Andrew Dezelan

Candidate Q&A

In your view, what was the most important issue to come out of this year’s legislative session, and how would you have approached legislating the issue?

The most important issue from this session was affordability — and HEA 1002 was the clearest evidence of both what Indiana got right and what it’s still getting wrong.

HEA 1002 shifted Indiana toward performance-based ratemaking for utilities. In theory, that means utility companies only earn their return when they actually deliver on affordability and reliability benchmarks, rather than collecting a guaranteed return regardless of performance. That’s a meaningful structural change, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. But here’s what the bill didn’t do: it didn’t give local governments any meaningful role in setting the terms. The framework still lives entirely at the state level. Fishers can’t negotiate on behalf of its residents. Indianapolis can’t set conditions. Counties have no seat at the table. The Statehouse decides what “performance” means, and utilities answer to the Statehouse — not to the communities actually paying the bills.

That’s the pattern I’d have fought to change. Utility affordability doesn’t exist in isolation. The same families who are watching their electric bills climb are the ones who can’t find affordable child care because Indiana slashed CCDF provider reimbursement rates by up to 35% in the last budget cycle — driving nearly 190 providers to close and pushing the waitlist for child care subsidies past 30,000 children. They’re the same families absorbing the $744 million in public school funding cuts projected over the next two years. They’re the same families who saw Indiana cut local public health funding from $100 million a year to $40 million in the last budget. Every one of those decisions was made at the Statehouse, without meaningful local input, and every one of them lands on the same household budget.

I spent over a decade as Policy Director for the Indiana Senate Democratic Caucus. I’ve watched this building make these tradeoffs up close. What I would have pushed for in HEA 1002 is a framework that ties utility performance benchmarks directly to affordability outcomes for low- and middle-income households — not just reliability metrics that utilities can game — and that requires genuine consultation with local governments before rate structures are approved. And I’d have used that bill as the opening to demand the same accountability logic apply to child care, education, and public health: if the state is going to centralize the decision-making, it has to own the outcomes. Right now Indiana wants the authority without the accountability. That’s the fight I’m running to take on.

Companies proposing data centers in Indianapolis had touted jobs and local tax revenue as benefits. Residents, many of whom have fiercely opposed the proposals, are concerned about pollution, energy bills and property values. What is your stance on the future of data centers in Indianapolis?

This is a question Indianapolis gets to ask, but the answers are largely set in state law — and that’s the problem. Data centers bring jobs numbers that look good in press releases and tax increment that looks good on a ledger. What they also bring is enormous energy demand, water consumption, noise, and land use pressure in neighborhoods that didn’t sign up for any of it. The state’s current incentive structure rewards deal-making over community review. I’d support legislation that requires genuine local input — not a rubber-stamp public comment period, but actual local government authority to set binding conditions on siting, environmental impact, and infrastructure cost-sharing before any incentive package is approved. Communities shouldn’t have to fight a done deal. They should be at the table when the deal is made.

Indianapolis residents are facing steep increases to the cost of living at the same time federal benefits are being pulled back. What is one policy you would pursue to ease the financial burden of your constituents?

Child care affordability is where I’d focus first. Indiana is leaving federal CCDF matching dollars on the table, our child care subsidy system is notoriously difficult to navigate, and too many families in SD-31 and across Marion County are either paying more than their rent for child care or dropping out of the workforce because they can’t. I’d push to maximize Indiana’s CCDF match, expand income eligibility for Child Care and Development Fund subsidies, and simplify the application process — which is, frankly, designed to discourage participation. This is also an economic argument, not just a social one. We are losing workforce participation because of child care. That costs employers, municipalities, and the state tax base. It’s one of the few issues where the fiscal case and the equity case point in exactly the same direction.

More than 1 in 10 Marion County residents were born outside the country. President Donald Trump’s administration is pursuing a immigration agenda that has led to mass detentions and at times resulted in the deaths of citizens and noncitizens. What is your role in maintaining the safety and due process rights of immigrants and other residents in Marion County?

State senators don’t control federal immigration enforcement. But they control a lot of what shapes whether immigrants in Marion County can safely interact with schools, hospitals, public services, and law enforcement. I would oppose any state legislation that turns Indiana into a force multiplier for federal immigration enforcement—including proposals to require local law enforcement cooperation with civil immigration detainers beyond what federal law requires. I’d advocate for legislation protecting access to state services regardless of immigration status, and I’d work to ensure that the due process protections Indiana’s constitution guarantees apply to everyone in Indiana, not just citizens. Marion County’s immigrant community is part of the economic and civic fabric of this state. Treating it as a threat is both morally wrong and practically destructive.

How should public tax dollars be spent on education? Do you support property tax funding for charter schools? Should Indiana fund students’ tuition to attend private schools?

Public tax dollars should fund public schools. That’s not a slogan — it’s a resource question. Indiana has built a school choice framework that redirects public funding to private institutions with far less accountability, transparency, or civil rights protection than public schools are required to maintain. Charter schools that receive property tax funding should meet the same reporting, accountability, and transparency standards as traditional public schools. On private school vouchers: the program has grown dramatically, it now serves families who were never in the public system, and the evidence that it improves outcomes is weak. I would not expand the voucher program. I’d redirect that energy toward fully funding public schools, which remain underfunded in ways that show up clearly in teacher pay, classroom resources, and facility conditions. Public education is the institution that serves every child regardless of circumstance. That’s where the investment belongs.