Local Government – Page 3

Another Rutabaga Election?

The reality of the Electoral College keeps Americans fixated on the “swing states.” National parties and the media routinely dismiss Indiana as a place where voters would elect a rutabaga if that vegetable had an “R” next to its name. That belief isn’t founded on actual voter preferences; it’s a result of extreme gerrymandering. Our legislative overlords draw lines that cram Democrats into a few urban districts while ensuring that a majority of districts include a greater number of (presumably reliable) Republican voters.

I’ve posted frequently about the negative consequences of that practice, but I’ve recently stumbled across an emerging positive–the discernable over-confidence it breeds in GOP candidates.

Take a look, for example, at the campaign for Indiana’s House of Representatives in District 88. That district covers Geist, Lawrence, Ingalls, McCordsville, Fortville, and Cumberland, and was clearly drawn to maximize Republican advantage. But it also contains a lot of educated voters, and in the wake of growing MAGA extremism and the Dobbs decision, is considerably less reliably Red.

Enter a serious Democratic candidate: Stephanie Jo Yocum, who is emphasizing her support for women’s reproductive rights, strong public education, safe and connected communities, workers rights and economic prosperity for all. (You can access her interpretations of those promises on the “issues” page of her website.)

After a conversation with a member of Yocum’s campaign, I went to the websites of the incumbent Republican, Chris Jeter–a campaign site and a personal one–and was astonished to find that neither site bothered with those silly things called issues. Instead, there were photos of his family, a biography (including an undergraduate Baptist College), and his reportedly active memberships in his church and the NRA.

The absence of policy positions seemed odd to me, but I assume Mr. Jeter feels it is sufficient to be a Republican running in a “safe” district. No need to defend his positions, which–after more googling–are unlikely to be widely popular even among non-MAGA Republican voters.

Jeter earned a ZERO rating from Indiana’s ACLU, for example. That rating was based upon several votes: he voted FOR Indiana’s ban on virtually all abortions; FOR a bill discriminating against trans girls (a bill vetoed by our Republican governor); FOR onerous limits on charitable bail organizations; and FOR a bill that would have limited how public schools and employees could address concepts related to an individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation. (The vagueness of this bill would have effectively chilled discussion and instruction in Indiana classrooms.)

He also voted FOR new, onerous restrictions on absentee voting and voting by mail, and FOR a bill that would have given the Indiana Attorney General the power to request the appointment of a special prosecutor whenever county prosecutors exercise their (entirely lawful) discretion in ways the Attorney General disapproves, essentially allowing Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita to substitute his discretion for that of an elected county prosecutor.

My brief research into Jeter’s voting history told me two things: he is a Republican culture warrior, and he is relying on his district’s gerrymander rather than his performance to return him to the legislature. He evidently shares the belief that all he needs to prevail is that “R” next to his name.

My analysis of District 88 can be replicated around the state. But despite the smug assurance of the Republican operatives who drew the lines and the candidates who confidently expect to benefit from them once again, I think they are missing some significant danger signals.

Over the past several years, Republican reliance on the “rutabaga” theory of Hoosier elections has allowed the party and its candidates to become more and more extreme–to ignore the grind of actual governance and constituent service and to focus almost exclusively on waging culture war. Rather than the day-to-day business of ensuring that Indiana’s bridges and roads and parks are well-maintained, they’ve waged war on women’s reproductive rights and the LBGTQ+ community; rather than attracting business to the state by enhancing our quality of life, they’ve cut taxes for top earners and their donors. Rather than strengthening our public schools, they’ve siphoned off tax dollars and sent them to religious schools.

The basic question for Hoosier voters in November is whether we will continue to vote for the rutabagas–the empty suits and Christian Nationalists and gun extremists and “privatizers” who–thanks to the absence of competition ensured by gerrymandering– now represent virtually all of Indiana’s Republican candidates.

Stephanie Yocum’s positions are far more likely than Jeter’s to reflect those of voters in House District 88, Democrat OR Republican.

It’s really past time to retire the rutabaga vote.

Comments

Let’s Send A Message

I have occasionally quoted my cousin Mort, a noted cardiologist, on issues involving medical care. He recently shared with me his concerns over the challenge of providing appropriate–or even barely adequate–medical care to women in the wake of the Dobbs decision. In Indiana, this is a huge problem, because–unlike other states– We the People lack any effective electoral mechanism to reverse our GOP-dominated legislature’s assaults on reproductive liberties.

As I was reading my cousin’s email, it occurred to me that while Indiana voters might not be able to mount a referendum, we do have a way to send a message to the pious, self-important legislators who think that occupying a gerrymandered seat in the General Assembly entitles them to overrule people with specialized expertise who actually know what they’re doing.

That message is our vote.

Here’s my proposal: Every pro-choice voter in Indiana should go to the polls and vote Blue “all the way down.” In addition, they should make sure their state senators and representatives know that their vote is tied to reproductive choice–by posting on social networks, writing their legislators, or by carrying a sign or wearing a t-shirt saying “pro-choice voter” when they go to the polls.

As my cousin knows–and Indiana’s Republican legislators evidently don’t– reproductive autonomy isn’t just about being forced to give birth; it is often a matter of life and death.

The U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee’s Ranking Member, Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), has recently released a 40-page report detailing the findings of a 10-month-long investigation into the impact of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs vs. Jackson ruling on the practice of obstetrics and gynecology. This was the court’s decision on June 24, 2022, that took away a woman’s previously recognized constitutional right to abortion and gave states the right to limit or outlaw abortions.

In September 2023, Pallone launched the investigation to examine how providers and, by extension, their patients, are impacted by the Dobbs decision. In conducting the investigation to determine the effects on medical practice, the Democratic Committee staff interviewed OB–GYN educators and resident physicians. The investigation disclosed alarming effects that included the following:

Providers are seeing sicker patients suffering from greater complications due to delayed care caused as a result of the Dobbs decision.
The Dobbs decision has harmed the training of OB–GYN residents in restrictive states.
Residency applicants are increasingly concerned about the quality of abortion training programs offered in restrictive states.
Residency directors are finding restrictions on clinical communication are degrading trust between providers and patients and are robbing patients of the ability to make informed decisions about their health.
The training of OB–GYN residents in abortion-protective states has been harmed as programs in those states strain their capacity and resources to help train out-of-state residents from restrictive states.
Restrictive state laws are already leading us to a future with a provider workforce less prepared to provide comprehensive reproductive health care.
OB–GYN residents and program directors are increasingly frustrated, discouraged, and experiencing negative mental health effects in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision.
Residency program leaders who participated in the report universally agreed that abortion care is integral to other components of reproductive health care and should not be eliminated or isolated from residency training.
After Dobbs, OB–GYN residency applicants more strongly preferred programs in states that permit abortion access.
A patchwork of state restrictions is leading to disparate systems of reproductive health care, worsening reproductive and maternal health care shortages, and fracturing the OB–GYN workforce.

As my cousin concluded (I could almost see the smoke coming out of his ears!), Dobbs was yet another example of the naivete and hubris of a politicized Supreme Court. The Court flouted scientific evidence, overruling knowledgeable and skilled medical practitioners in a field in which they were totally unqualified.

I will readily admit that my recommendation–vote Blue to send a message–might require a few Hoosiers to be single-issue voters this November. Those of us who have already surveyed the caliber of candidates being offered by Indiana’s GOP and the issues they are peddling will have no problem voting Blue from top to bottom, but pro-choice Republicans may find it more difficult (although really, Republicans–have you looked at your statewide ticket? Those MAGA theocrats sure don’t resemble the Republicans I used to know…)

Trump keeps saying that abortion/reproductive liberty is no longer a “big deal” electorally. He’s so wrong.

Even one election cycle that turned Indiana Blue–or even purple–would send a much-needed message to our legislative overlords. And we might even elect competent and thoughtful public servants for a change!

Comments

A Rising Tide

A few nights ago, I cohosted a fundraiser for Jennifer McCormick, the Democratic candidate for governor of Indiana. I also had the privilege of introducing her to a large and enthusiastic crowd of attendees. As I said in those brief introductory remarks–and as I have previously noted here– this year, the Indiana Democratic Party is running an absolutely first-rate statewide ticket—a ticket that is an immense contrast to the Indiana Republican Party’s all-MAGA theocratic nightmare.

I first admired McCormick when she served as Superintendent of Public Instruction—a position that I will note gave her responsibility for managing half of the state budget. Jennifer came to that position with deep experience as a public school superintendent. She understood not just the importance of public education to the quality of civic life, but also the critical importance of an educated populace to successful economic development.

Her experience as Superintendent, serving in a Republican administration alongside our Republican super-majority legislature, also taught her something many others of us have come to understand— the current Republican Party is no longer a traditional political party. MAGA Republicans are a cult, and they are the enemy not just of public education, but of racial and religious inclusion and civil liberties— values that Jennifer and I support.

Those very American values require a vigorous defense of public education, the restoration of women’s reproductive rights, protection of workers’ right to unionize and demand fair wages, and an accountable and fiscally responsible state government.

Too many non-MAGA Republicans have simply gone along with the party’s transformation, despite displaying some level of discomfort. Instead, like many other former Republicans (including yours truly) Jennifer McCormick acted on the basis of her values, and left the GOP.

Every opinion survey I’ve seen confirms the fact that the values I share with Jennifer are also shared by a majority of Hoosiers. I am absolutely convinced that if she has the resources to get her message out, she will defeat MAGA Mike Braun.

And that brings me to a point I’ve previously emphasized: the greatest asset possessed by Braun and his merry band of theocrats is the defeatism of Indiana’s long-suffering Democrats. Several commenters have posted here about the relative lack of communication they have seen thus far from the Democratic ticket. The obvious reason for the imbalance is access to resources. Those shiny television ads touting Republicans like Jim Banks (while ignoring his offensive assaults on women and gay folks) are funded by the billionaires and their superPACs who stand to gain financially by a GOP victory. When Hoosier Democrats send their donations to campaigns in other states, where they think those dollars will make more of a difference, they play into Republican hands.

There is cause for hope, however. The recent change at the head of the national ticket, and the enormous outpouring of money and volunteers and enthusiasm for Kamala Harris has invigorated state-level tickets, too. (Interestingly, there doesn’t seem to be as much misogyny as we saw when Hillary Clinton was the nominee–actually, women candidates may even have an advantage this year. Female voters may yet save America…)

Our fundraiser the other night raised close to our admittedly ambitious goal, and other scheduled events promise to match or exceed that amount. The Democrats running statewide in Indiana don’t need to match the millions that will be available to the GOP candidates who are wholly-owned by the plutocrats; they just need enough to communicate their positions to the voters. (And unlike state legislative candidates, statewide candidates cannot be gerrymandered by our self-serving legislators, which is a huge advantage.)

A timeless political theme is also appropriate here: it’s time for a change.

Indiana has been run by Republicans for some twenty years, and during that time, our economy has sputtered. We have a lower quality of life than our neighboring states. We have repeatedly failed to protect the most vulnerable of our citizens. We’ve stripped women of their most fundamental right–the right to control their own bodies. Republicans in Indiana consistently work to benefit the haves and just as routinely ignore the needs of those who have little. They criticise “welfare” while offering welfare to upper-middle class parents via vouchers, and welfare to businesses promising to locate here. (Evidently, it’s only “welfare” when it goes to “those people.”)

If you agree with me that it is definitely time for a change, donate to Jennifer. And vote Blue up and down the ballot.

Comments

Homeless Hoosiers

At 4:30 on August 20^th, local citizens concerned about homelessness and the city’s thus-far insipid response to that growing phenomenon should plan to attend a showing of Beyond the Bridge. It will be held in Clowes Hall and will be followed by a panel discussion facilitated by Sam Tsemberis–chosen as one of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People of 2024–and a founder of “Housing First.”

Homelessness has been spiking around the country, as housing costs have increased and housing supply has failed to keep up with demand. Between 2022 and 2023, the nation saw a 12% increase in homelessness (in major cities, the increase was 15%). There are many facets to the problem: national corporations buying up rental housing and jacking up prices certainly hasn’t helped. Morton Marcus recently noted that the increase in single-person households has also contributed to the scarcity. The situation with affordability is so severe that many people with full-time jobs have found themselves homeless.

The Brookings Institution conducted one of several recent research projects on the issue. All of the studies I’ve seen are consistent with the Brookings conclusion that punitive measures–clearing encampments, making “public camping” illegal, etc.–aren’t just unhelpful, but counterproductive. As the Brookings report notes, Treating homeless people as criminals can actually make both homelessness and crime worse.

So what does work?

Rather obviously, increasing the supply of affordable housing.

The cities and regions that have embraced the evidence on housing and homelessness have seen positive results. For instance, when the City of Houston and Harris County provided more than 25,000 homeless people with apartments and houses between 2011 and 2022, they saw a 64% reduction of homelessness during the same time period. After Milwaukee County implemented its housing-first program in 2015, its unsheltered homelessness population decreased by 92%. When the City and County of Denver implemented its Social Impact Bond (SIB) Program in 2016, which provided housing and support services to chronically homeless individuals, 77% of participants maintained stable housing after three years, the usage rates of the city’s detoxification services reduced by 65%, and arrests reduced by 40%. The significant cost savings associated with these reductions in public service usage offset the spending associated with supportive housing.

What is less well-known is the broad-based benefits that smart housing policy can have on another critical—and often conflated—issue facing localities: public safety. A strong body of evidence shows that when people are housed stably, they commit fewer survival crimes like theft, robbery, trespassing, loitering, and prostitution.

Increasing the supply of housing is a longer-term solution, so the Brookings report also discusses evidence-based short and medium-length measures, including reforms to zoning and land use laws that unduly restrict housing types, strengthening tenant protections, interceding before evictions occur, and reforming other counterproductive policies. (Several other policies are discussed at length, and you really should click through for that discussion.)

As I have previously noted, Indiana’s legislature has been consistently unwilling to help tenants. The churches and nonprofit organizations funding the Clowes Hall presentation will thus focus on what local officials can–and should– do. Again, the research reporting on successful programs undertaken elsewhere suggest that a Mayor’s leadership is critical.

Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett needs to take at least the following steps.

Convene a meeting that includes the widest variety of stakeholders and provide them with the data. (Here in Indianapolis, whatever we’ve been doing clearly isn’t working and they need to know that.) Then provide them with the overwhelming research confirming that the solution is housing.
From that group–perhaps augmented by academics working on the issue–form a task force. That body should identify what our current approach is missing, what is needed, and what resources will be required. The task force should include service providers, law enforcement, healthcare representatives, and city administrators.
Identify a representative of the city administration to act as a liaison to the task force–someone with the authority to ensure that its recommendations are followed with action. The appointment of such an individual would also be a signal that the city is serious about addressing the problem.

The Mayor should also use the “bully pulpit” of his office, in addition to ensuring that the necessary resources will be provided.

Mayor Hogsett has recently directed a significant amount of energy into efforts to acquire a professional soccer team. Surely eradicating homelessness is at least equally important. (Granted, I’m not a soccer fan…but still!)

Meanwhile, we all need to attend the August 20th Clowes Hall event. The film and panel both promise to be eye-opening. Solutions will be offered–ammunition for lighting a fire under the city administration.

Despite our retrograde legislature, we can end homelessness in Indianapolis.

We just need political leadership– and sufficient political will.

Comments

San Diego Shames Supreme Court

I’ve previously posted about a number of recent Supreme Court cases that have ignored long-time precedents, cherry-picked history, or otherwise done violence to the philosophical basis of the Constitution and the rule of law. One that I haven’t previously addressed falls into a somewhat different category: it’s just wrong and mean-spirited.

The case–Grants Pass v. Johnson–involved an Oregon city that had passed ordinances prohibiting people from sleeping outside in public using a blanket, pillow or cardboard sheet to lie on, even if those people have no other option, i.e., are homeless.

Those challenging the ordinances relied upon the earlier case of Robinson v. California, which had held that it is “cruel and unusual” to criminalize a person’s status, but the majority held that Robinson didn’t apply–that the ordinances penalize behavior rather than status. As a result of that analysis, municipalities can do what Grants Pass did, and subject unhoused people to hundreds of dollars in fines and even jail time for sleeping outside, even when the city admittedly lacks enough shelter beds for them.

The decision reversed a far more reasonable opinion by the Ninth Circuit; that Court held that punishing unhoused people for sleeping in public when they have no access to shelter violates the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The ACLU submitted a brief on behalf of the challengers, and issued a statement on the decision.

“It is hard to imagine a starker example of excessive punishment than fining and jailing a person for the basic human act of sleeping,” said Scout Katovich, staff attorney in the Trone Center for Justice and Equality. “As Justice Sotomayor’s dissent powerfully acknowledged, sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. We cannot arrest our way out of homelessness, and we will continue litigating against cities that are emboldened by this decision to treat unhoused people as criminals.”

The American Civil Liberties Union submitted a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that punishing unhoused people for sleeping outside when they lack access to shelter violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. As the brief highlights, the original intent and meaning of the Eighth Amendment and its application in more than a century of Supreme Court cases make clear that the government cannot impose punishment that is disproportionate to the crime.

There is obviously a great deal more that can be said about this decision, but the practical reality is that it allows local governments to criminalize a social problem. Allowing municipalities to punish homelessness does absolutely nothing to ameliorate the problem. (For that matter, allowing fines to be assessed is asinine; people who cannot afford a bed don’t have resources to pay fines.)

San Diego takes a very different, and far smarter approach to the issue. People who are unsheltered or living in their cars can access parking lots that have been modified to provide more than just a place to stay.

San Diego currently operates four lots where people living in cars or RVs can park overnight, with access to restrooms, services and treatment.

The H Barracks location adds 190 parking spaces, which will nearly double the capacity of the city’s safe parking program.

It’ll be located on five acres between the airport and Liberty Station, and it would serve the large population of people living in oversized vehicles in the Peninsula area.

The pet-friendly lot will be open overnight — 6pm-7am — with onsite security, as well as bathrooms and showers, according to the report.

The lots provide onsite services for case management, housing, health care, mental and behavioral health, plus substance-abuse treatment resources, and patrons are prohibited from drug and alcohol use. Registered sex offenders are not allowed.

The Supreme Court’s tone-deaf opinion effectively allowing municipalities to criminalize homelessness is a classic example of hitting people when they’re down. As a matter of law, it is fatally flawed; as a matter of policy, it’s clueless.

Calling homelessness a “behavior” rather than a status suggests that it is chosen–that it represents a decision made by an individual to forego habitation. Allowing local officials to punish unhoused people is simply cruel. As numerous critics of the decision have pointed out, governments cannot punish their way out of homelessness and poverty. What is needed is evidence-based solutions.

Officials in San Diego obviously recognize that. It will be interesting to see whether that city’s innovative approach results in a reduction of the number of homeless, and whether it will develop follow-up measures aimed at more permanent solutions.

Meanwhile, We the People really need to do something about our rogue Supreme Court…

Comments