One Vote, One Grudge: The Politics of Vote Centers

By David G. Henry, Monroe County Councilor At-Large

Some votes are symbolic. Others are procedural. But every now and then, a vote comes along that exposes the full weight of bad faith, personal grievance, and partisan dysfunction. That’s what happened in Monroe County last week when the Election Board failed—by one vote—to adopt the vote center model that over 65 other Indiana counties have already embraced.

Let’s be clear: this wasn’t some trendy political experiment. The vote center system has been part of Indiana law for nearly two decades. It replaces a rigid, outdated precinct-based model—where voters must return home on Election Day to a specific location—with one where any eligible voter can vote at any polling place in the county. It’s like how early voting already works. Flexible. Efficient. Cost-effective.

Did they boost turnout? Not dramatically. But that was never the point. The committee heard loud and clear from counties across Indiana—and from voters right here in Monroe County—that what people want isn’t a gimmick to make them vote. It’s clarity. Flexibility. Dignity. Letting people vote near where they work, go to class, or take care of their parents is a basic improvement—not a radical scheme. It doesn’t need to raise turnout to be the right thing.

And about the money? Shields complained about waste, but he ignored the facts: yes, the initial investment was around $600,000—mostly for ballot printers and scanners. But that’s spread over several years, and we’d save up to $370,000 just by stopping wasteful pre-printing of ballots. The plan didn’t close polling places—it kept all 29 to avoid confusion. The actual increase? Around 5%. That’s the kind of grown-up budgeting we’re supposed to be doing.

This isn’t theoretical. It’s proven. Vote centers work. They reduce logistical confusion, save taxpayer dollars, and help voters—especially working people, parents, the elderly, and those without reliable transportation—actually cast a ballot. The bipartisan vote center study committee spent two years vetting this policy, examining best practices from across the state, holding public hearings, visiting sites, and developing a plan rooted in accessibility, compliance, and fiscal responsibility.

Then it got torched in one vote. One vote.

Under Indiana law, vote center adoption requires a unanimous vote by the county’s election board. And while Republican election officials in dozens of other counties have supported the model, Monroe County once again found itself paralyzed by the same petty politics that have kept us stuck in the past.

That “no” vote came from Mr. Danny Shields—who may have only recently joined the board but brought with him a trunk full of baggage and bad assumptions. He didn’t participate in the process. He didn’t offer suggestions. He didn’t raise his concerns in good faith or try to influence the committee while it was doing its work. He just sat. Silent. Until the moment came to sabotage it.

What we got at the end wasn’t reasoned dissent. It was a public airing of MAGA grievances, conspiracy theories about students, and a paranoid rant disconnected from the realities of election administration. He misquoted history. He ignored data. He advanced the long-running, fact-free belief that the only reason Republicans lose in Monroe County is because of Indiana University students—even though voter data has proven for decades that students don’t turn out in high enough numbers to swing local races.

And let’s talk about the irony. This is a man who claimed to be deeply concerned about wasteful spending. Yet his months of stonewalling and political gamesmanship wasted countless hours of staff time—including county legal staff, which is neither cheap nor expendable. If he’d simply said “no” from the start, we could have saved everyone the trouble. But this wasn’t about policy—it was about power. And the sad truth is, sometimes when a small man gets his hands on a sliver of authority, he throws 10,000 bricks just to feel the weight of one.

I don’t say any of this lightly. I’ve tried to engage in this process with respect, hope, and openness—because that’s what good governance demands. But I won’t pretend this was an honest disagreement. Mr. Shields had every opportunity to engage. Instead, he waited until the very end to play spoiler, offering up a wall of bad-faith arguments and logical fallacies that sounded more like Facebook memes than policy analysis.

This hurts. It hurts because it was good, bipartisan work—work done by community members, legal experts, public servants, and volunteers who care deeply about making democracy more accessible. It hurts because it was a rare moment where we could have joined the overwhelming majority of Indiana counties in making voting easier, not harder. And it hurts because it was torched for no better reason than “because he could.”

Maybe this isn’t the most measured response. But I won’t apologize for being passionate about voting rights, good government, and honest public service. As someone with a bit of Scots-Irish blood, I reserve the right to get hot about the things that matter. And this one mattered.

To those who gave their time, energy, and insight to this work: thank you. It was not wasted. Your integrity stands in sharp contrast to the cynicism that killed this effort. We will try again. Because that’s what democracy requires—not just hope, but persistence.

And maybe next time, we’ll get the vote we—and our voters—deserve.