logo
Indiana lawmakers amend Indiana-Illinois border bill to add Indiana commissioner, shift quorum

Indiana lawmakers amend Indiana-Illinois border bill to add Indiana commissioner, shift quorum

Yahoo02-04-2025

Indiana legislators are seemingly preparing to review the Indiana-Illinois border without its neighboring state.
Indiana House Bill 1008, which is aimed at redrawing the Indiana-Illinois border, was amended in the Senate Public Policy Committee Wednesday to allow one more Indiana representative to the commission and, with that, give the commission a quorum to meet.
House Bill 1008, authored by Speaker Todd Huston, would establish an Indiana-Illinois boundary adjustment commission to research the possibility of adjusting the boundaries between the two states.
Under the amended bill, Indiana would have six commissioners and Illinois would have five commissioners. The amended bill also states that a quorum of the commission consists of at least six members.
'Even if Illinois did not vote to have people present, we could at least inform the governor's office and the legislature of a report on what happened, meaning the conversations that were happening. We couldn't take any action that binds Illinois,' said Sen. Scott Baldwin, who sponsored the bill in the Senate.
Finally, the bill was amended to state that, if the bill becomes law, Gov. Mike Braun would have to set the commission's first meeting no later than Sept. 1.
Huston drafted the bill after he learned that nearly three dozen Illinois counties have voted in recent years to leave the state, he previously said.
In November, seven Illinois counties – Iroquois, Calhoun, Clinton, Greene, Jersey, Madison and Perry counties – voted to secede from the state. Iroquois County is along the Indiana border, the remaining six counties are closer to Missouri.
Baldwin, R-Noblesville, said the commission 'would be dedicated to evaluating the feasibility and logistics of integrating 33 Illinois counties into the state of Indiana.'
'While the concept may seem ambitious and complex, this bill does not enact the transfer itself, but rather creates a structured framework for thorough analysis and planning,' Baldwin said. 'It should be important to note, (Illinoisans) initiated this conversation. They have all asked to be a part of this.'
To change a state line, the U.S. Constitution dictates that the Indiana legislature, the Illinois legislature, and then Congress would have to approve the measure, said Indiana University Paul H. O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs professor Paul Helmke.
G.H. Merritt, chairwoman of New Illinois, previously testified in favor of the bill. Two organizations in Illinois are working toward seceding from Illinois and creating a new state, Merritt said.
'Our biggest grievance is that we are not represented. We don't have government of the people, by the people and for the people. Our governor accuses us of wanting to kick Chicago out of Illinois. Not so, we want to kick ourselves out of Illinois,' Merritt said. 'Our goal is the constitutional formation of a new state separate from Illinois.'
Baldwin gave a roughly 12-minute presentation on the benefits of Indiana versus Illinois. He outlined Indiana's lower taxes, business growth, job growth and low unemployment compared to Illinois' high taxes, business decline and higher unemployment.
The benefits to Indiana, Baldwin said, would be an increase in tax revenue, an increase in residents who align with Indiana's policies 'from a political and cultural perspective,' and expanded influence in community development.
'Things are better in Indiana than they are in Illinois. It's no surprise that people from Illinois want to live in Indiana,' Baldwin said. 'We don't have an ocean. We don't have mountains to look at. Our sunsets don't fall over a pristine, massive ocean like you might get in California or the East Coast. But in Indiana, our fiscal outlook is very strong.'
Baldwin said the commission would review the details of shifting the border, like redrawing the border, paying existing debt, addressing driver's licenses and many other details.
Ultimately, Baldwin said both Illinois and Indiana governors would have to approve shifting the border, which would then have to be ratified by the U.S. Congress. In Illinois, Baldwin said the likelihood of the governor approving a border shift 'is not strong.'
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker brushed off the proposal – and fired back at the neighboring state – when he was asked about it at an unrelated news conference in January.
'It's a stunt. It's not going to happen,' Pritzker said. 'But I'll just say that Indiana is a low-wage state that doesn't protect workers, a state that does not provide health care for people in need, and so I don't think it's very attractive for anybody in Illinois.'
Illinois State Rep. Brad Halbrook, R-Shelbyville, filed Illinois House Bill 1500, and it 'does similar things and is comparable to the Indiana bill,' he previously said.
Illinois House Bill 1500 states that if Indiana House Bill 1008 becomes law, then, within 60 days after receiving notice from the Governor of Indiana, the Illinois Governor should appoint five members to the Illinois-Indiana boundary adjustment commission.
Halbrook said Wednesday that House Bill 1500 has not been assigned to committee.
'Indiana continues to lead the way in recognizing that citizens should not be trapped under unjust governance,' Halbrook said in a statement Wednesday. 'Indiana's actions should be a wake-up call. Illinois leaders must stop blocking legitimate discussion on the future of our communities.'
Sen. Vaneta Becker, R-Evansville, said she was born in Southern Illinois, and she recently heard from a friend who said there are many people in southern Illinois who would like to become a part of Indiana.
Sen. Dan Dernulc, R-Highland, said the bill is an initial step and there's 'a long way to go' before the border would shift. Dernulc said the bill would impact his district, as Lake County borders Illinois.
In Lake County, Dernulc said many companies moved across the border from Illinois. One business owner told Dernulc that Indiana's property taxes are one-eighth of Illinois' property taxes, he said.
'I'm in favor of this just to see where we go with it,' Dernulc said. 'We'll see what happens. Hopefully, I can be part of that conversation.'
Sen. Justin Busch, R-Fort Wayne, asked if other neighboring states, like Michigan, have expressed interest in joining Indiana. Baldwin said he wasn't aware of that, but that 'Indiana is open for business.'
Sen. La Keisha Johnson, D-Indianapolis, said she did not support the bill because a Ball State University study found that taking in the 33 Illinois counties would cost the state $2 billion.
The amended bill was approved in a 7-2 vote. It will advance to the whole Senate for consideration.
akukulka@post-trib.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

As his trade war faces legal pushback, Trump has other tariff tools he could deploy
As his trade war faces legal pushback, Trump has other tariff tools he could deploy

Hamilton Spectator

timean hour ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

As his trade war faces legal pushback, Trump has other tariff tools he could deploy

WASHINGTON - U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs are facing legal headwinds for the first time — but he has other tools he could deploy in his quest to realign global trade. A federal appeals court is still deciding whether there will be a stay on Trump's universal tariffs enacted through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the duties were unlawful last month. IEEPA is a national security statute that gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. It had never previously been used for tariffs. Trump declared emergencies at the United States' northern and southern borders linked to the flow of fentanyl and migrants in order to hit Canada and Mexico with economywide tariffs. He later declared an emergency over trade deficits to impose his retaliatory 'Liberation Day' duties on most nations. The trade court found Trump exceeded presidential powers by using IEEPA to broadly implement the duties. The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision and the White House said it would take the case to the Supreme Court. Following the ruling, White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said he was confident the court ultimately would decide in Trump's favour. Hassett said that if it doesn't, 'we'll have other alternatives that we can pursue as well to make sure that we make American trade fair again.' While the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress, Greta Peisch, the former general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said it passed laws over the last century that allow the president some control in certain situations. Trump is now looking to use those laws — some of them for the first time. The president may be considering Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It allows a president to hit countries with tariffs of up to 50 per cent if the country 'is treating products of the United States disfavourably, compared to products of another foreign country,' said Peisch, a partner at Wiley Rein in Washington, D.C. Section 338 has never been used by a president before and Peisch said it might be difficult for the administration to make a case for it. Trump also might look to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to take trade actions if an investigation finds a trading partner's policies are unreasonable and discriminatory. Trump used this law during his first administration to impose tariffs on some Chinese imports and European Union goods. But Section 301 requires country-by-country investigations of trade policy before a tariff can be imposed — investigations that could take weeks or months and would include a period for public comment. That certainly would slow down Trump's efforts to target the world with tariffs. If the president is looking for speed, Peisch said, he might try to use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — another law that has never before been used. Section 122 allows a president to implement tariffs of up to 15 per cent to address large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits. But those duties can only stay in place for a maximum of 150 days before they need Congressional approval to continue. That reduces Trump's leverage if his goal is to pressure countries to sign trade deals — those countries could simply decide to wait the president out. Trump also has said tariffs will help pay down the deficit; the short-term Section 122 power is unlikely to work as a long-term revenue strategy. Ultimately, Peisch said, none of the replacement statutes could easily build Trump's universal tariff wall around the United States. 'Nothing is a great fit without a lot of work,' she said. 'So I think it's potentially going to be a challenge.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2025.

Democrats incite insurrection over lawful ICE raids
Democrats incite insurrection over lawful ICE raids

New York Post

timean hour ago

  • New York Post

Democrats incite insurrection over lawful ICE raids

The party that loves to claim to stand 'the rule of law' proved themselves liars yet again. In response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement enforcing our nation's rules with raids in Southern California, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass encouraged insurrection. 'As Mayor of a proud city of immigrants, who contribute to our city in so many ways, I am deeply angered by what has taken place,' she said. 'These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city. My Office is in close coordination with immigrant rights community organizations. We will not stand for this.' Advertisement With that incitement, the mob took to the streets, threw rocks at ICE agents and lit fires. Just as with the 'peaceful protests' of the George Floyd riots, officials were slow to respond — it took the LAPD two hours to mobilize. That's because the Democratic leadership of Los Angeles didn't want the assault to stop. Advertisement More than that: Democrats don't want our immigration laws to exist. They don't want our border to exist. It doesn't matter that this philosophy was soundly rejected in the last election. They will continue to act like these laws don't and shouldn't apply to them. From Newark to New York, Chicago to Los Angeles, Democrats are preaching anarchy, pretending like ICE agents don't have the right to arrest people who are here illegally. Advertisement For four years, President Biden broke the law. He introduced various amnesties and apps, with no permission from Congress, to usher in 10 million illegal immigrants. Now Democrats are shocked, shocked, that President Trump is reversing this unlawful decision. Remember that the next time Democrats lecture about ignoring judges and the Constitution. They only believe the laws they want to.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store