Keller has raised more than twice as much as any other council candidate in either party

Republican Scott Keller has raised $57,000 in recent campaign contributions, more than twice as much as any other City-County Council candidates in either party.
Keller, a moderate who barely won a heavily Democratic district in 2003, has raised nearly half as much money over the course of the year as mayoral candidate Greg Ballard. Council districts have about 35,000 voters, compared to more than 800,000 in Marion County.
Keller faces Brian Mahern, a Democrat challenger with family name recognition but a much smaller campaign chest. Mahern reported raising nearly $7,300 from April 14 to Oct. 12. Keller said many Republicans, and even some Democrats, have responded to his moderate approach and willingness to work with Democrats on initiatives ranging from a police merger to equal rights protection. (Hoosier Access, 10/24/07)

2007 LGBT Voter Guide

Indiana Equality Political Action Committee recently asked each candidate for city/county council two questions.

1.  If elected, would you support or oppose continued protections for LGBT citizens as provided in the current Human Rights Ordinance?

2.  Would you support or oppose an ordinance providing Indianapolis/Marion County public employees with the opportunity to access domestic partner benefits (at the cost to the individual employee)? Here are the answers:

Scott Keller

December 2005 vote on changes to the Indianapolis/Marion County Human Rights Ordinance that successfully added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes:  YES  

Support/oppose the current Indianapolis/Marion Human Rights Ordinance:  Support 

Support/oppose an ordinance providing Indianapolis/Marion County public employees with the opportunity to access domestic partner benefits (at the cost to the individual employee):  Support  

Statement on how this candidate would promote a safe community that celebrates all people, including LGBT people and their families:  Did not provide closing statement. 

Brian Mahern

December 2005 vote on changes to the Indianapolis/Marion County Human Rights Ordinance that successfully added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes: N/A   

Support/oppose the current Indianapolis/Marion Human Rights Ordinance: Support  

Support/oppose an ordinance providing Indianapolis/Marion County public employees with the opportunity to access domestic partner benefits (at the cost to the individual employee): Support    

Statement on how this candidate would promote a safe community that celebrates all people, including LGBT people and their families: All Indianapolis residents, and their families, regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity, deserve to live in neighborhoods free of gun violence, abandoned houses, crumbling sidewalks and exorbitant property taxes. People have waited long enough for the City to successfully address these important issues. As a new voice on the council, I will work on reducing abandoned housing as a top priority to reduce crime and increase property revenue for the benefit of all.   

Paul Dijak-Robinson

December 2005 vote on changes to the Indianapolis/Marion County Human Rights Ordinance that successfully added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected classes: N/A   

Support/oppose the current Indianapolis/Marion Human Rights Ordinance: Support – The passage of the Human Rights Ordinance I believe was passed as a matter of best practice, and as such, Indianapolis showed a commitment to an inclusive form rather than exclusive approach to government. As such, I believe city govbernment will benefit from being labled to draw from a larger pool of qualified candidates when filling job positions and attrracting talent. So long as the statute is limited to the actions of our government, then it is an acceptable excersie of implementing the best practice. Libertarians have long been defenders of individual rights and have always fought against government regulation of private actions. Many of our top corporations have seen the wisdom of welcoming the LGBT community (Eli Lilly, Conseco, Cummins, etc.), and they are stronger for it, but these have been actions taken on the basis of market forces and not the result of government intervention. However, I am unwilling to see this battle fought once again. I am content to let the statute stand when (in my opinion) there are far greater concerns facing this city than re-opening this issue.   

Support/oppose an ordinance providing Indianapolis/Marion County public employees with the opportunity to access domestic partner benefits (at the cost to the individual employee): Support – Being the owner of a 2-person business, I know how difficult it can be to secure health insurance from any source. My wife is a Type 1 Diabetic, which makes us a particularly high risk to our insurer, so the issue of health insurance has long been an important one to us. I strongly support the ability of domestic partners to access health insurance at thei own expense from the county health plan. My concern with this approach is being able to adequately quantify the impact on the cost to all insured by increasing the members of the insurance pool. If the city decides to add this benefit to its employees, I would only support it after a complete study of those insurance plans that private companies have in place to see how adding domestic partners to their company plans impacted all members. Not having made that study myself, I have no idea if the inclusion of domestic partners increase or decreases overall costs/person of if insurers rate those categories the same of differently than those that do not inlcude domestic partnerships. Additionally, I would place a high value of adopting the policies and practices used by those private companies when determining eligibility of applicants. So long as it can be shown that all of the additional costs of adding those partners to the insurance coverage are fully and only covered by those electing to participate, I would be completely in favor of adding that benefit.    

Statement on how this candidate would promote a safe community that celebrates all people, including LGBT people and their families: It should come as no surprise that Libertarians bristle at the assumption that Government needs to be the source of solutions and not common sense or dictates of the marketplace. I sincerely applaud the activism of IEPAC as well as those companies who welcome the LGBT community. I would focus far more attention on highlighting the progress voluntarily made by our city’s companies than trying to push passage of ordinances that extend beyond government activities.