Chris Douglas

Understanding today's change in the Marion County Republican Party

Filed By Chris Douglas | February 10, 2007 2:16 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: Marion County

This morning the Marion County Republican Party met in convention to elect a new chair. The event is significant for the glbt community in Indianapolis, as well as for all moderates. Below I discuss the election, some background relevant to the glbt community, and ramifications.

The Election

The Marion County Republican convention was chaired by Representative Jon Elrod, in itself a significant selection for the gay community. Elrod has been forthright in his opposition to SJR-7, the measure voiding the equal protection clause of the State Constitution as it applies to gays. It is Elrod's public position that marriage is a matter for churches, not government.

Four Candidates were nominated for the position of Chair. Sally Spiers, a progressive of the Keith Bulen school, was nominated by Greg Jordan, former Marion County Treasurer and mayoral candidate. Bob Croddy, a conservative, was nominated by his wife. (William?) Foreman, whose politics were not well-defined, was nominated by City County Councilor Earl Salisbury. Tom John was nominated by Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi.

The meeting held some drama, especially for those of us in attendance from the glbt community. Sally Spiers spoke well of Party building in offering herself as a sporting alternative to John. Croddy, on the other hand, attacked John head-on as a liberal attorney, apparently giving voice to the conservative depression that followed last November. Calling himself a traditional Republican, Croddy's main line of attack was upon any Marion County Republican that he classified as different from himself. He reserved his venom especially for people like Scott Keller who were "promoting the homosexual agenda." He reported Keller's statement that Tom John and Scott Keller were on the same page on social issues.

On the first ballot, Tom John received better than 50% of the votes, which when combined with votes for Sally Spiers, indicates that the vast majority of Marion County precinct committee people voted overwhelmingly against the conservative position.


I was among those who, while harboring affection for Sally Spiers, endorsed Tom John in his successful bid for Marion County Republican Chair. I think it's important for the glbt community to understand the significance and ramifications of his success.

Tom John was campaign manager for Todd Rokita in Rokita's 2002 run for Secretary of State. In that capacity, on behalf of Rokita, he issued that Campaign's nondiscrimination policy, a policy that appeared years before Democrat Mayor Peterson, for instance, took that step. That policy was ground-breaking also in being the first nondiscrimination policy in Indiana in which the words "gender identity" were included.

It is now also possible, I think, to shed light on the candidacy and subsequent withdraw from public office of Isaac Randolph. Tom John was serving as campaign advisor for Isaac Randolph and coordinated Randolph's meeting with glbt Republicans. From that campaign too issued a comprehensive nondiscrimination policy, as well as an understanding from Randolph that he would back the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity to the Human Rights Ordinance. In betraying that understanding, Randolph not only betrayed the glbt community from which he derived funds and votes enough to earn him the small margin of victory for his seat, but he betrayed John's good word upon which some in the community had relied. In his betrayal, Randolph made future moderate support for his candidacies impossible. As Republican consensus built around Tom John for Marion County Chair, whom he had embarrassed and betrayed, Randolph could not but understand that any future bid for Republican office in Marion County would be difficult.


Tom John, in my estimation, is a significant step forward for the Republican Party as a competitive force in Marion County. The changes in the Marion County Republican Party portend an eventual healthy challenge to Democratic Party rule, which will ultimately succeed. As politics are cyclical, we will see paths to power under Democratic rule become clogged for talented people as interests entrench and corruption sets in. (These are not Democratic qualities, but the qualities of every unified government under the rule of either party, witness Republican corruption in Washington, D.C.)

Though Republican conservatives in Marion County will continue to vie for office, they will meet with decreasing success, and ultimately, defeat. In the next cycle, provided that Tom John and his team work effectively, the moderate wing of the Republican Party in Marion County will prove an important avenue for talent and innovative thinking about government. Democratic States have elected Republican Governors (Massachusetts and New Jersey, for example) and Democratic cities have elected Republican mayors (New York City's Guiliani and Bloomberg and Los Angeles's Riordan, and even Indianapolis's Lugar, for example). Remember that Bloomberg had to leave the Democratic Party in order to get to the top in a Democratic city. Indianapolis will elect successful moderate Republicans who are bound neither by GOP conservative thinking nor by Democratic Party power dynamics.

Like the Democratic Party, the GOP will always have our losers... I saw some today... but in today's action lies an exciting future for politics in Marion County.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Any other races slated?

So who did the GOP slate for the 4 at-large Council seats? What are their politics?

Chris Douglas | February 10, 2007 5:16 PM

After the election of chair, the convention slated four at-large candidates and then broke to slate candidates for district level city county council seats.

Of the 4 at-large seats, two ran on a platform and two ran on their personalities. None of them spoke to glbt issues, so I would hesitate to speculate. One, unwittingly, will provide comic relief. Think of a cross between a Chris Farley Saturday Night Live character and Walter Mitty. Another was reasonable. A third was young with some budding charisma.

With regard to all, I would neither wish to promote nor denigrate their candidacies until much more is known. There is at least one strong candidate for a city county council seat who I think would be a credit to the GOP and a good colleague to Scott Keller and Lance Langford.

Chris, forgive me of my ignorance of issues of importance to the glbt community, but what politically speaking would appeal to that community..from an at large or district candidate?

Thanks Cris. Any names? Would like to know who is slated for CCC distist 4

I'm afraid I have no names... I didn't write them down, and they were not listed on any piece of paper that I remember. Regarding district slots, they were attended to after the convention broke up into district meetings. Being new to attending such an event, I have no idea how to get such information.

Mike, regarding issues, the first and most basic is a general stance of support for comprehensive nondiscrimination and the HRO, remembering that right wing fanatics in Cincinnati managed in the early 1990's managed to pass a measure reversing nondiscrimination policies and that the Governor of Ohio dropped his office's comprehensive nondiscrimination policy.

A willingness to treat GLBT people with decency is an important baseline as one addresses a whole host of public policies.

Mike, unfortunately, you could be a conservative on a fishing expedition, so I am forced to become coy, (which, come to think of it, is also a pun.) If, on the other hand, you yourself are a candidate for public office or an advisor, feel free to call me. I would be happy to talk. My office phone is 317.843.8300.

Poor ole' Chris... | February 11, 2007 9:06 AM

CD still has hope for his party. Admirable, but a fool's errand.

I'm hoping Phil Hinkle runs for mayor. That would be hilarious, and it might keep himn out of the Statehouse. The pompous ass...

Uh, Chris, aren't you jumping to conclusions? Scott Keller will have a strong, credible Democratic opponent this fall. And the Langsfords, well...only a down-and-out Marion COunty Republican party owuld kick a returning military man in the teeth, but it looks like they will. His council n"colleagues" tried multiple times. Shameful.

I agree that the GOP's treatment of Langsford is deplorable.

I also know that as a voter in Scott Keller's district - and a die hard Democrat - I'll be voting for Scott. And I'll be walking the district for him, sending in donations, phone banking, whatever.

I've met VERY few politicians that have earned the friendship of our community as much as Scott Keller has. Anyone who lets partisan politics blind them to the fact that Keller has done more for the LGBT community in Indiana than most Democrats, is on - as the commentor says - "a fool's errand."

Chris Douglas | February 11, 2007 11:27 AM

There is a value to anonymous questions, for they reveal someone is monitoring and thinking.

But I have come to be amused by anonymous commentators, some of whom I know. Rather than lend personal reputation to a cause, whatever that cause may be, they snipe from the bushes.

I have been sorely tempted to publish anonymously on occasion. Those times have been when I wanted to get important points across to the community without having those points reflect on any of the organizations of which I am a part. I have still have never done so. Never have I been tempted to post anonymously in order to attack or snipe.

Even when well intended, it is impossible to discriminate between the posts of someone who is of staunch and helpful character and someone is weak-willed and protective only of themselves or conflicted interests. It's amazing how much more credibility is apparent in someone who adds his or her real name to a post.

I am amused, not threatened, because over the years I've noticed that anonymous snipers invariably damage whatever cause they think they serve.