Major Moves ruling shouldn't come as a surprise (06/22/06)

Opponents of Gov. Mitch Daniels’ Major Moves plan to lease the Indiana Toll Road were undoubtedly disappointed by this week’s ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court.

But they probably shouldn’t have been surprised.

The legal argument presented by foes of Major Moves was far from flimsy.

It challenged the scheme as being in violation of Indiana’s state constitution and made a good case that it amounted to “special legislation,” which is prohibited, because it steers extra revenues to counties along the toll road’s route.

In the end, however, the state’s top court had to ask itself what the consequences would be if it allowed the Major Moves challenge to go forward without requiring the plaintiffs to post an enormous bond.

Indiana law sets tough requirements for what are known as “public lawsuits.” The law was intended to prevent nuisance suits that could tie up any and all government construction projects.

Simply stated, the law on “public lawsuits” requires those who want to throw a monkeywrench into the construction of, say, a new school, library, hospital, or other project to put their money where their mouth is. It’s still possible to sue to stop such projects, but the plaintiff has to post a bond as a way of showing responsibility.

The intent is to prevent frivolous lawsuits, and it’s easy to imagine the chaos that would ensue if the law didn’t exist. Anyone with access to a lawyer could bring any project to a halt without suffering any consequences.

What the court decided this week is that simply raising questions of constitutionality doesn’t get the plaintiff off the hook; it’s still necessary to post a bond.

The kicker, of course, in the Major Moves case is that the project is so big that the size of the bond — $1.9 billion — is prohibitive.

And the irony is that it was the size and scope of the project that prompted the lawsuit in the first place. — J.R.[[In-content Ad]]