Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Following 90 minutes of intense debate, a bill empowering Indiana’s governor to deploy a “military police force” of Indiana National Guard members throughout the state advanced Wednesday from the House on a 67-29 vote. It now heads to the Senate.
Proponents maintain the measure ensures Hoosier soldiers and airmen are ready for emergencies — citing the fractured response to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.
Opponents fear the provisions could be abused, pointing to President Donald Trump’s ongoing, lethal deployment of federal immigration officers to Minnesota.
“The mayor, council, town, whatever, were elected by the people that live there to make those decisions,” said Rep. Earl Harris, D-East Chicago. “And to take that ability away, and to give it to a governor who could then decide, ‘I’m going to have them stay for as long as I want,” … Where, again, is our local control?”
Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne, said that “nothing in the bill changes anything in terms of local control.”
“The governor, today, can send the National Guard without talking to the mayor,” he said. “… This enhances trust, because now the people coming to defend us are going to be trained and have the authority.”
House Bill 1343 allows the Indiana National Guard’s leader, the adjutant general, to establish a “military police force” of members who can make arrests, conduct searches and seizures, carry firearms and exercise other police powers.
Bill author Rep. Steve Bartels said the Guard wouldn’t form a new unit, but would instead merge six existing units under a new moniker.
Before granting members those powers, the adjutant general would have to ensure they have security clearances and no felony convictions. They’d also have to complete either army or air military police occupational training, plus Indiana-specific law enforcement instruction.
The governor would be able to order the force to active duty and deploy them anywhere in the state in the case of war, disaster or “at any other time the governor considers necessary.” He’d have to provide “reasonable notice” to affected local law enforcement agencies, and coordinate with them, “as circumstances permit.”
“The military police are a small, select, and specialized group of guardsmen, 4% of our total force, who undergo an impressive 900 hours of specialized training encompassing procedures, traffic control, security operations, and de-escalation techniques,” Guard spokeswomen Lauren Houck said in a statement to the Capital Chronicle.
“These guardsmen would only be called upon in extreme circumstances,” she continued. “These soldiers and airmen are a part of the same communities they will be working alongside local law enforcement to protect.”
About 300 Guard members are currently serving in the nation’s capital, under the federally controlled D.C. National Guard — “operating under a similar construct” and “helping make D.C. safe today,” Adjutant General Lawrence Muennich told lawmakers in committee this month.
The 2013 Boston bombing was repeatedly invoked during the bill’s journey through the House.
“The Boston Police tried to enlist the support of the National Guard to support them, but the National Guard was not armed,” Muennich said. “They were not ready, and the Boston Police had to water down their forces and embed their officers in with the National Guard, and it diluted … and delayed their response capability.”
He and other supporters said the legislation would promote rapid response.
Others were skeptical.
“That was like 13 years ago,” said Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington. “… And now, suddenly it shows up … buried in a bill about veterans affairs.”
He worried the bill’s broad language could enable politicized deployments.
“It’s insulting enough to have an invading force dropped in your community because somebody doesn’t like your politics, but now it’s resulting in people getting killed,” Pierce said. “It’s not a hypothetical idea.”
He and other opponents repeatedly referred to Trump’s “Operation Metro Surge.” Two U.S. citizens have been killed this month in immigration enforcement shootings, driving massive protests in and beyond the Twin Cities.
Pierce argued the bill gives too much power to the governor, while Bartels said it actually limits his authority by requiring the force have security clearances, training and more.
Rep. Danny Lopez, R-Carmel, joined Democrats to oppose the measure in an otherwise party-line vote.
Indiana Capital Chronicle editor Niki Kelly contributed.
The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization that covers state government, policy and elections.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.