.png)
Healthcare
4.00
Economics
4.00
Candidate Name
Natasha Baker
District
State Senate District 22
Values
Grade
Values
Party
Democrat
Experience
Challenger
Grade
Democracy
4.00
Accessibility
4
Governance
4
Cost
Choice
4
4
Freedom
Voting
4
4
Community
4.00
A+
Overall Grade
Education
4.00
Affordability
Equity
Opportunity
4
4
4
Environment
Public Safety
Inclusion
4
4
4
Stability
Funding
Belonging
4
4
4
Notable Information
Candidate Name
Candidate for:
State Senate District 22
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)
Ensuring those in rural areas have access to healthcare should be a top priority, especially mental healthcare and maternal care. Indiana needs to explore additional revenue streams and evaluate all budget line items to ensure that money is being spent on priority projects. That means having honest conversations about new sources of revenue, including the legalization and taxation of marijuana, which has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in neighboring states. Indiana needs to tax data centers and stop no-bid contracts. We also need to focus on policies that raise wages for Hoosiers, because when people earn a living wage, fewer families are forced to rely on public assistance programs simply to survive. We should also hold large employers accountable for providing affordable healthcare coverage rather than shifting those costs onto taxpayers through Medicaid and other state-funded programs. As federal healthcare cuts threaten our hospitals through the Big Beautiful Bill, we should aggressively pursue federal grants, expand incentives for healthcare providers to practice in rural communities, invest in telehealth infrastructure, and explore public-private partnerships that increase access without increasing costs for patients. We should also crack down on healthcare billing fraud and waste, which costs taxpayers millions, while protecting services for children, seniors, people with disabilities, and working families.
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)
I support a moratorium on new data center development until legislation and regulatory frameworks can catch up to the rapid pace of construction. Before approving additional projects, Indiana must fully study the economic, environmental, and infrastructure impacts of these facilities so taxpayers and communities understand their true costs and benefits.
Local communities must have a meaningful voice in these decisions. I oppose efforts to override local control and silence the residents who will live alongside these facilities. Those communities deserve a seat at the table when decisions are being made that will affect their quality of life for decades. Data centers can have significant impacts on the surrounding area, including increased demands on water and energy resources, concerns about soil, air, and water quality, and issues related to noise and light pollution. While these projects often promise economic development, the reality is that after the initial construction phase, relatively few permanent jobs are created compared to the amount of land, infrastructure, and resources consumed. Hoosiers are already expressing concerns about rising utility costs, and many fear they will be forced to subsidize the enormous electricity demands of large data centers. I believe these companies should be responsible for paying the full cost of the infrastructure and utility upgrades required to support their operations. Ratepayers should not be left holding the bill. I also oppose tax abatements and special incentives for data centers. At a time when Indiana is searching for revenue to fund public schools, healthcare, roads, and other essential services, we should not be giving away tax dollars to some of the largest corporations in the world. Any future legislation governing data centers should require project labor agreements that support Indiana workers, prohibit taxpayer-funded subsidies, ensure companies bear the full cost of their utility usage and infrastructure needs, establish strong environmental protections, and preserve local control. Indiana should prioritize responsible development that benefits communities, not corporate welfare that shifts costs onto working families.
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 do not believe public tax dollars should be spent on private schools that have little public oversight and can choose which students they admit or remove. Public schools in Indiana educate nearly 90% of our students, and diverting funding away from those schools harms the vast majority of Hoosier children, especially in rural communities where no private or charter school option even exists. Indiana's voucher program now provides taxpayer-funded tuition assistance regardless of family income, and studies have shown that most voucher recipients were already planning to attend private schools without state assistance. Rather than expanding educational opportunities, the program often subsidizes decisions families had already made. Private and charter schools are not held to the same standards as public schools. They are not required to hire licensed teachers, may refuse admission to students based on academic performance, disabilities, behavioral history, or other factors, and can teach curricula that may not align with state standards, college readiness, or workforce preparation. At the same time, public schools are legally required to educate every child who walks through their doors.There is also a significant financial inefficiency built into the system. When a student attends a private or charter school using voucher funds and is later expelled or counseled out, the school often retains the funding already received. The student then returns to a public school, which must educate them with little or no additional funding to cover the cost. Taxpayers effectively pay twice.The evidence simply does not support vouchers as a wise investment. Research has found that academic gains are often minimal or nonexistent, while the impact on public school funding can be substantial. Indiana should focus on strengthening the schools that serve the overwhelming majority of our students by fully funding public education, supporting teachers, reducing class sizes, and ensuring every child, regardless of where they live or how much money their family makes, has access to a high-quality education.Public dollars should remain in public schools, where there is transparency, accountability, and a commitment to serving every student.
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 the greatest threat to our democracy today is gerrymandering. In a representative democracy, voters should choose their elected officials, not the other way around. When politicians draw district lines to protect their own power, they dilute the voices of voters and undermine the principle of fair representation. Gerrymandering contributes to voter apathy by convincing people that their votes do not matter. In Indiana, where voter turnout consistently ranks among the lowest in the nation, many residents feel their voices are not being heard and that election outcomes are predetermined. When citizens lose faith in the democratic process, participation declines and our government becomes less representative of the people it serves. To address this threat, Indiana should establish an independent, nonpartisan redistricting process that draws legislative and congressional maps fairly and transparently. Every voter deserves an equal opportunity to influence who represents them, regardless of where they live or which political party they support. Fair maps create more competitive elections, increase accountability, and strengthen public trust in government. A guiding principle of our nation is that taxpayers deserve representation. Gerrymandering, regardless of which party benefits, violates that principle by manipulating district boundaries for political gain. We must also oppose efforts to redraw maps outside of the regular census cycle simply to achieve a desired political outcome at the request of leaders in Washington, D.C. Redistricting should be based on population changes and community representation, not partisan advantage. If we want to strengthen democracy, restore confidence in elections, and ensure every Hoosier's voice is heard, fair and nonpartisan redistricting must be a priority.
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?
Immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility, but local and state governments still have important roles to play in ensuring public safety, upholding the law, and treating all people with dignity and respect. I believe that everyone living in our communities should be expected to follow the law, regardless of where they were born. At the same time, our government should recognize the humanity of every individual and ensure that people are treated fairly, respectfully, and in accordance with their constitutional rights. The way we enforce laws matters just as much as the laws themselves. State and local governments should focus on the responsibilities that are clearly within their authority: maintaining safe communities, ensuring access to public education for children, supporting public health initiatives, protecting workers from exploitation, and fostering strong relationships between residents and law enforcement. When people are afraid to report crimes, seek medical care, or cooperate with local authorities because of fear or confusion about immigration status, entire communities become less safe. I also believe local governments should not be forced to shoulder unfunded federal mandates. Immigration policy should be developed and enforced at the federal level, while states and local communities should have the resources they need to address the practical impacts of population growth, workforce needs, housing, healthcare, and education. America has long been strengthened by people who came here seeking opportunity, safety, and a better future for their families. We can honor that tradition while still maintaining secure borders, enforcing immigration laws, and ensuring that the system operates fairly and efficiently. Respect for the rule of law and respect for human dignity are not competing values, they are both essential to a strong and just society.