.png)
Healthcare
4.00
Economics
4.00
Candidate Name
Tiffanie Arthur
District
State House District 63
Values
Grade
Values
Party
Democrat
Experience
Challenger
Grade
Democracy
3.33
Accessibility
4
Governance
4
Cost
Choice
4
X
Freedom
Voting
3
3
Community
3.50
A-
Overall Grade
Education
3.33
Affordability
Equity
Opportunity
4
4
4
Environment
Public Safety
Inclusion
3
4
X
Stability
Funding
Belonging
4
3
3
Notable Information
Candidate Name
Candidate for:
State House District 63
Democrat
Challenger
Notable Information
MADVoters Survey Responses
Healthcare: The Big Beautiful Bill is projected to cut $31 billion from Indiana’s Medicaid funding, including almost $13 billion in hospital funding, over the next decade. What will you do if elected to ensure healthcare affordability and access given these changes? (Source: Indiana Hospital Association)
Rural hospitals in District 63 were already struggling before these proposed Medicaid cuts. We've seen staffing shortages, service reductions, and growing financial pressure on healthcare providers across rural Indiana. That's why these cuts are so concerning, because affordability means very little if people no longer have access to care at all.
As a state legislator, I can't control Medicaid policy on my own, and I think voters deserve honesty about that. But state lawmakers absolutely do make decisions that impact whether rural healthcare systems survive and whether communities can attract and retain providers. If elected, I would support state budgets and legislation that prioritize rural healthcare stability. That includes protecting funding streams for rural hospitals, supporting loan repayment and workforce incentive programs for healthcare professionals willing to serve rural communities, and opposing state policies that further weaken local healthcare systems already operating on thin margins.
I also believe legislators should work more collaboratively with hospitals, healthcare workers, local governments, and patients when crafting healthcare policy. Too often decisions are made at the Statehouse without enough input from the people directly affected by them.
Beyond legislation itself, part of this job is advocacy. A good legislator uses their platform to elevate the realities their communities are facing, push state agencies for answers, connect local providers with available resources, and fight to ensure rural communities are included i statewide healthcare planning and funding discussions. I will also continue advocating for stronger investment in preventative and mental healthcare because when people lose access to basic care locally, health outcomes worsen and costs rise for everyone.
I will fight to make sure rural Indiana is not treated as an afterthought in healthcare policy. Rural Hoosiers deserve leaders willing to confront these challenges honestly and fight for policies that keep healthcare accessible, sustainable, and close to home.
Economics: AI and data centers are having a huge impact on jobs and communities across the nation, particularly in Indiana. What is Congress’s role in addressing this developing technology? What action will you take to hear and represent the concerns of Hoosiers on this topic?
Economics: Dozens of AI data centers are planning to come to Indiana, drawn by the state’s “business-friendly” reputation. How should Indiana manage these large industrial site proposals and their potential impact on communities? (Source: Citizens Action Coalition)
Indiana has spent decades building a reputation as a 'business friendly' state through low corporate taxes, tax abatements, lighter regulations, fast-tracked permitting, and aggressive economic development incentives. For companies, especially large industrial and tech projects, Indiana offers relatively low land and energy costs, available space, and local governments eager to attract investment.
Economic development matters, but being business friendly should not mean communities are expected to absorb enormous impacts without transparency, oversight, or long-term planning.
AI data centers are not small developments. These facilities can require massive amounts of electricity, water, sewer capacity, and infrastructure while often creating far fewer permanent jobs than many residents expect. They also raise legitimate concerns about utility costs, environmental impacts, land use, water resources, noise and light pollution, and the long-term strain on local infrastructure.
I believe Indiana should consider a temporary moratorium on new large-scale data center approvals while the state develops stronger guardrails, clearer decommissioning standards, independent environmental review processes, and a better understanding of the long-term impacts these projects could have on communities and infrastructure.
We cannot move faster than our ability to responsibly regulate these projects.
As a legislator, I would support stronger statewide standards requiring independent impact studies on energy demand, water usage, environmental concerns, and infrastructure strain before projects move forward. I also believe Indiana needs to seriously reevaluate the routine use of large tax abatements and incentives for some of the wealthiest corporations in the world. Hoosier taxpayers should not be expected to subsidize billion-dollar companies while local residents worry about rising utility costs, strained infrastructure, and underfunded public services.
If a corporation is profitable enough to build a massive data center operation, then it should be capable of paying its fair share toward the infrastructure and resources that project requires. Too often, local communities are asked to take on the risks while corporations receive the rewards. Residents are told to trust promises of future economic growth, while taxpayers help fund infrastructure expansions, utility upgrades, and incentive packages upfront.
I am not opposed to economic development. I want Indiana to grow and attract jobs and innovation. But economic development should be a partnership, not a blank check. If companies want to build data centers here, they should prove they are willing to be good neighbors by operating transparently, investing responsibly, protecting local resources, and contributing fairly to the communities they build in.
Public policy should prioritize long-term community stability over corporate giveaways, and taxpayers deserve to know that their elected officials are negotiating in the public's best interest, not simply competing to offer the largest incentives package. Being 'business friendly' should never come at the expense of transparency, responsible planning, or the people who have to live with the consequences long after the headlines and ribbon cuttings are over.
Education: Describe your stance on the Department of Education and its role in education administration, funding, and protections for students with disabilities.
Education: Since 2012, Indiana has spent over $5.5 billion in taxpayer dollars on charter schools and the private school voucher program. If elected, would you support or oppose the use of taxpayer dollars to funding private schools and charter schools? Why or why not? (Source: ICPE)
I support strong public schools, and I believe public tax dollars should primarily be invested in the public education system that serves the overwhelming majority of Indiana students. Around 90% of Hoosier students attend public schools, yet Indiana has spent billions expanding vouchers and charter programs while many public schools, especially in rural areas, face growing financial pressures, staffing shortages, and shrinking budgets.
The recent removal of income limits for the voucher program is another major shift away from the original purpose of the program. What began as targeted assistance to families with financial need has steadily expanded into a system where taxpayer dollars increasingly subsidize private education for families who may have never attended public schools in the first place.
There is also a fundamental fairness and accountability issue here. Public schools are required to educate every student who walks through their doors, regardless of disability status, income, academic performance, behavioral challenges, or support needs. They operate under public oversight, transparency requirements, standardized reporting, and elected school boards. Many private schools receiving public voucher dollars are not held to those same standards despite receiving taxpayer funding. If taxpayer dollars are being used, taxpayers deserve transparency, accountability, and assurance that all students are being served fairly.
As a legislator, I would oppose further expansion of voucher programs that continue diverting resources away from public schools without clear evidence of better statewide outcomes. I believe Indiana needs to take a serious look at the long-term financial impact these policies are having on local school districts, taxpayers, and our communities.
That does not mean I dismiss parents wanting educational choices for their children. I understand every child learns differently, and some families have found alternative settings that work well for them. But those choices should not come at the expense of adequately funding the public schools that are required to educate every child and serve the vast majority of Indiana families.
I want to see Indiana refocus on strengthening public education by investing in teachers, workforce development programs, student mental health support, and ensuring rural schools have the resources they need to succeed.
Public education is one of the most important investments we make in our communities and our future. I believe our policies, and our taxpayer dollars, should reflect that.
Democracy: In your opinion, what is the biggest challenge or threat facing our democracy right now? If elected, what will you do to help overcome this challenge or threat?
I believe one of the biggest threats facing our democracy right now is the growing loss of trust between the public and elected officials. Too many people feel unheard, shut out of the process, or that major decisions are being made behind closed doors without meaningful public input. That lack of transparency has left many voters feeling disillusioned and disenfranchised, and when people stop believing their voices matter, democracy itself becomes weaker.
I also think many Hoosiers have grown frustrated watching politics become more about power, party loyalty, and political careers than public service. People want leaders who are focused on solving problems and improving their communities, not constantly fighting for influence, attention, or the next political step up the ladder. When elected officials become more concerned with holding onto power than listening to the people they represent, trust erodes quickly. And once trust is broken, it becomes much harder for communities to work together, even on issues that directly affect their everyday lives.
How many people have actually been able to speak directly to their elected representatives when they have concerns, not just receive a form email or talk to a staff member? People want to be heard. They want to know someone is actually listening to the realities they are living every day.
If elected, I will prioritize transparency, accessibility, and honest communication with constituents. I believe voters deserve leaders who clearly explain where they stand, answer difficult questions directly, and remain engaged with the people they represent, not just during campaign season, but throughout their time in office. I believe government works best when people feel informed and involved. That means protecting public access to meetings and information, encouraging meaningful public input, and making sure communities have a voice before major decisions are made.
At the end of the day, public office is supposed to be about serving people, not managing them, ignoring them, or using the position as a path to greater power. I believe leadership starts with listening, accountability, and remembering that elected officials work for the public, not the other way around.
Community: Describe your stance on ICE and its role in immigration enforcement and detention.
Community: What role or responsibility do local and state governments have with regards to immigration enforcement?
This is a very nuanced and complicated issue, and I think a lot of Hoosiers are frustrated because immigration is both deeply important and has become deeply politicized at the same time.
Immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility. The federal government controls border policy, visas, asylum law, and deportation enforcement. Local and state governments absolutely have responsibilities when it comes to public safety, and ensuring laws are followed fairly and consistently. I do not want local law enforcement agencies to become part of federal immigration enforcement operations. Local police officers and sheriffs are hired to protect and serve their communities, by responding to emergencies, investigating crimes, and building trust with the people they serve. Pulling them into federal immigration enforcement risks stretching already limited resources even thinner and damaging relationships between law enforcement and the communities they are meant to protect.
There have always been legal processes in place to comply with federal immigration policies once someone has gone through due process, and that should not and does not need to change. But there is a difference between complying with the law and turning local agencies into extensions of federal enforcement efforts or political agendas. I also do not believe local agencies should be pressured from the federal level into carrying out politically driven priorities that may not reflect the needs of their own communities.
It's important to remember that these conversations are not just about politics or headlines. These are real people. Immigrants, regardless of status, are our friends, neighbors, coworkers, classmates, and small business owners. That does not mean we ignore laws or dismiss the importance of secure systems, but it does mean we approach this issue with humanity, honesty, and respect instead of fear and division.
I believe Hoosiers what practical and fair solutions, and responsible leadership, not political theater. As a legislator, my responsibility would be to focus on policies that strengthen communities here in Indiana: supporting public safety, ensuring tax payer dollars are used responsibly, protecting constitutional rights, and making sure state government stays focused on the issues it can realistically and effectively address.
I believe we can uphold the law while still treating people with dignity and respect. Those values are not mutually exclusive, and I think most Hoosiers understand that better than politicians often give them credit for.