Two experts rate the just-finished session of the General Assembly, and "mixed results" seems to be the final grade. Bill Bloomquist, an IUPUI political science professor, notes some the inconsequential legislation that passed and some of the big ones that got away, concluding that the short session is just too short; perhaps we need two long sessions. Steve Johnson of the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute would seem to agree, arguing that Major Moves was really the only good thing accomplished, the legislature failing on property tax reform and not doing enough for local-government reorganization.
Certainly the General Assembly tries to do too much in the short session, far more than what was envisioned when the legislature went from meeting every two years so it could take care of "emergencies." Too many complex pieces of legislation considered in too short a time means too many chances for unanticipated consequences to bite us later on down the road. But is adding to the General Assembly's calendar all we have left to tackle the problem of legislative inflation. Isn't there anybody left willing to say that the short session should return to what it was meant to be? Is there anybody out there who really thinks we have too few laws in Indiana?
