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. 

Democrats are going all out to defeat Keller

Scott Keller (District 16), who is running for re-election, both sponsored and voted for the HRO. The Democrats are going all out to defeat him this year with yet another Mahern. (Advance Indiana)

Keller has LGBT support

This is a strong-willed man who has been willing to buck expectations and stand defiantly in the face of hate and discrimination to demand equality and dignity for Indiana’s LGBTQ citizens. He not only scrapped and fought for the HRO, he testified in front of the state legislature against SJR-7, the same-sex marriage constitutional amendment, has raised money for LGBTQ organizations, marches in the Indy Pride parade, and attended countless meetings and brainstorming sessions. Most of you know how hard I worked to ensure passage of the Indy HRO and to stop SJR-7; Scott was beside me the entire time working his butt off too. He is a dedicated public servant – and he’s in another tight race this year.  (Bil Browing: Bilerico Project)

Has Scott Keller abandoned the GOP?

In his first term on the city-county council, Scott Keller has underscored traditional GOP principles despite vociferous criticism from the extreme right. He led the successful passage of the city’s Human Rights Ordinance over the objections of many within his own party because he believes strongly in equality for all citizens, a principle upon which the Republican Party was founded. He further angered some members of his party when he supported Mayor Peterson’s effort to consolidate law enforcement agencies. This, however, was really just a continuation of the process started by former Mayor Richard Lugar (R) and other local Republican leaders more than 35 years ago to streamline and economize the delivery of governmental services in Marion County. Although an angry Jim Bradford urged Keller and another GOP council member, Lance Langsford, to leave the party after voting with the Democrats on these two critical matters, Bradford’s sentiment was shared by few within the Republican Party, particularly those who understand the party has to seek greater diversity to have a fighting chance in an ever-increasingly diverse Marion County.

More recent developments, though, have shaken support for Keller within the GOP. Keller is not supporting GOP mayoral hopeful Greg Ballard in his effort to defeat 8-year incumbent Bart Peterson (D). In fact, Keller is supporting the Mayor’s re-election bid and showed up at a Peterson fundraiser earlier this summer to prove the point. Although Keller says he is not counting on the Mayor’s support in his own council bid for re-election against Brian Mahern (D), others insist Keller is operating under the delusion Peterson is supporting his re-election bid and will help him out. So committed is Keller to helping out Peterson that he has pledged to support Mayor Peterson’s 65% increase in the county option income tax despite an earlier increase in the COIT and record increases in Marion County property taxes this year. Keller is unapologetic about his position. Keller says he received no support from the GOP in his race 4 years ago, and the party is focused on races other than his this year. Furthermore, he insists his constituents want him to vote for a tax increase to put more police officers on the street.

Keller’s antipathy towards the party is surprising. Keller’s choice for Marion County GOP chairman, Tom John, took over the party earlier this year. John has supported an inclusive approach to reach out to Marion County’s diverse population unlike his predecessor, Mike Murphy. John has been helping build support for the GOP’s ticket this year, and tapping into voter anger with rising taxes is critical to the GOP’s success this year. A less than united front on the tax issue is problemmatic for the GOP. City-County Councilor Lance Langsford (R) too is supporting the Mayor’s tax increase. Unlike Keller, however, Langsford was brushed aside this year in favor of another council candidate. As a firefigher, Langsford is probably more concerned at this point in making sure there’s plenty of money in the budget for firefighter salaries and pensions than he is about his own party’s fortunes in this year’s election.

Keller’s unabashed support for Peterson’s tax increase is very disturbing. Like Keller, I too supported the police consolidation ordinance. I’m very distressed, however, by the lack of proof that the consolidation generated the millions in promised savings. It seems Mayor Peterson and Sheriff Anderson were so concerned about handing out promotions left and right prior to the consolidation that the newly-formed IMPD is more top heavy than ever before. More disturbing was the discovery that more than 137 police jobs have been allowed to become vacant this past year despite funding in the budget for them. Now were told we have to pay higher taxes to get back the police officers we already funded and were promised when Mayor Peterson was first elected 8 years ago. Moreover, Mayor Peterson insisted we could do it without a tax increase. “Raising taxes may sound like an easy answer, but if we want to avoid the urban death spiral that so many other American cities have experienced, we cannot give individuals and businesses an incentive to leave our city,” Peterson said 7 years ago in rejecting a tax increase to fund public safety and unfunded pensions costs.

Keller insists that the police positions, pension liabilities and criminal justice obligations cannot be met without this latest tax increase. Keller complains that the schools are to blame for the skyrocketing property tax bills, not the city. Yet, Keller and other proponents of the tax offer no explanation to already hard-hit taxpayers for what is being done with the huge increases in the city-county tax levies. County taxes are up 25%, Indianapolis fire district taxes are up 34% and city taxes are up 9%. Keller insists that folks at the Chamber of Commerce have been over the city’s budget, and that extra money can only be found by cutting parks, libraries, patching streets, etc. to raise sufficient funds to hire more officers, all choices he is unwilling to make.

While Keller patiently heard my pleas to vote against the Mayor’s tax increase, he has chosen to cast his lot with the leadership of Mayor Bart Peterson. He tells me he is sorry to have me mad at him over this issue, but he insists there is no alternative. I think Keller is making a terrible mistake on this vote, as well as the other councilors who plan to vote for it. It is the complete disconnect in their understanding of the impact they are having on the lives of the working men and women of Marion County, who’ve already been knocked down hard by their staggering property tax bills, by clobbering them with yet another tax increase that I find really distressing.

Keller really has lost his way on this one. As a pioneer in promoting the redevelopment of our inner city neighborhoods, Keller should understand more than anyone that higher taxes is the last thing the city should be considering if it wants to keep the people who’ve invested their livelihood into restoring the city’s older neighborhoods here. The people who gave the city a second chance are now going to be fleeing in droves to the collar counties. Not because they want to leave the city, but because Mayor Peterson, Scott Keller and other city leaders are giving them no other choice.  (Advance Indiana)

An Indy Prider’s view

This year’s parade included several floats, but as far as politicians go I readily picked out these City-County Councilors: Republican Scott Keller and Democrats Jackie Nytes and Joanne Sanders. I kept dropping by Scott’s booth and it was great to see so many community members stop by and wish him luck in his election this year. The entire LGBT community of Indianapolis owes Scott a great deal for his courageous leadership on the human rights ordinance. While his oppenent, Brian Mahern, was also at Pride touting how his family has a history of civil rights leadership, I think it’s important to point out that Scott doesn’t have to count what other members of his family have already done 40 years ago – Scott’s doing it himself now – on our behalf. As I’ve said before, this will be the first time I’ve ever voted Republican, but I’ll do so gladly. (Bil Browning: The Bilerico Project)