By Abdul Hakim-Shabazz
IndyPoltics.Org

You may not be aware of this, but Democratic Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz announced her re-election bid the day before the election. And on Tuesday, she lost.

At an education forum on the west side of Indianapolis, Ritz told the “pro-public education” (PPE) crowd that she was going to run again for the job. She said she was going to- no shadowprotect teachers and stop the anti-public education agenda being pushed by Gov. Mike pence and the Republican-controlled legislature. And then the election happened.

Although the superintendent of public instruction wasn’t on the ballot, the tidal wave of GOP victories throughout Indiana basically took any hope Ritz and her supporters had of stemming the waves of education reform and accountability and threw it in the trash heap where it belongs.

For example, Democratic auditor candidate Mike Claytor tied his wagon to the Glenda train. Claytor campaigned saying that as part of his watchdog duties he would protect her from the evil GOP agenda. All he got for his trouble was a 36-point defeat.

A number of Statehouse candidates who ran on a PPE platform found themselves back where they started from at the beginning of the campaign, not in public office. And even several incumbent lawmakers found themselves out of a job after Organization Day. Most telling was Shelli VanDenburgh of House District 19 in northwest Indiana. She lost to Republican Julie Olthoff by a couple of points.

In what has to be even more frightening news for the PPEs, was in the Terre Haute area where Republican John Ford beat Tim Skinner, who was the epitome of the PPE/anti-reform movement. That race went Ford’s way, 52-48. In fact, most PPE candidates who lost did so by double digits. And if a PPE candidate won, it was more than likely because they didn’t have an opponent on the ballot.

Even in the IPS school board race “Hoosiers for Public Education” (aka the Indiana State Teachers Association) spent thousands of dollars trying to defeat reform-minded candidates Mary Ann Sullivan, Lanier Echols and Kelly Bentley. The end result, exactly, Sullivan, Echols and Bentley will be sworn in as new school board members.

But back to Ritz. If her supporters were trying to recreate 2012, it didn’t work. Ritz campaigned on behalf of a lot of losing candidates this cycle. She cut several ads and made numerous appearances and none of them worked. Ritz and her allies accused Republicans of trying to destroy public education, but that didn’t work either.

Now of course there are a couple of other factors at play. This was a mid-term election and all things are happening against a backdrop that includes a president who is not all that popular, thus Republicans controlling Congress. And turnout was at near record lows, by some estimates averaging about 32 percent. But even with those factors at play, we were warned that we ignore teachers and public educators at our own peril and this mighty army would take out any lawmaker who stood in the way of their mission which was to educate Indiana’s children. Well, apparently somebody forgot to tell them.

And to be honest, I think it’s rather ironic. Back in August my esteemed colleague John Krull wrote about how the education reform crowd’s antics were backfiring and raising Ritz’s political profile.

Krull wrote “they have done it in a way that has cemented her image with her constituency as a kind of latter-day Joan of Arc defying and fighting an array of bullies who seize upon every opportunity to oppress, belittle and demean her.” Looking at Tuesday’s results, I can definitely agree with the Joan of Arc reference.

Abdul is an attorney and the editor and publisher of IndyPoltics.Org. He is also a frequent contributor to numerous Indiana media outlets. He can be reached at abdul@indypolitics.org.

By Lesley Weidenbener
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – The Indiana Supreme Court has upheld a controversial right-to-work law as constitutional after determining no union is required to represent a specific group of workers.

The unanimous decision ends two court challenges to the law and overturns decisions by two Lake County judges who had declared it unconstitutional. Those judges ruled the measure prevents unions from receiving “just compensation” – as spelled out by the Indiana Constitution – for providing services to non-union members.

But the state’s highest court said the union’s obligation to represent non-members is actually optional. “It only occurs when the union elects to be the exclusive bargaining agent, for which it is justly compensated by the right to bargain exclusively with the employer,” Justice Brent Dickson wrote in the opinion.

And the court also said any such compensation is only necessary when “the state demands particular services, not when the federal government does so.”

Four justices signed onto the majority opinion. Justice Robert Rucker wrote a concurring but separate opinion in which he argued “there may very well exist a set of facts and circumstances that if properly presented and proven could demonstrate that a union has actually been deprived of compensation.” But, he added, “this is not that case.”

The Indiana law frees workers from paying fees to unions they don’t join. The Republican-controlled legislature passed it in 2012 over the objections of Democrats and labor leaders – as well as thousands of union members who protested at the Statehouse – who said the law would lead to lower wages and unsafe workplaces. Supporters said it would make Indiana a more attractive place to do business.

“The ruling by our Supreme Court confirmed that the people’s elected representatives in the legislature were within their legal authority to craft an economic policy prohibiting involuntary union dues and this policy does not violate the Indiana Constitution,” Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in a statement issued Thursday.

“Though Hoosiers have differences of opinion on this issue, we all should show respect for the court and the legal process by which laws are tested,” he said.

During oral arguments in September, the state’s solicitor general, Thomas Fisher, argued against the union’s interpretation of the “just compensation” provision of the state constitution.

He said the court should treat right-to-work like other laws that regulate relationships between individuals and companies – such as those involving car rentals or utilities. He said if the court ruled that the just compensation requirement applies to the unions, the state would likely face an “enormous number of challenges” involving other private transactions.

Unions had also challenged the right-to-work law in federal court but both a district judge and the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the state law did not violate federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

Lesley Weidenbener is executive editor of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

Jennifer Nelson for www.theindianalawyer.com

The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that two sections of the state’s right-to-work law do not violate the Indiana Constitution. A Lake County judge declared the challenged statutory provisions unconstitutional in a July ruling.

Plaintiffs Local 150 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO and several of its members and officers sought a declaratory judgment that the right-to-work law violates several portions of the state constitution.

Lake Superior Judge John M. Sedia sua sponte found that I.C. 22-6-6-8 and 22-6-6-10 violate Article I, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution. The judge found that “the effect of IC 22-6-6-8 and IC 22-6-6-10 under the current, long-standing federal labor law, is to demand particular services without just compensation,” and thus violates Section 21.

On appeal, the State and the union dispute whether the challenged provisions of the RTW law constitute a demand by the state for particular services under Section 21.

“Any compulsion to provide services does not constitute a demand made by the State of Indiana,” Justice Brent Dickson wrote in Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General and Rick J. Ruble, Commissioner of the In. Dept. of Labor v. James M. Sweeney, David A. Fagan, Charles Severs et. al., 45S00-1309-PL-596.

Justice Robert Rucker concurred in result with a separate opinion, writing there may be a case that if properly presented and proven could demonstrate that a union has actually been deprived of compensation for particular services by application of the right-to-work law, so as to that union, the statute would be unconstitutional.

“However, this is not that case,” he wrote.