Category Archives: Local Government

Veery Interesting…

Younger readers of this blog will probably not recall a comic named Arte Johnson, who played a “left-over” Nazi soldier on Rowan and Martin’s Laugh In. (They probably don’t remember Laugh In, either…) Johnson would skulk behind a potted plant to spy on a comic bit, only to emerge and proclaim (with a German accent) “Veery Interesting..”

That comic bit and phrase came to my mind when a friend sent me an announcement from Governor Mike Braun’s official website,in which the Governor announced his gratitude for having been presented with the “Governor of the Year Award” from something called the Foundation for Government Accountability, or FGA. The award was described as a recognition of a “uniquely dedicated leader who advances policies that reduce barriers to work, increase trust in government, and promote self-sufficiency and dignity for individuals and families.”

Given Hoosiers’ general impression of Governor Braun’s “uniqueness”–an impression reflected in an approval rating in the high twenties–I found this veery interesting, especially since I’d never heard of the Foundation for Government Accountability.

My first suspicion was that the Foundation was one of those mythical organizations that used to be a staple of “dirty trick” politics: some supporters of Candidate A would invent an organization (“Housewives for Better Groceries…whatever) and issue the bogus organization’s endorsement of Candidate A. So, suspicious person that I am, I googled the Foundation for Government Accountability, which turns out to exist.

It’s website claims that FGA is “non-partisan.” It also describes an entity that is very far to the Right. Despite the fact that most Americans have never heard of it, the organization claims to be a “leading public policy organization” that has passed reforms in 34 states–reforms that “seek to free individuals from the trap of government dependence and to let them experience the power of work.”

Its website tells us that FGA was founded to offer a solution to America’s “increasingly unaffordable health care costs and broken state budgets.” The organization is particularly focused upon “families trapped on welfare, unable to free themselves from government dependency.” Rejecting what it calls “the one-size fits all solutions” that policymakers have been offering, “FGA saw another way—reducing government dependency through the power of work.” Indeed, the website claims that FDA is “driven by the proven results of the power of work. By the individuals whose lives have changed after being freed from the welfare trap. By the future generations who will succeed as a result of escaping the cycle of dependency.”

I think we can sense a theme…

Wikipedia lists FGA’s major funders (including Leonard Leo of Federalist Society infamy) and its policy positions. Those policy positions are eye-opening, to say the least: FDA strongly supports the SAVE Act that would disenfranchise millions of Americans, for example. It supports measures that would encourage patients to “shop” for medical care. It advocates repeal of several parts of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, “particularly with an eye towards expanding the legality of teenage labor,” and it supports the imposition of work requirements for food stamp recipients. As you’ve probably guessed, FGA opposes Medicaid expansion.

Perhaps most telling, FGA was a member of the advisory board of Project 2025. It was one of the collection of extreme right-wing policy organizations that crafted that odious document. As readers of this blog know, Project 2025’s outrageous proposals–which Trump has dutifully been implementing despite his statements that he had no idea what it was–would reshape the federal government, consolidate executive power and impose the fever-dreams of White Christian nationalists on all Americans.

That is the organization that has bestowed  a “best governor” award on Indiana’s governor, to celebrate his “bold, forward-thinking leadership.” The announcement congratulated Braun for efforts to reform Indiana’s food stamp program, and his work on the “Make Indiana Healthy Again initiative,” with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz. It noted Indiana’s leadership “in the popular movement to remove junk food from the food stamp program.”

Most of all, the award celebrated Braun for “elevating work over welfare.”

What the award really does is dispel any doubt about Braun’s political identity–and his willingness to publicize and celebrate the award dispels any lingering myth of his competence…

SEE MANY OF YOU AT NO KINGS later today…..

Comments

Governing From Fantasy Land

I subscribe to a Substack with a particularly apt title: “Can We Still Govern?” A recent essay reviewed the multiple accusations of fraud used by our clown-car administration to bolster their allegations of “rigged votes” and their war on poor Americans, among other “alternate reality” efforts.

As the essay pointed out, Trump’s obsession with fraud has been the root justification for many, if not most, of the wrongheaded and unpopular decisions of this administration – from gutting the federal workforce, to attacking Social Security, to making it harder, especially for women, to vote, and for the hysterical attacks on immigrants that “justified” his toxic and thuggish immigration raids in Minnesota.

Speaking of toxic, Stephen Miller is one of the most rabid inhabitants of fantasy land. Miller has enthusiastically endorsed the fiction that immigrants “have been cheating for years” and has claimed that “if all of this theft were stopped, it would be enough to balance the budget. The extraction of wealth from American taxpayers to people who don’t belong here is the primary cause of the national debt.”

As the Substack points out,

This is not just untrue, it is a lie on the scale of Elon Musk claiming he would eliminate the deficit. Absolutely fantastical, a kind of fraudulent fraud claim, one untethered from the surly bonds of reason and evidence. The reality, according to an analysis from the libertarian Cato Institute, is the opposite: immigrants have significantly reduced the deficit, contributing a fiscal surplus of $14.5 trillion between 1993-2023.

if there is any rhetorical device that characterizes this administration, it’s the bald-faced lie (although Trump is so untethered from reality, so firmly ensconced in fantasy-land, that it is possible he believes the whoppers he spouts, at least at the time when they occur to him). The linked essay notes his repeated false claim that those evil Somalis had stolen $19 billion dollars from Medicaid in Minnesota, despite the fact that the federal government’s own data shows that Minnesota has been quite effective at controlling waste in its Medicaid program.

The Trump administration uses ridiculous claims like this to justify withholding Medicaid funding from Blue states. The administration’s announcement that it is withholding $259 million of Medicaid funding from Minnesota was how it kicked off its “War on Fraud.”

Trump uses fraud accusations about “fraud and waste” to distract from the reality that his administration is really hell-bent on gutting Medicaid.

The underlying hypocrisy is staggering. Trump is yelling about fraud, even as his administration goes on an unchecked crime-spree. Withholding $250 million in Minnesota’s Medicaid funding will not only do nothing to prevent fraud — it will turn eligible beneficiaries into the victims of Trump’s fraudulent fraud squad.

Indiana’s MAGA legislative super-majority is dutifully following suit.

Just this year, our terrible legislature enacted new and stricter eligibility controls, requiring eligibility checks every six months, mandatory three-month work histories, and copays for non-emergency ER visits. They were unable, however, to pass HB 1066, restricting officials from using tax dollars to purchase luxury cars…Here in Indiana, we emulate the Trump administration by afflicting the afflicted and comforting the comfortable.

What makes this so infuriating is that the Trump administration is easily the most corrupt presidential administration in history. Conflicts of interest are everywhere, while spending is out of control. (I recently posted about the items recently purchased by the Department of Defense, including massive amounts of lobster, King Crab and shrimp, plus $100,000 on a piano, $26,000 for a violin, and $21,750 for a flute.) Before her “reassignment,” we learned that Kristi Noem had spent $200 million on luxury jets  with bars and bedrooms, and had handed another $220 million in no-bid contracts to firms with which she was connected. And as the essay reminds us, “Kash Patel has turned the FBI into his own personal Make-A-Wish Foundation, using FBI planes to party with US hockey players in Italy, with buddies for golf and hunting trips, or to meet up with his girlfriend who now has her own FBI security detail.”

The essay also reminds us that Trump’s concerns about fraud haven’t kept him from pardoning individuals convicted of massive fraud, including–but certainly not limited to–Lawren Duran, who masterminded one of the largest-ever cases of Medicare fraud. Trump relieved Duran of the obligation to repay the over $84 million he defrauded from the public. Democratic House Judiciary staffers report that Trump’s pardons have eliminated over $1.3 billion in restitution and fines.

But sure, let’s make working poor folks who rely on Medicaid re-certify their eligibility every six months. (And don’t let those grifters on SNAP buy candy or soda.) The “good Christians” who support this obscene administration evidently think that’s what Jesus would want…

Comments

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