IBJNews

Republicans keep supermajority in Indiana Senate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Republicans held on to their supermajority in the Indiana Senate, maintaining a 37-13 edge after Tuesday's election.

Thirty-three seats were needed to keep a Senate supermajority.

Area candidates helped the GOP keep the same edge it had before the election.

In District 30, one of the tighter races of the day, Republican Scott Schneider received 49 percent of the vote, squeaking out a victory over Democrat Tim DeLaney, who had 48 percent.

District 24 went to Republican Pete Miller, who won 68 percent of the vote, over Democrat Charles Albert Bender.

In District 28, Republican Michael Crider captured 61 percent of the vote.

In District 32, Republican Patricia Miller won with 59 percent over Democrat John Barnes.

Democrat Greg Taylor won the District 33 state Senate seat in a landslide, with 90 percent of the vote, over Libertarian Gena Martinez.

Michael Young, a Republican, took 57 percent of the vote to defeat Democrat Mark Waterfill in District 35.

Republican Brent Waltz won the District 36 race with 53 percent of the vote, topping Mary Ann Sullivan.

In District 37, Republican Rodric Bray easily defeated Democrat Jim Cahill with 71 percent of the vote.

Republicans also gained nine seats in the Indiana House, giving the party 69 seats. The GOP needed 67 seats in the House to conduct business even if no Democrats are present.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT