured that the legislature must convene to vote on the amendment again before voters will see it on their ballots.The earliest a referendum could take place is 2016, but both the House and Senate would have to approve of the existing language sometime in the next two years.Senators on both sides of the issue pleaded with their fellow legislators in session Monday, but only after being delayed by a long meeting of the Senate Republican Caucus, which reportedly went on for three hours.This story will be updated.— Michael Auslen
(02/14/14 5:55am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>All it took to keep a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage off the November ballot was for the Indiana Senate to do nothing.And nothing is exactly what the Senate did.When the full Senate votes on HJR 3, it will do so without the controversial second sentence, the one which banned civil unions and any “legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage” in Indiana. This shorter version is the same one the House of Representatives passed two weeks ago, but it isn’t the one the General Assembly approved in 2011.Amending the Indiana constitution requires three things: approval by the House and Senate, that same approval after legislators have been reelected and support from voters.Although the old HJR 3 had been supported by the General Assembly prior to the last election, the language change was significant enough that it is as though only the current lawmakers have had the opportunity to vote on it.Now, the earliest it could possibly be in the hands of Hoosier voters is November 2016 — if the Senate passes it this session and the next General Assembly agrees.Thursday’s session, the second reading for HJR 3, could only be used to offer amendments. The final vote will take place at a later date, possibly as early as next week.IU has been a vocal opponent of the amendment since the fall. Primarily, the University has campaigned against the second sentence, which administrators said could interfere with a policy that grants same-sex domestic partners health benefits. Even before the second sentence was eliminated, HJR 3’s supporters said that would not be a problem.Yet Mark Land, IU associate vice president for university communications, said the University is considering the removal of the sentence and the delay of a referendum a victory.“The overriding goal would remain the same,” Land said. “We would like to see this thing defeated as a whole. That second sentence was problematic, though.”The Indiana Family Institute, one of the primary in-state organizations supporting HJR 3, was contacted but could not be reached for comment.On Thursday, three amendments to HJR 3 were initially filed, although none were proposed in session.As the afternoon’s session was beginning in the Senate Chamber, Sen. Mike Depth, R-Carmel, sent a tweet. Delph had filed an amendment that would reinsert the second sentence.“HJR 3’s second sentence is officially dead in the 2014 IGA,” the tweet read. “Not enough support to reinsert it on 2nd reading.”Less than half an hour later, Delph’s Twitter premonition had come true, as the Senate was adjourned and the 10-year effort to define heterosexual marriage in Indiana’s constitution was put off for another two years at least.“Marriage,” HJR 3 reads now. “Provides that only marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana.”Follow reporter Michael Auslen on Twitter @MichaelAuslen.
(02/11/14 4:43am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>After its third committee hearing in two months, HJR 3 will make its way to the floor of the Indiana Senate.The Senate Rules and Legislative Procedure Committee voted 8-4 along party lines Monday to approve the constitutional amendment, which would define marriage as between one man and one woman.“The question we are debating today is not about equality,” said Allison Slater of the National Organization for Marriage during testimony before the vote. “Children are born with a mother-shaped hole and a father-shaped hole in their hearts. Logic and biology dictate that a woman cannot be a father and a man cannot be a mother, no matter how much they love that child.”Slater and other proponents of HJR 3 urged legislators not only to support the amendment but to reinsert the controversial second sentence, which prohibited civil unions and was removed by the House of Representatives two weeks ago. If the sentence is reinserted by the Senate and the full version is supported by the House, citizens could vote on the constitutional amendment in November. If the sentence is not reinserted, the passage of HJR 3 could take another two years and further debate in the General Assembly.Opponents of HJR 3 argued, as they have in other hearings, that the constitutional amendment would be bad for business and give the state a national image of discrimination. “This proposal constitutes discrimination,” State Sen. Timothy Lanane, D-Anderson, said. “It is discrimination. I think proposals like HJR 3 speak more to the past than to the future.”These opponents, including IU and the Eli Lilly Foundation, were joined by the NCAA, which announced its opposition early in the debate. The college athletics organization has its headquarters in Indianapolis.In addition to economic and political arguments, proponents and opponents of HJR 3 have put forth dozens of speakers to tell their personal stories throughout this debate.Micah Clark, director of the American Family Association of Indiana, said he did not believe anything bad would happen if marriage were defined as being between a man and a woman in the state constitution. “Marriage is the special union of a man and a woman that has served Indiana well since our founding,” he said. Fort Wayne resident Jennifer Fisher told the story of her and her partner, a police officer, as part of anti-HJR 3 testimony.“The reality is that as we prepare to start a family in the state of Indiana, this legislation is scary,” she said of her and her partner. “She’ll have our children, and legally I will have no right to those children. If she is killed in the line of duty, someone could take away my family.”HJR 3 will be considered by the full Senate for debate, possibly this week, where the second sentence could be reinserted to the language. After that, the chamber will vote. Depending on decisions made in the Senate chamber this week, the 10-year saga of Indiana’s marriage amendment could be coming to a close. Follow reporter Michael Auslen on Twitter @MichaelAuslen.
(02/11/14 3:58am)
Two important bills this week are restrictions on tanning for minors and state curriculum changes.
(02/07/14 5:42am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Behind the steering wheel, Sandra is cautious. She doesn’t know what will happen if she makes one wrong move.Driving without a license would earn her enough trouble with the police, but her secret is more serious — Sandra is an undocumented immigrant. Flashing red and blue lights in the rearview mirror could mean deportation, the end of her family’s life in Bloomington.“We feel so frustrated that one of these days some police or something asks for my driver’s license, and I don’t have it,” she said.She remembers the time one of her friends was pulled over. He was a father of three with a business in town. He had lived in Bloomington for more than 10 years. His taillight was out. He was almost deported.It’s a constant fear for Sandra and her husband, Israel, who left Juarez, Mexico, together in 2010.They both have college degrees, Sandra’s in communications and Israel’s in graphic design. Before they left Juarez, just across the border from Texas, they had professional careers.Four years after driving across the border, Sandra and Israel still live here. They shop at Wal-Mart, stress about entertaining family members during the holidays and drive a Subaru Outback with a yellow “Baby on board” sign hanging in the window.Every day, they face the challenges of outcasts in American society: the fear of a police officer asking to see a driver’s license, confused looks from passersby when they speak Spanish in public, putting their dream of owning a business on hold while they clean 10 houses every week to earn a living.Across the country, they’re joined by millions of other undocumented workers waiting for the government to overhaul an immigration system. It’s reform that elected leaders on both sides of the political aisle say doesn’t work.“We hope that immigration reform comes soon,” Sandra said. “Maybe one of these days.”* * *Immigration challenges the fundamental nature of American society, posing some of the most basic and yet most difficult questions the political process has to answer:What is an American? And who gets to be one?In Washington, D.C., stalled attempts to overhaul the system have faced divisive responses to even deeper questions about how immigration could change America.What happens to our national infrastructure — community services and social programs — when the nature of the groups it serves changes?How do we deter illegal immigration, and what do we do about the estimated 11.7 million undocumented workers living here today?For Bloomington’s director of Latino outreach, Daniel Soto, the answers to these questions are simple. He says the U.S. needs to reform its immigration system and create a path to citizenship for the millions who have entered the country illegally. The sooner the better.Daniel estimates there are 200 to 300 undocumented immigrants living in Bloomington. They’re a small minority, and unlike in big cities, there are fewer services available and fewer people who understand their situation. There are no official counts, but he’s confident he’s right.“I pretty much can say I know almost everyone in that category,” he said.Daniel is a Costa Rican immigrant and a U.S. citizen. He’s often a resource for immigrants, particularly those whose primary language is Spanish.“I will say 90 to 99 percent would be very happy to participate and to pay their fair share into the system,” he said. “It’s just that they are not allowed right now.”Daniel and other immigration advocates welcomed a bipartisan immigration reform bill passed by the U.S. Senate in June.Supporters say it addressed every issue and answered questions raised by both Republicans and Democrats. It called for greater border security, amnesty for millions of immigrants who had entered the country illegally and tougher restrictions for employers who try to hire undocumented workers.Yet when the bill reached the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, Republicans blocked its passage, arguing instead to handle the wide swath of issues it addressed individually and more specifically. Before long, immigration reform was swept under the rug as more pressing matters — the government shutdown and the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act website — took center stage. “These people are here already,” Daniel said. “These people have children, they go to school, they participate in many ways. Giving them something legal is just a step to be sure that these people will be secure.”* * *Sandra and Israel’s hometown is ground zero for the drug cartels. Juarez provides a link to the United States through El Paso, Texas, across the Rio Grande. Cartel violence is prominent. Shootings and kidnappings and beheadings tear the city apart.The year before Sandra and Israel left, an average of seven homicide cases were recorded every day in the border city, making it one of the most dangerous places in the world.“It’s like the eye of the hurricane,” Sandra said. “The city was like madness, crazy, because the cartels, they fight each other. And the people, we are in the middle.”When Sandra’s mother was pregnant with her, she moved from Los Angeles back to Mexico. Sandra was almost born an American citizen, and her mother regrets not waiting to have her child in the United States. Sandra and Israel did not yet have a child when they left Juarez, but they knew they wouldn’t want to build their family there.So Sandra and Israel decided to leave and join his mother and aunt in Bloomington.Juarez was too dangerous. The United States would be safer than Mexico. Better schools. More opportunity.They never applied for green cards. Instead, they got tourist visas valid for short-term visits during the next 10 years, packed the car and drove off toward their new life.“We don’t have anything to lose, right?” Sandra said. “It’s like an adventure.”Without stopping for the night, they drove. Behind them were family and friends in Juarez and a life they’d built together. It felt like home, but it was never truly safe. Ahead lay the unknown, the Midwestern city where they would try to fit in — and pray they’d never be forced to return to Mexico.Six states and 24 hours later, the little family arrived in Bloomington. It was late on a Sunday night in February, and snow fell on the windshield of the Ford Explorer.U.S. law required them to return to Mexico, visas in hand, after six months, but they stayed in Indiana for the next four years.Not long after, their now-2-year-old daughter, Nina, was born. She’s the reason the family has stayed in the United States. Sandra misses Mexico, misses her family, misses home, but she wants Nina to grow up with an “American life with Hispanic heritage.”When Sandra talks about Nina and the fear of being sent back to Juarez, she stops mid-sentence, her eyes brimming with tears.“We feel trapped some days. I feel trapped.”Nina was born in Bloomington. She’s an American citizen with a lifelong right to live and work and learn here.“I don’t care if I need to clean houses,” she said. “Only for her to have a really good school and she’s going to be safe. That’s only what I want.”* * *A run-in with Bloomington police could be all it takes to throw Sandra and her family into the immigration legal system.It could mean being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency responsible for finding and prosecuting undocumented immigrants. Sandra and Israel would wait in federal custody for a hearing and then wait again for an airplane back across the border.But limited resources mean the agency cannot possibly take action against every undocumented immigrant in the country. ICE agents focus on removing convicted criminals, recent border-crossers and threats to the system, Montenegro said.“In order to better prioritize the agency’s limited resources on targeting criminal aliens and those that put public safety at risk, ICE has issued guidance for ICE law enforcement personnel and attorneys regarding their authority to exercise discretion when appropriate,” ICE spokesperson Gail Montenegro said.So for a family like Sandra and Israel’s, the fear of deportation might never become a reality. The man hours and money that would need to be spent tracking down, detaining, trying and deporting a couple and their daughter in Bloomington, Indiana, might not be worth it.But the fear will always be there. There are no guarantees.* * *Sandra remembers a conversation she had with her husband over their lunch at Golden Corral on the west side.An old woman sitting at the next table turned to them.What are you saying? The woman asked. Sandra and Israel looked at her, confused.Yeah, you’re speaking something strange.Israel responded. It was Spanish, he said.Spanish? What’s that? The woman asked. I never leave Bloomington. I was born here, I live here and I’ll die here.The woman’s response surprised Sandra.“It’s like, hello, there’s another part of the world,” Sandra said.Finding a job, communicating fluently and fitting into a Midwestern community presented challenges that surprised Sandra and Israel.Friends and family told Sandra she might not be able to find work in her field. In Juarez, she worked in public relations, sold advertisements for a newspaper and did marketing for a funeral home.Here, she sent out her résumé in search of office work and jobs at local publications. She waited for responses that never came.When the phone rang for her first job offer, two months after their arrival, she took it. She had applied to McDonald’s using someone else’s name and Social Security number. On paper, Sandra never worked there.At her job at McDonald’s and her husband’s job at Wendy’s, they learned more English, building on the basic knowledge they gained as students in Mexico.“In school it’s the grammar and the subject and the verb, and in real life nobody speaks like that, right?” Sandra said. “It became like English classes.”To each other and to Nina, Sandra and Israel speak Spanish.“She’s in daycare, so with all the kids and the teacher, it’s all English, but at home, it’s all Spanish,” Sandra said. “Only Spanish.”* * *Not long after she started working at McDonald’s, Sandra’s mother-in-law — who the couple came to live with in the U.S. — decided to go back to Mexico. Sandra and her husband took over the house-cleaning business that her mother-in-law had developed during her 10 years living in Bloomington.They have about 10 clients who they see every week.“It’s nice because all these people know my mother-in-law,” she said. “We have the key of the house, sometimes we take care of the cat, so it’s more like a relation of trust.”Although Sandra and Israel don’t mind cleaning houses, it’s not what they want to do long-term, and it’s not how they expected to use their college degrees. But they see it as a better alternative than returning to Juarez.Eventually, they’re going to open their own business here in Bloomington, a restaurant that serves the food they miss most from their home country, authentic, home-cooked Mexican food. “Really, really Mexican food. Really Mexican. Homemade,” she said. “Because all that Taco Bell and Qdoba is nothing.”Or maybe it’ll be a video game store. That’s what Israel wants.Right now, though, their plan can’t move forward unless Congress passes an immigration reform bill that allows undocumented workers like Sandra and Israel an opportunity for amnesty.But despite the problems, despite the fear, despite being so far from home, Sandra says it’s worth it. They do it for Nina.Follow reporter Michael Auslen on Twitter @MichaelAuslen.
(02/06/14 4:08am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>With just a few days until the filing deadline for the primary election, some county offices remain uncontested or have not had any candidates express interest inrunning.“It’s starting to fill in,” Monroe County election supervisor Ruth Hickman said. “I still have some holes, though.”The deadline at noon Friday is for candidates who wish to appear on the May 6 party primary ballots. Though at least one Republican and one Democrat have declared their intentions to run for many offices, there are other offices that might not receive any filing before the deadline.The Washington and Polk township boards, for example, have not had any candidates express interest, according to documents obtained from the Monroe County Clerk’s office Tuesday.Washington Township is north of Bloomington, including the area around Oliver Winery. Polk Township is south of Lake Monroe.For other offices, only one party has had candidates express interest. Three Democrats have filed for the county sheriff office, but no Republicans.At the state level, there are still a few vacancies in filings, but those should be filled by the deadline, said Trent Deckard, co-director of the Indiana Election Division.“There’s been a steady uptick as filing has gone on that definitely lends itself to heightened interest in the campaign,” Deckard said.“It’s pretty average for a year, but I would say for a non-presidential year it’s definitely a little busier than average.”In this election cycle, all state and U.S. House of Representatives seats are up for reelection, as well as a number of state and county offices, including secretary of state, county clerk, county prosecuting attorney, sheriff and county council members, among others.After the primary, political parties are allowed to put forward names for these offices on the November general election ballot, though Hickman said she prefers having candidates run in the primary.“It’s always nice to have a full ballot,” she said. “It shows people at least have some interest in representing and working with their county and community.”Follow reporter Michael Auslen on Twitter@MichaelAuslen.
(02/04/14 4:56am)
Bills to watch: Women veterans and minimum wage
(01/29/14 5:22am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s not surprising that President Barack Obama announced Tuesday night the state of our union is strong.Yet the president’s fifth State of the Union address highlighted divisions within the United States, particularly income inequality.“Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled,” Obama said. “The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by — let alone get ahead. And too many still aren’t working at all.”Although the hour-long speech hit on a variety of issues, it emphasized job creation, sustainability, college affordability and raising the minimum wage. Obama also called for Congress to act on immigration reform, echoing a plea he has made in all of his previous addresses.Throughout, the president highlighted how he plans to act through executive power, rather than legislation that can get stalled in a politically divided Congress.Rep. Todd Young, R-9th District, cried out about signals that Obama plans to bypass Congress.But promises to work through the executive branch are common in second-term State of the Union addresses, said William Resh, assistant professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs.“You’ve got to remember that in your second term, because of term limitations for the president, the lame duck status of the president comes extremely quickly,” Resh said. “During the second term, they’re going to find it much harder to push through legislation that closely fits their political preferences.”One of the key areas where the president promised to act without Congress is the minimum wage.The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, which is matched in most states, including Indiana. After urging Congress to raise that to $9 per hour last year, Obama promised this year to use an executive order to require federally contracted workers be paid at least $10.10.“If he’s raising it only for federal workers and contractors, that really should be within his purview as chief executive,” Resh said.Because few federal workers are paid at or below the minimum wage, Resh said he thinks Obama is merely attempting to raise the issue in Congress.Not surprisingly, the Republican Party was not convinced by the president’s urgings.Young said some of Obama’s plans to reform the tax code have been suggested in more equitable forms by Republicans before. In the party’s response to the State of the Union, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wa., argued for a conservative vision to helping the country move forward.“The president talks a lot about income inequality,” she said. “The real gap we face today is one of opportunity inequality.”The real test will be what Obama can accomplish from his list of goals in the coming year. With or without legislative support, Resh said he will likely try to leave his legacy soon before the country begins another presidential election cycle.“Like all State of the Unions, he’s basically mapping out a very general plan of what he wants as far as policy agenda,” Resh said. “Specifics are left to his actions as far as executive powers but also what he’s able to work out with Congress.”Follow reporter Michael Auslen on Twitter @MichaelAuslen.
(01/28/14 8:15pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Every year, the president’s State of the Union address outlines his agenda for the following 12 months. Last year, President Barack Obama focused on job creation, environmental issues and policy in the Middle East, among other topics.“Our first priority is making America a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing.”From January to December 2013, the national seasonal unemployment rate dropped from 7.9 percent to 6.7 percent. In Indiana, the seasonally adjusted rate dropped from 8.6 to 6.9 percent. However, it is important to note unemployment rates do not necessarily reflect job growth, and the national employment-population ratio has remained constant, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.“We must do more to combat climate change.”Obama released an action plan and gave a speech last summer, although no major legislative initiatives have passed.“Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour.”The federal minimum wage has not budged since last year’s address and is still $7.25, although national media reported higher wages took effect in 13 states Jan. 1.Follow reporter Michael Auslen on Twitter @MichaelAuslen.
(01/28/14 7:04pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Every year, the president’s State of the Union address outlines his agenda for the following 12 months. Last year, President Barack Obama focused on job creation, environmental issues and foreign policy in the Middle East, among other topics.“Our first priority is making America a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing.”From January to December 2013, the national seasonal unemployment rate dropped from 7.9 percent to 6.7 percent. In Indiana, the seasonally adjusted rate dropped from 8.6 to 6.9.However, it is important to note that unemployment rates do not necessarily reflect job growth, and the national employment-population ratio has remained constant, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.“We must do more to combat climate change.”Obama released an action plan and had a speech last summer, although no major legislative initiatives have passed.“Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour.”The federal minimum wage has not budged since last year’s address and is still $7.25, although national media did report that higher wages went into effect in 13 states Jan. 1.Follow reporter Michael Auslen on Twitter @MichaelAuslen.
(01/28/14 4:34am)
Check up on two bills in the works. One would change how students would pay for college in Indiana and another is from a Senator who wants to put Indiana in the Central Time Zone.
(01/28/14 1:14am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In a vote Monday evening, the Indiana House of Representatives changed the wording of a controversial same-sex marriage ban and possibly postponed a referendum that could place it in the state constitution.The now-removed second sentence of House Joint Resolution 3 prohibited civil unions. Large Indiana employers, including IU, Cummins and Eli Lilly, used it to justify their opposition to the ban, fearing policies granting benefits to same-sex partners of employees could be blocked.Rep. Randy Truitt, R-Lafayette, introduced the amendment, which passed by a 52-43 bipartisan vote after less than a half hour of debate. His amendment’s supporters argued it would be better in the long run to clarify the proposed constitutional change. Opponents said doing so could delay a public vote on the issue, the final step necessary to amend the state constitution.“I do support the legal definition of leaving marriage between one man and one woman,” Rep. Kevin Mahan, R-Hartford City, said. “Not only do I believe that, I live it every day.”Yet Mahan and others expressed concern that the conflicting language in H.J.R. 3 and its companion bill could lead to years of court battles.“We don’t want this to become a full-time employment opportunity for lawyers,” he said.Supporters of H.J.R. 3, which would reinforce an existing ban on same-sex marriage, have argued that employers would still be free to grant benefits to same-sex partners if the constitution were amended.“It’s an issue of letting the voters vote on this issue as we have been talking about it for the last 10 or 11 years,” Rep. Woody Burton, R-Whiteland, said. “I find it very hard to believe that the folks that are opposed to the union part of this aren’t also opposed to the marriage part.”Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, voted to strike the second sentence, while Rep. Peggy Mayfield, R-Martinsville, who also represents some of the Bloomington area, voted to keep it in.Although Monday’s decision could delay voter decision about H.J.R. 3, the legislative process will continue. The full House will vote on the new language on Tuesday. If passed, the Senate could change wording again and possibly reinsert the second sentence.Hannah Alani contributed to this report.Follow Michael Auslen on Twitter @MichaelAuslen.
(01/23/14 4:42am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The fight about IU’s plan to tear down old houses and build a new fraternity in the University Courts neighborhood could make its way to the Statehouse floor.State Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, has introduced a bill that would require all state universities to comply with local zoning and historical preservation laws whenever they plan new construction, which could get in the way of the planned Phi Gamma Delta house at Eighth Street and Woodlawn Avenue.“It’s the proposal to demolish some historic homes in a historic neighborhood in order to make room for a new structure,” Pierce said. “That’s going to have impact on people who live in the neighborhood.”Currently, state law treats universities as arms of the state, so they supersede local government ordinances.“The idea is the state government is above the local governments,” Pierce said. “You’ve had universities making some decisions unilaterally without paying attention to the community.”The IU Foundation announced this summer that the University would acquire the current Fiji house on Third Street and Indiana Avenue, while the fraternity would move into a new house near Kappa Alpha Theta sorority on Woodlawn once they raise the funds.The University Courts neighborhood, which is on both the state and national registers of historic places, has been defended by the Bloomington Historical Preservation Commission. While the commission seeks to save historically significant parts of the city, it is powerless to legally protect University land.House Bill 1284 would force IU and all other state universities to follow the policies of local historic preservation districts, just like other developers are required to when building in protected areas. The bill will be heard by the House Local Government Committee, though it isn’t yet scheduled.For its part, IU hasn’t developed a position on the bill yet.“As you probably know, there are hundreds of bills introduced during the session and probably dozens that IU will follow for one reason or another,” Mark Land, IU associate vice president for media relations, said in an email. “This bill was just filed and we really haven’t had time to develop a position on it yet.”Pierce said this isn’t the first time IU has altered historical parts of its campus, and he thinks it’s likely other universities have as well.“I’ve been reading about their concerns and what the University has to say,” he said. “I just thought it was time to introduce legislation that would try to create more discussion between the University and the community.”Follow reporter Michael Auslen on Twitter @MichaelAuslen.
(01/23/14 4:18am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>After moving the proposed constitutional gay marriage ban to a new committee, House Speaker Brian Bosma got what he was searching for — House Joint Resolution 3 will have its day before the full House.H.J.R. 3 was supported 9-3 by the House Elections and Apportionment Committee at about 8 p.m. Wednesday after hearing more than four hours of testimony from supporters and opponents of the constitutional ban.“If marriage can mean anything or everything, it means nothing,” Rep. Timothy Wesco, R-Mishawaka, said, voting for the amendment. “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”The party-lines vote for both the amendment and its accompanying legislation, House Bill 1153, saw all Republicans vote aye and all Democrats vote no, except Rep. Terry Goodin, D-Austin, who was not in session due to a medical emergency.“When I walked in here today, I can tell you I honestly hadn’t made up my mind,” Rep. Kreg Battles, D-Vincennes, said. “I’ve been married 34 years. I’m proud of that. This has very little to do with if you support or oppose marriage.”This was the first vote of four this spring required to put the amendment before voters. The amendment reiterates an existing legal ban on same-sex marriage in the state and prevents the creation of a status substantially similar to marriage, such as civil unions.Throughout the debate, proponents of the amendment have said protecting traditional, heterosexual marriage is in the state’s best interest and the best way to do so is to enshrine it in the constitution, making it harder for future legislatures or courts to overturn.Meanwhile, opponents have argued the constitutional ban is unnecessary and ambiguity in the amendment’s second sentence — the one banning statuses similar to marriage — could be interpreted down the road to prohibit granting health care and other employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners.Dispelling that concern is the goal of H.B. 1153, which says the General Assembly did not seek to limit or prevent local ordinances and business decisions that grant some rights to same-sex couples.The full House of Representatives will vote on H.J.R. 3 and H.B. 1153, although it has not yet been scheduled. After that, a Senate committee and the full state Senate will hear debate and vote.Should the ban make it over these upcoming hurdles, Hoosier voters will see the issue on a ballot, and the ban could become part of the state constitution.An earlier version of this story said that Rep. Casey Cox, R-Fort Wayne, said, “If marriage can mean anything or everything, it means nothing." It also incorrectly said he voted against H.J.R. 3. The IDS regrets these errors.
(01/22/14 5:51am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>WEST LAFAYETTE — Moments before the shots were fired, before the news broke and the eyes of the country were focused on Purdue University, Jordan Vachon sat next to the open door of a basement classroom in the Electrical Engineering Building.When he heard shouting from the room, he thought it was a debate, but as the yelling grew louder and more voices chimed in, he looked around the corner. A man stood, perhaps on a chair, his arms outstretched.Then, a gunshot cracked through the air.He realized why the other man must have been reaching his arms out in front of him. Vachon recognized him. It looked like Cody Cousins, a man he had met at a party a few weeks before.“The only reason I remembered him is because he was introduced as Cousins,” Vachon said. “Never Cody, just Cousins.”As he grabbed his belongings and ran out the door of the Electrical Engineering Building, Vachon looked back into the classroom. Four more gunshots rang through the air, police instructed bystanders to keep their heads down and students screamed as they ran out of the building.“Oh my god, they shot him. There’s blood all over down there.”***Police and university officials still don’t know why Andrew Boldt, 21, was shot Tuesday afternoon. He was an electrical engineering student and a teaching assistant, although it isn’t known if he was teaching at the time of the shooting.After leaving the building, Cousins turned himself in to the police and is now facing preliminary murder charges, Purdue University Police Chief John Cox said.No one currently knows what prior connection Cousins and Boldt might have had, but Cox said the case is being treated as a homicide, not a normal active shooter.Although Cox said the university was able to quickly notify students of the shooting, there was confusion about an order to “shelter in place” while police searched to ensure the danger had passed.“Most of the students knew what was going on,” Purdue Provost Timothy Sands said. “I was impressed with how the procedures happened.”Students and faculty were instructed that classes would continue.Later in the afternoon, the university announced that classes would be canceled for the rest of Tuesday evening and all day Wednesday.Police and university officials said they were pleased with how the campus responded.“We look at scenarios that happen throughout the country and ask ourselves how we would handle that,” Cox said. “Unfortunately, sometimes we get pushed together with things like this.”***Hundreds of students flocked through bitter single-digit temperatures to a fountain near the campus’ engineering buildings.As more and more flooded the plaza for the vigil, many with lit candles held tightly in their hands in front of them, quiet conversation rustled through the crowd. When the Purdue Bell Tower sounded 8 p.m., the gathered students grew silent. They looked expectantly toward an empty lit lectern on the steps of Hovde Hall, facing away from the building where tragedy had struck their community just hours before.From the right of the crowd, a band approached, playing a soft marching drum roll that grew gradually louder as they marched to face the masses. They reached the bottom of Hovde Hall’s steps, and the crowd moved closer.For those in the back of the throng, the sound of “Taps” came from nowhere, as the members of the band played from the level of the students.Campus dignitaries spoke, calling the Purdue community together as a family and entreating students to seek help as the campus moved through rough waters together.“I didn’t know something like this could happen here,” sophomore Matthew Paquin said after the vigil. “We’re all mourning what happened here today.”Sophomore Michelle Madalinski lit a fire lantern on the steps of the fountain after the crowd started to disperse. Some gathered around her to watch, although it burned up just after she released it.“It was, for me, kind of signaling God’s taking an angel home,” she said. “Even if we don’t know Andrew on a personal level, it’s all a family on a college campus.”Follow reporter Michael Auslen on Twitter @MichaelAuslen.