Category Archives: Local Government

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

Competition And Corruption

I’ve posted before about Independent Indiana, a new organization working to make it easier for independent candidates to run for office in Indiana. Currently, those candidates face obstacles to getting on the ballot–obstacles that don’t face Republican or Democratic (or even Libertarian) candidates– and the organization wants to level that playing field.

Those changes would be in support of Independent Indiana’s major mission: making Indiana elections competitive.

Thanks to gerrymandering, it has been a long time since voters in Indiana have been able to choose between viable competing candidates. In far too many districts thought to be “safe for the GOP,” Democrats haven’t even bothered to run anyone. (In the few districts into which redistricting has crammed Democrats, the situation is the same, only reversed.)  That  situation might explain why, despite the formidable odds, over 230 people ran as independents during the past two election cycles–to offer citizens an actual choice.

And guess what? When voters have a choice, turnout and enthusiasm improve. Fifty-two percent of those independent candidates won.

There are several lessons here, but perhaps the most important is the critical importance of competitive elections. When the candidates of any party are essentially assured of winning–when the only meaningful competition occurs in the primaries–we experience two major negative consequences.

One of those consequences is broadly understood. Since primary voters are more ideological, primary contests pull candidates to the extremes. Democrats protect their left flanks, Republicans move to the right. In Red Indiana, that has given us a legislature dominated by culture warriors.

The second consequence is less well recognized, although it should be predictable. Safe seats suppress all votes, especially those of the minority party; in Indiana, that’s Democrats. The resulting apathy and embarrassingly low turnout confirm the conviction that Republicans have a continuing lock on public office in the state, and that conviction fosters corruption and self-dealing by elected officials.

Recently, Governor Mike Braun appointed State Senator Andy Zay to chair the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. Zay has close ties to the energy industry, and according to Vox, consumer groups have questioned Braun’s choice of Zay to lead the body that regulates that industry. There have been other allegations of questionable behavior by the Governor; a former Indiana State Police Superintendent has publicly claimed that a state police investigation into a political ally of Braun’s was dropped after Braun took office, despite the fact that the case seemed “strong.” 

Allegations are not proof, and Braun’s problems may stem more from cluelessness and ham-handedness rather than outright wrongdoing, but he certainly isn’t the only Hoosier Republican to be accused of self-dealing. Over the past few years, we’ve seen former State Rep. Sean Eberhart, a longtime GOP member of the Indiana House of Representatives, plead guilty to a federal corruption charge (he accepted the promise of a high-paying job from a gaming company in exchange for legislative support of a bill favorable to that company) and former State Senator Brent Waltz pled guilty to federal campaign finance violations and making false statements to the FBI. 

Local officials have also been in the news for corrupt behaviors. Former Clark County Sheriff Jamey Noel pled guilty in 2024 to 27 felony charges including theft, tax evasion, official misconduct, obstruction of justice, and money laundering. Noel used millions of dollars of taxpayer and emergency service funds for personal expenses like planes, cars, flights, clothing, and other luxury items. 

These are the people who got caught. We have no way of knowing whether other public officials who feel insulated from competition and thus accountability have engaged–or are currently engaging–in unethical or criminal behaviors. Not only do these revelations undermine public confidence in Indiana’s government, the cynicism they produce is manifestly unfair to the many public servants in both parties who are discharging their duties ethically and honorably.

And that brings me back to the importance of competition, the importance of giving voters a genuine choice–the importance of returning to a system where those voters choose their representatives from a slate of legitimate, competing candidates rather than going to the polls (or, increasingly not going to the polls) to discharge what is seen as a performative exercise.

If the success of independent candidates over the past couple of cycles demonstrates anything, it demonstrates that voters will turn out to participate in genuinely competitive elections, and that those voters aren’t necessarily happy with the anointed partisans who currently fill state and local positions.

If Independent Indiana can make the Hoosier state more competitive, the organization will have done us all a great service.

Comments

How Is As Important As What…

Those of us who regularly (obsessively?) follow politics and government are currently fixated on the federal administration, and for obvious reasons: every day ending with a y is a day when the Trump caravan of fools and clowns threatens to destroy America domestically and internationally. It’s like driving past a horrific accident–you can’t help but rubberneck.

As understandable as that focus is, however, it doesn’t relieve us of the obligation to ensure the proper operation of local government agencies. (In that context, permit me to indulge my repeated lament about low levels of civic literary–most citizens are blissfully unaware of the existence of local government entities other than the Mayor’s office, the City-County Council and perhaps a zoning board.)

A couple of friends of mine have recently complained that Indiana’s legislature isn’t the only body that doesn’t stay in its lane.

Morton Marcus and Clarke Kahlo have mounted complaints of “mission creep” about our local bond bank–adding a further criticism of the refusal of its board to allow citizens’ testimony and/or complaints at meetings.

As Morton pointed out in a recent column for State Affairs Indiana, the bond bank has an important function–its mission is to issue bonds to pay for critical infrastructure, the capital improvements that local governments pay for over the terms of their useful lives.

That function is explicitly set out in the organization’s mission statement.

Since 2024, the Bond Bank has funded Indiana’s Arts Council. Morton and Clarke Kahlo object to that decision–not, they emphasize, because they disagree with the importance of the Arts Council. They both emphatically support funding the Arts Council with local tax dollars–just not through the bond bank. They attended the Bond Bank board’s most recent meeting to question that line item; however, they were not allowed to address the matter. Or any matter.

The two of them argue that the way government operates–how it chooses to effectuate appropriate governmental activities–is important. As I used to tell my students, in our system, the how is just as important as the what. There are numerous reasons for such a principle; an important one is that when local agencies stick to their missions, citizens can more easily monitor them.

Morton and Clarke argue that the Bond Bank should stick to its mission of funding infrastructure– things like improving our roads and government buildings, waterways, “the transit system, perhaps the Internet, the utilities, all those capital investments on which the residents and workers of this city depend.” As Morton wrote in his column, “If the Civil government wants to support the Arts, and I strongly believe they should, the money should come by vote of the people’s elected representatives, the Council, upon recommendation by the Mayor.”

It turns out that the Arts Council doesn’t just get $500,000 from the Bond Bank. It gets another $500,000 from the CIB, and another sum from the Department of Parks and Recreation. Whatever the justifications for the CIB and Parks Department gifts, Clarke and Morton argue that the Bond Bank’s funding is inconsistent with its mission.

In a written statement, Clarke Kahlo quoted Indiana’s 2020 Civic Education Task Force recommendation that “Since its founding, the United States democracy has relied upon having an informed and active citizenry to maintain our system of ideals and beliefs. In order to be a government by, of and for the people, the populace needs to be engaged knowingly in civic processes.” The thrust of their joint objection is that the lack of transparency and the refusal to allow public comment undermines the opportunity for necessary and informed civic engagement.

The objection raised by these two citizens may seem irrelevant or picky at a time when so much of our governance is under assault. After all, both of them support funding the Arts Council, just not in this particular way. But dismissing their objection would be an error, because it focuses on an important element of democratic systems–what we might call “mission control.” A few days ago, I shared copious evidence that Indiana’s legislature consistently usurps the prerogatives of local, municipal lawmakers. Morton and Clarke are pointing to a similar mission blurring at a local government agency.

In both cases, the failure to honor restraints erodes the ability of citizens to monitor those in authority.

These trespasses obscure information and discourage civic engagement. Failures of governmental guardrails may be most prominent nationally, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strengthen them locally.

Comments

Protecting The Right To Vote

One of the (far too many) newsletters I get is one from Democracy Docket. Founded by lawyer Marc Elias in 2020, the platform is dedicated to information, analysis and opinion about voting rights and elections. It’s especially focused on the multiple lawsuits Elias and his firm have brought against the Trump administration–most of which they’ve won.

A recent newsletter was a bit different: it was a list of suggested laws that would protect voting rights.

The newsletter presented the list for consideration by Blue states, presumably because the adoption of such protections would be highly unlikely in Red states like Indiana. (Actually, I think a strategically-smart campaign to protect the vote might do better than the organization thinks…at least, it would be worth a try. Opposing people’s right to cast a ballot is a dicey position–at least, it should be.)

So what are the laws that Democracy Docket believes would strengthen voting rights?

The first is somewhat surprising–passing a statute protecting the right to vote. There is no right to vote in the federal constitution, and although some state constitution include such protections, Elias tells us that “too often these rights are ill-defined or have been limited by past legal precedent.” An explicit, statutory right to vote would correct the ambiguities.

The second is common sense; we need to get over the “signature matching” that states employ to (theoretically) authenticate  mail-in votes. As Elias writes,

The problems with this approach are serious. Every election, hundreds of thousands of lawful ballots are discarded because an election official decides that, in their opinion, two signatures do not match. We need to ban this harmful practice.

First, there is no requirement that a voter maintain a consistent signature to exercise the right to vote. Many voters, particularly young voters, do not keep a consistent signature across documents. With more voters registering on tablets, this problem is worsening with each passing election.

Second, there is simply no science supporting the current practice of having election workers compare a single signature to the image of a specimen signature on file. Election officials are not experts in signature comparison, and true experts have repeatedly testified that the methods used by states to compare signatures cannot support the current practice.

This proposal really resonated with me, because my own signature has changed immensely since I began using the computer for most of my communications. Even on the rare occasion when I have to write a check rather than paying online, my current chicken scratches bear little resemblance to the handwriting of my younger days.

Third on the list should be a no-brainer. Count every ballot postmarked before election day, even if they arrive a few days later due to postal delays. Voters who follow the rules shouldn’t be disenfranchised because of post office delays.

Number Four will never get passed. Elias wants states to guarantee voters that they won’t have to wait in line more than 30 minutes. He’s absolutely correct when he points out that long lines discourage voters and disproportionately penalize voters who can least afford time off work, but there are numerous reasons such a rule would be impractical–everything from machine breakdowns to unanticipated rates of turnout could make compliance a nightmare. Extending early voting and voting hours might be a more practical way to reduce wait times.

The fifth proposal is a ban on third-party voter challenges and other forms of what Elias calles “vigilantism.”

No one should have their registration or right to vote challenged by a random stranger they do not know and have never met. Yet that is what is happening in too many places.

Republicans have built private voter databases used to encourage third-party activists and election vigilantes to submit spreadsheets of voters they want removed from the rolls or hassled at polling places. This practice should be banned and outlawed.

Along the same lines, his sixth proposal is to impose civil and criminal penalties for voter harassment and intimidation, and the seventh and final item on his voting wishlist is to strengthen the vote certification process. As we’ve seen in the Trump “big lie” era, that process has been weaponized– local election offices are increasingly filled with election deniers, and people serving on county election boards are being pressured not to certify accurate results.

Some of these measures would be difficult to pass in Red states, but assuming a vigorous grass-roots campaign, others might actually be adopted. Even if they weren’t, such a campaign would force wider recognition of the barriers people face to having their votes counted.

Worth considering…..

Comments