IBJOpinion

Legislator promotes fair redistricting

October 10, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Letters To The Editor

Sometimes I agree with Morton Marcus’ opinions and sometimes I don’t, but I was incredulous when I read his “Let’s help keep legislators in check” in the [Sept. 28] IBJ.

Marcus makes it sound as if there is little or no support in the Indiana General Assembly for a bipartisan approach to legislative redistricting. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I felt compelled to remind Marcus of recent history on this important topic. Many of us have been advocating bipartisan redistricting reform for years.

Back in the 2006 legislative session, I authored House Bill 2009, which would have created a bipartisan commission to draw new districts in 2011 and beyond. The commission would have been chaired by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and would have been charged with drawing new districts based upon criteria that would have protected the interests of voters rather than protecting the interests of politicians.

HB 2009 was a part of the House Republican agenda for 2006 (then-Speaker Brian Bosma was a co-author of the bill), and it passed out of the House on a bipartisan vote—every Republican and a number of Democrats voting in favor. Unfortunately, the bill was not considered in the Senate. I have introduced the same bill in every session since, but under Speaker Pat Bauer the bill has always been assigned to the House Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedure, where it fails to be considered.

While I agree with Marcus’ basic premise that legislative redistricting should be less partisan, he chose to villainize legislators unfairly. Many of us support a more bipartisan approach to redistricting. I for one will continue to champion this issue through the redistricting process in the 2011 session of the General Assembly.

__________

Jerry Torr

State representative
District 39 (Carmel)



ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT