Category Archives: Local Government

Local Control? Surely You Jest…

The anticipated conclusion of the 2026 session of Indiana’s legislature is February 27th, due to an unusually early start; the statutory deadline is March 14th.

Let’s hope they meet the target date of February 27 th. The end can’t come soon enough…

Every year, the intrusions of Indiana’s legislative overlords into local decision-making makes me wonder why Hoosiers even bother electing Mayors and city councilors. This session is no different. At this point in the session, some of the more egregious measures have–thankfully–been deep-sixed (I’m thinking especially of an outrageous bill that would have overruled local zoning affecting billboards–undoubtedly a bill near and dear to the hearts of lobbyists for the billboard industry). But plenty of the intrusions remain viable, and look likely to pass.

Mirror Indy has reported on a bill that aims to forbid county councils from using state road funding for projects picked by individual councilors. While the measure would apply statewide, the proposal probably targets Marion County, where reports emerged last year asserting that a few city-county councilors had used their share of a $25 million pot of money to fix roads in front of their homes or near their workplaces.

Assuming those reports were accurate, the appropriate response in a small-d democratic system would come from the voters. Inappropriate decisions about where to spend public monies are a time-tested political issue, and in a properly functioning system, would become campaign issues the next time those accused of self-dealing were up for re-election. In other words, local voters would decide whether the accusations were accurate and if so, whether the behavior of these particular councilors–when considered alongside other performance by those councilors–required their replacement.

Instead, the legislature has moved to restrict all counselors statewide from having a say in the way these funds would be spent.

This example is hardly a one-off. Just this session, Indiana’s legislature has moved to preempt local rental regulations. HB 1210
would block local governments from adopting or enforcing rules that limit homeowners’ ability to rent out their property,
overriding existing local ordinances in cities like Carmel and Fishers that limit short-term or unit rental caps.
Cities and towns would no longer have the ability to tailor rental housing rules to the specific needs of their communities or to respond to the particularities of their local housing markets.

HB 1001 is even more egregious. It would impose statewide standards on local zoning and permitting–usurping the historic prerogatives of local officials to respond to neighborhood desires and other specific situations in their communities  The measure is presumably prompted by a not-unreasonable desire to increase housing supply, although how that goal would be furthered by the imposition of statewide criteria for lot sizes, parking and density, or by the removal of local control over design requirements, is–to be charitable–difficult to understand.

Even worse, SB 176 would prevent local governments from using zoning/land-use powers to restrict or ban shooting ranges. (I wasn’t aware that Second Amendment rights extended to zoning…)

There’s more, but the overall picture reinforces the obvious belief of the GOP super-majority that Indiana legislators are elected to supervise all lawmaking within the Hoosier State, not simply matters that are usually and properly considered state issues.  The 2026 session continues a longtime trend in Indiana, where state lawmakers believe they know more than local officials and feel free to preempt lawmakers who’ve been elected to exert local control. In previous sessions, the legislature has overruled local lawmakers on issues ranging from puppy mills to the use of plastic bags.

There are numerous problems with this legislative arrogance. Local government officials are closer to the people they represent, and more accessible. In areas that still have local media covering local governments (another problem, granted), it’s easier for voters to monitor their performance. Political theorists since Alexis de Tocqueville have pointed out that robust local governance strengthens democratic habits and builds civic competence. It also allows for what political scientists call “better policy fit and contextual sensitivity.”

There can certainly be differences of opinion about when standardization is desirable, but that sort of thoughtful discussion has generally been absent from the rulemaking in Indiana’s General Assembly, where far too many legislators are unfamiliar both with accountability and with the virtues of an appropriate humility.

Comments

Ranked Choice Voting

As I write this, Indiana’s legislature is close to passing Senate Bill 12, a measure that would prohibit the use of ranked-choice voting in Indiana. The bill was co-authored by Republicans who are evidently worried that the state might use the system some day in the future (it is not in effect now and has not, to the best of my knowledge, been proposed). 

What, you may be asking, is ranked-choice voting, sometimes called “instant runoff” voting?

It’s simply a system that allows voters to rank candidates in their order of preference, rather than forcing them to select just one. In other words, voters rank the candidates–first choice, second, and so on. The vote count begins with the first choices; if one candidate receives over 50%, that’s it. Election’s over. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and his or her votes are reassigned to the remaining candidates based on each voter’s next highest preference. The process of eliminating and redistributing continues until a single candidate achieves a majority of the remaining votes.

Organizations concerned with fair elections support ranked-choice voting. Indiana’s League of Women Voters supports it because–among other things– the system would “give voters meaningful choices to reduce the toxicity of negative campaigning.” Indiana’s Common Cause supports ranked-choice voting because the organization finds the system makes elections more equitable, allows voters to choose among more diverse perspectives, and provides more choices.

The legislators opposed to the system insist it is “too complicated”–that there is something “unAmerican” about allowing voters to say, in effect, “my first choice is candidate X, my second choice is candidate Y, and if neither of them wins, I suppose I can live with candidate Z. Evidently, they think voters in states that currently use the system, like Maine and Alaska, are smarter than Hoosiers. (Given some of the people we’ve elected, maybe they have a point.)

Interestingly, according to Governing Magazine, in 2020, the state Republican Party used the method to select delegates.

In an article on the subject, Indiana’s Capital Chronicle noted that the award of the Heisman Trophy is the result of ranked-choice voting. The article explained why using that method ensures that the candidate with the most support wins.

This is the same reason why so many states and localities have adopted ranked choice voting for elections for governor, state legislature, city council and other offices. It is an incredibly useful tool for voters in any race with more than two candidates. 

It ensures a majority winner in a crowded field. Voters can choose the person they like best, without fearing that their vote might go to a “spoiler” and help elect the person — or the quarterback — that they like least.

The article then turned to Indiana Republicans’ current effort to ban the system, pointing out that in a state where some 3% of voters are libertarians, ranked-choice voting would mean Republicans would no longer need to worry that a Libertarian candidate might tip the race to the Democrats — and Libertarian voters could support the candidate of their choice without that fear, as well.

Why prevent Indiana and its localities from giving voters more choice? The bill’s sponsors suggest that ranked choice voting is confusing, and that they want to protect Indiana’s current election system. But every poll conducted after a ranked choice election shows that huge majorities of voters — often even bigger than Mendoza’s Heisman margin — like it, find it easy to use, and want it expanded to other elections. 

Beyond the flaws of SB12 are other questions: Why, in a short session with limited time to address other pressing issues, has the GOP super-majority decided to spend time banning something the state isn’t doing anyway? Why is our legislature overruling– in advance–the ability of Indiana’s local jurisdictions to adopt a voting measure used in hundreds of cities and counties across the country?

As the Capital Chronicle quite properly concluded, we need to reject this nonsensical ban. “Ranked choice voting produces more positive campaigns, majority winners, and puts an end to spoilers. It’s proven and it’s easy. If Indiana’s political parties, cities and towns want to adopt it, they should have that right.”

Comments

Why I Keep Harping On Gerrymandering

I’m sure many of you are getting tired of my repeated posts about gerrymandering. Sorry, but it’s important to detail all the various, terrible effects of this practice. (I can promise you that, if and when the Democrats retake control of the federal government and pass the John Lewis Act–which would outlaw gerrymandering among other desperately needed reforms–you will get a reprieve.)

In most of my past posts on the subject, I’ve detailed numerous negative results of the practice. Gerrymandering is the antithesis of democracy, because it allows representatives to choose their voters, rather than the other way around. It suppresses the votes of whichever party is the “loser” in that state. It increases political polarization by turning primaries  into the actual elections, virtually ensuring that Republicans will move to protect their right flank and Democrats their left. Etc.

What those past posts haven’t adequately described, however, is how the practice of partisan redistricting affects the legislative performance of those who owe their positions to the practice.

In one of his daily letters, Robert Hubbell provided an excellent example: he focused on a California Congressman named Kevin Kiley. Kiley represents one of the districts that was targeted by California’s mid-decade redistricting. When that redistricting occurred, he found himself left with a district that is no longer safe for the GOP. And suddenly, Hubbell reports, “he has found the courage to stand up to Trump.” Hubbell also notes that Don Bacon, who represents a competitive Nebraska district, frequently breaks with Trump. As he observes, “Funny how representing a competitive district gives Republicans the backbone to stand up to Trump.”

It isn’t just Washington.

Indianapolis Star columnist James Briggs recently pointed to the effects of gerrymandering on the Indiana legislature, where Republicans from safe districts that they’ve drawn revel in their super-majority and have become increasingly arrogant and entitled. As Briggs notes, the Republican House speaker, Todd Huston, controls what happens at the Indiana Statehouse. “Want to pass a bill? You need Huston. Want to stop a bad bill? Good luck without him.”

And how does an “entitled” Speaker perform?

Briggs reports on a recent, particularly egregious example. During the current session, Democrat Mitch Gore sponsored a bill that would have kept state officials from using taxpayer money to buy luxury cars (think Secretary of State Diego Morales’ GMC Yukon Denali and Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith’s $90,000 SUV.) The bill had passed out of committee unanimously and was ready for a floor vote. 

But Gore had evidently used his social media account to mock the Republicans who’d bought those luxury vehicles with Hoosiers’ tax dollars. As Briggs points out, the posts were well within “fair game” political territory–but Huston was evidently offended. He refused to bring the measure–which had substantial bipartisan support– to the floor for a vote.

So a good bill died.

As Briggs notes, this wasn’t the first time that Huston felt safe in jettisoning a bill for petty partisan reasons. As he writes, “Ideally, the Indiana House speaker would not be that petty. But if he is, that’s his prerogative, and Indiana Democrats need to figure out how to deal with a Statehouse kingpin who can strike them down at any time, for any reason.”

What Briggs (accurately) calls “pettiness” at the state level, is mirrored by what frustrated citizens call spinelessness at the federal level. These behaviors are all enabled by partisan redistricting–by gerrymandering. Representatives who believe they don’t have to worry about the approval or disapproval of their constituents feel free to ignore the common good in favor of  perceived personal political advantage, or just pique. They are less likely to hold town halls, or take the opportunity to find out what the folks they (theoretically) represent really think or want, and far–far–more likely to toe extremist partisan lines.

Good bills get deep-sixed. “Oversight” of corruption is limited to examination of members of the other party (see James Comer and the Epstein files.)

Without competition, good government takes a back seat to “what’s in it for me.” As Independent Indiana insists, competitive elections lead to better leaders and a stronger state.

The current crisis in America isn’t simply the result of electing terrible people. It’s a result of a practice–partisan redistricting aka gerrymandering– that virtually guarantees that terrible people will be the ones deciding who gets elected. You can call that systemic flaw many things, but democratic isn’t one of them.

Comments

Christian Nationalists Are At It Again

At the base of all policy disputes is a foundational question: What is government for? What sort of decisions are properly within the remit of the state, and which must be left to individuals exercising their own beliefs? The nation’s founders answered that question with the Bill of Rights, which is properly read as a list of things that government is prohibited from doing.

Those amendments answer a fundamental question: who decides, and that makes it an impediment to the “Christian” warriors who want to dictate how the rest of us should live. As most Hoosiers are aware, a lot of those warriors– beneficiaries of Indiana’s extreme gerrymandering–have been elected to Indiana’s embarrassing legislature.

You would think–okay, hope–that this year’s short session would curtail efforts to violate citizens’ individual rights, but you’d be wrong. The Indiana Citizen has recently reported on several bills that would, if passed, advance the desires of those “Christian” nationalists for control over Hoosier behaviors.

One of those is SB 88, which has passed out of committee “with all of the committee’s Republicans supporting the bill and the Democrats who were present opposing it.” It will be heard by the full Senate.

The Citizen tells us that the bill’s author, Sen. Gary Byrne, did strip some of the bill’s most controversial elements ahead of the vote, including a requirement that middle school civics courses teach the meaning and significance of “historic” documents like the Ten Commandments, and another that would have restricted how civics teachers could address race, gender identity and issues of inequality.

In its current form, SB 88 would add something called the Classic Learning Test to the list of college entrance exams state colleges and universities are required to accept. (Like the ACT and SAT.) The Classic Learning Test is described as “a conservative-backed standardized exam that emphasizes classical literature and Christian thinkers.”  SB 88 would also expand the statutory definition of “good citizenship” instruction, requiring schools to teach students a version of “good citizenship” that includes graduation from high school, holding a full-time job, and waiting until marriage to have children.

(And here I thought “good citizenship” meant things like civic literacy, jury duty and voting…these days, I’d expand that definition to include protesting and when appropriate, civil disobedience.) As several Democrats noted, the bill would impose (some people’s) moral instruction under the guise of civics education.

The inability of Indiana’s GOP to distinguish between America’s legal structure and their carefully cherry-picked bible lessons is a common hallmark of Christian nationalism. A recent post from Lincoln Square highlights a recent publication from the Heritage Foundation, a follow-up to that organization’s Project 2025.

Do you believe that husbands should be in charge of their wives? Do you think that women who get a divorce ought to be ineligible for government benefits? Are you against gay marriage? Well, I’ve got good news for you!

The Heritage Foundation’s new report, Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years, reads like a white Christian Nationalist fever dream.

There are legitimate disagreements among legal scholars about the intent/meaning of several constitutional provisions. There are legitimate disputes over the application of provisions of the Bill of Rights to contemporary realities the Founders could never have envisioned. But there is absolutely no credible scholarship supporting the notion that government should mandate behavior approved by a religious sect–or impose legal sanctions on behaviors that a given religion disapproves.

There is no historical basis for creating an American Christian theocracy.

Most religions–and most non-believers–share broadly-held views that are also moral: against murder, against theft, against aggressions of various kinds. Our government can and does forbid those behaviors–not because they violate some religious tenets, but because they violate the libertarian premise upon which our government was founded. That premise, articulated by Enlightenment philosophers and endorsed by America’s Founders, was simple and profound: Individuals should be free to pursue their own ends–their own life goals–so long as they do not thereby harm the person or property of someone else, and so long as they are willing to accord an equal liberty to their fellow citizens. Government’s role is to protect our individual liberties while keeping the strong from abusing the weak.

It is not government’s job to prescribe our prayers or to dictate when, how or whether we should procreate, and it’s none of government’s business who we may choose to love. Laws imposing the religious beliefs of these performative “Christians” on the rest of us are unconstitutional and profoundly unAmerican.

Majority members of Indiana’s General Assembly need to take a remedial civics course.

Comments

Indiana’s Brain Drain

Indiana has long had a “brain drain.” College educated young people–even those who graduate from Hoosier colleges and universities–consistently leave the state. The reasons aren’t mysterious, and most aren’t economic, although we do have lower starting salaries and fewer large headquarters than other (mostly Bluer) states.

Indiana’s legislators recognize the existence of the problem, but overlook–or choose to ignore–the reasons for it. Our elected officials fail to recognize the importance of the quality of life issues that educated young folks (and plenty of us older ones) value: walkable neighborhoods, good public transit, a lively arts scene, and the cultural diversity that supports a wide variety of restaurants, cafes and nightlife– attributes of a vibrant urbanism that Indiana’s legislature not only doesn’t appreciate, but routinely tries to diminish.

Then, of course, there is social policy. Indiana’s abortion ban isn’t just a deal-breaker for many young women and their partners (ask some of our larger employers, who will confirm the effect of that ban on their efforts to hire). It is also negatively affecting the state’s ability to retain physicians, researchers, and even some of the employers who are experiencing those problems with recruitment.

Our Red state’s war on LGBTQ+ rights is another negative. Educated young people are repulsed by the bigotry that has prompted Indiana’s laws attacking the rights of trans children and their parents.  It isn’t only gay young people who find these and other anti-gay measures distasteful. These efforts to stigmatize gay folks join the legislature’s (and Governor’s) interference in higher education, the Trumpian attacks on DEI, and  politicization of university curricula. All of this is (quite accurately) seen as an unwelcoming environment for intellectual life.

And then there’s the recent prominence of the Hoosier state’s Christian nationalists.

Lest you dismiss my assertion that the rise of our “Christian warriors” has accelerated the departure of educated young people from the Hoosier state, allow me to quote a real economist. Michael Hicks is the George and Frances Ball distinguished professor of economics and the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. In a recent column for the Indiana Citizen, Hicks expressly linked the rise of Indiana’s Christian nationalism to the outflow of educated young people. As he wrote,

Indiana is in the midst of what is possibly the most economically damaging period of outmigration in state history. This is because net migration from Indiana is concentrated among the best educated young people. A 2017 study by U.S. Senate Republicans reported Indiana’s ‘brain drain’ was among the worst  seven states nationwide – worse than West Virginia. Since then, the environment has worsened substantially. College enrollment in Indiana is in rapid, historically unequalled decline with more Hoosiers heading to out-of-state colleges than ever before.

The last thing a healthy and prosperous Indiana needs is anything that would repel young people wishing to make a life in our state. A Christian nationalist agenda that is hostile to Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists and Lutherans is a recipe for a more sluggish and moribund economy.

And just to be clear, a more sluggish economy is a feature, not a bug of the Christian nationalist movement. They seek an ideologically pure, small-sect Christian state, where students are consigned religious schools from pre-Kindergarten through college.  They want a poorer, less educated population, that is easier to control. They want a public workforce that sits quietly in the pews of one or two different denominations.

This is economically damaging to Indiana, deeply anti-Christian and un-American. It must be rejected by Hoosiers.

Our legislative overlords like to proclaim that low tax rates make Indiana “business friendly.” They don’t seem able to connect the dots between adequate investments in the state’s quality of life and a robust business environment. And they are obviously impervious to the negative economic consequences of support for social policies reminiscent of the 1800s.

And speaking of “connecting the dots”–the composition of Indiana’s legislature isn’t the result of a backward citizenry. It doesn’t reflect widespread public sentiment. A significant minority of our state’s citizens actually live in the twenty-first century, and understand and disapprove of the implications of our government’s backward approach. Those citizens just aren’t represented in the state legislature, thanks to Indiana’s extreme gerrymandering.

It’s frustrating to be a Hoosier…

Comments