Rep. Ryan Lauer
The two candidates seeking the Republican nomination for Indiana House District 59 in the May 3 primary have different takes on some of the legislation and issues that made their way through the Indiana General Assembly this year.
The seat is held by Rep. Ryan Lauer, 44, a technical specialist at Cummins Inc. Lauer is seeking a third term representing District 59.
Lauer is being challenged by William (Bill) Nash, 57, who has served as Bartholomew County prosecutor for 19 years.
In 2020, Lauer ran unopposed in the GOP primary and defeated Democrat Dale Nowlin in the general election, with nearly 60% of the vote.
Q: If elected, what would be your specific legislative priorities?
Lauer: My number one priority is working hard representing the people in our community to the best of my ability. It is an honor to have the opportunity to serve the people. Protecting children and the most vulnerable in our society has been a passion of mine. Serving on the House Family and Children committee, I work directly with all stakeholders to help improve outcomes for vulnerable and abused children. I will also continue supporting pro-life legislation to protect the unborn.
Nash: I was inspired to run by what I see as the excesses of my own party’s super majority in the state legislature, rather than by any specific legislative agenda of my own. I believe that Indiana’s current prosperity is the result of sober leadership from Republicans like governors Holcomb and Daniels and those Republicans in the legislature who for decades have focused on the business of government. I believe that the greatest risk to Indiana’s prosperity is the creeping culture warrior mentality that leads to, frankly, dumb ideas like banning books, micromanaging school teachers and stripping employers of their right to require vaccinations against any disease, new or old, or no diseases at all. If elected, I will do my best to maintain Indiana’s reputation as a great place to do business.
Q: Indiana lawmakers recently passed “constitutional carry” legislation that would eliminate the traditional firearm permitting process and allow people to carry guns without permits. Several law enforcement organizations and the Indiana State Police superintendent have publicly expressed opposition to this bill, saying that doing away with the permit system will make it harder for police to identify felons and others who are not allowed to have firearms. Do you support removing the permit process from the carry legislation or do you believe it should be retained, and why?
Lauer: I am proud to be a co-author of House Bill 1296 which affirms our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms. Signed into law by Gov. (Eric) Holcomb, Indiana became the 24th state to pass Constitutional Carry legislation. The law also includes higher penalties for criminals that use illegal guns. I will continue to defend our God-given Constitutional rights and freedom.
Nash: The type of people who actually get permits before they do things that require permits will now suffer one less inconvenience thanks to Rep. Lauer and his fellow culture warriors in the Indiana Statehouse. Since I have never once heard a complaint about the current handgun permit system in nearly two decades as the county prosecutor, I assume that the main complaints came from lobbyists for gun manufacturers rather than from concerned citizens. We know that dropping the permit requirement wasn’t the idea of the Indiana State Police, but apparently it is easier to “Back the Blue” when doing so doesn’t get in the way of any future greenbacks from the gun lobby. Nevertheless, I don’t expect the repeal of the handgun requirement to have any significant effect, because no one needs a permit to buy a handgun in Indiana or to walk around in public with a loaded AR-15.
Q: State lawmakers recently passed legislation that forces businesses with vaccine mandates to grant employees’ medical or religious exemptions but allows businesses to require employees granted exemptions to submit to weekly testing. The bill’s supporters say that the measure aims to protect employees’ rights, while many business owners argue that the government is dictating how they run their business. What are your views on this issue, and why?
Lauer: As co-author of House Bill 1001, I helped write this new law to protect Hoosier workers from the unconstitutional federal mandates forced on businesses. I strongly supported religious and medical exemptions as well as recognizing natural immunity and banning vaccine passports. I trust Hoosiers with the freedom to make their own individual health decisions.
Nash: Republicans used to believe in limited government, that that government is best which governs least. That no longer appears to be the case with many Republican legislators like our current State Rep. Ryan Lauer. Does adding yet another limitation on an Indiana employer’s basic right to hire and fire non-contract employees at will sound like less government to you? Of course not. President Biden’s vaccine mandate for private employers was wrong because it infringed the rights of those employers to set the terms and conditions of employment at their own businesses. Do two wrongs make a right? The opposite of telling an employer that she must require her employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 is not telling her that she must not require her employees to get vaccinated. It’s letting her decide. That’s the conservative approach. That’s the Republican approach.
