Thursday, April 04, 2013

Outrage: Republican Lawmaker Says Christine Scales Is Not A Member Of Republican Caucus

Marion County Republicans are doing everything they can to alienate members of their own party with their bad government legislating. It's not enough that they sponsor legislation to strip the Indianapolis City-County Council of legislative powers to establish a near-dictatorship for the Indianapolis mayor's office. During debate in the Indiana House of Representatives over the Republican-sponsored controversial power grab legislation offered on behalf of Mayor Greg Ballard, State Rep. David Frizzell (R-Indianapolis) disowned one of the most principled Republican council members, Christine Scales, because she has the courage to speak out against SB 621. Radio talk show host Amos Brown minutes ago tweeted the following, quoting Frizzell:

Amos Brown @Amoswtlcindy 13m
GOP Rep Dave Frizzell threw GOP Councilwoman Christine Scales under the bus. Said in House debate Scales "not a member of GOP Caucus".

Amos Brown @Amoswtlcindy 6m
GOP Rep Frizzell says they need UniGov power grab to "stop the madness". But the budget w/$30 mil deficit is in Mayors budget.

Amos Brown @Amoswtlcindy 15m
Radical GOP in IN House rejecting amendments to send the UniGov power grab bill to a study committee.

Just think about it. Mayor Greg Ballard is using your tax dollars to pay Barnes & Thornburg's Joe Loftus to lobby Indiana lawmakers to pass this piece of garbage. The Mayor lacks the courage to even accept public ownership of the legislation his taxpayer-paid lobbyist drafted for Sen. Mike Young to introduce. One of Scales' fellow councilors, Jeff Miller, tweeted his disappointment with Frizzell's comment about Scales:

Jeff Miller @Jeff4Indy 2m
Very sad to hear that. She is a good woman who fights for what she believes in and that is something we all should do.


Marycatherine Barton said...

Have the Marion County Republicans seen "There Will be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly" courtesy of RealEconTV. All should watch.

Unigov said...

I'm no fan of Ballard but if Republicans held the at-large seats, Amos Brown would support SB 621.

At-large seats on the Council are like the Senatorial 'votes' in the Electoral College. Funny that the left is so opposed to SB 621 *and* the Electoral College.

The classier thing to do with at-large would be to terminate them effective 10 years out.

Gary R. Welsh said...

In its current form, the bill retains the four at-large sats.

The Rs insisted on the at-large seats when Uni-Gov was established because they believed they would (a) always win the mayor's race, and (b)the at-large seats would be won by the winning mayoral candidate's party, thereby assuring Republicans at least a 15-seat majority on the 29-member council. They figured that Democrats could do no better than win 14 of the 25 single-member districts on a county-wide basis. The Rs figured the at-large seats provided them a fire wall to holding a majority. Twelve has been the D's best showing to date. The unthinkable happened in 2011. Ballard won but failed to carry a single at-large candidate with him. In 2007, the Rs won all but one of the at-large seats, assuring them a majority. With the changing demographics, the Rs figure the only way they can assure control is to have no at-large seats and gerrymander the single-member districts.

CircleCityScribe said...

I'd like David Frizzell to know that Christine Scales represents me. Frizzell does NOT represent me. Frizzell, go have another cigarette before you spew off with irresponsible comments about my elected official!

I'm proud of the work Christine Scales has done! Christine Scales represents us well!!!

Paul K. Ogden said...

I've pointed this out before. The at-large seats don't simply follow the Mayor's race. That's a myth. At-large seats are baseline seats. They follow the baseline of the county. At-large candidates can only do stuff at the margins to raise them above that baseline.

The mayor race though is not a baseline race. It's a high profile race. While the Mayor's race does track the baseline to a certain degree, the at-large seats closely track the baseline. That's why we have a Republican Mayor and four Democratic at-large members.

Whichever party has a majority in the county will want to keep the at-large seats regardless of who is in the Mayor's Office. That's why Republicans wanted them to begin with and why the Democrats want to keep them now. There are some "good government" reasons too for arguments on both sides, but the political equation dominates.