Gore condemns Braun's decision to end minority and women’s business enterprise programs

Today, July 15, Gov. Mike Braun announced Indiana will end race- and-sex-based contracting preferences.

The announcement follows a legal opinion from Attorney General Todd Rokita, which found race-and-sex-based contracting preferences within the Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises to be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

State Rep. Mitch Gore (D-Indianapolis) released the following statement: 

“Governor Braun’s decision to dismantle Indiana’s Minority Business Enterprise and Women’s Business Enterprise programs is both bad public policy and, in my view, a failure to faithfully execute the laws enacted by the Indiana General Assembly.

“For more than forty years, Indiana has recognized that expanding opportunities for qualified minority- and women-owned businesses strengthens our economy, increases competition, and delivers better value for taxpayers. That policy is not merely an executive initiative—it is the law.

“The General Assembly established the Governor’s Commission on Supplier Diversity in Indiana Code Chapter 4-13-16.5 and charged it with identifying barriers to participation in state contracting, certifying eligible businesses, promoting participation by qualified minority- and women-owned businesses, establishing participation goals informed by disparity studies, and reporting on the program’s effectiveness. Those statutory duties remain on the books today.

“The Governor has now chosen to dismantle that statutory framework based upon an advisory opinion from the Attorney General. That is not how our constitutional system works. The Attorney General does not invalidate statutes. Governors do not repeal laws.

“If Governor Braun believes portions of Indiana law should be changed to better reflect evolving constitutional precedent, he should come to the General Assembly and ask us to amend the statute. If he believes the law is unconstitutional, he is free to present that argument in court. What he cannot do is unilaterally stop carrying out duties the legislature has imposed simply because his administration disagrees with the policy. 

“The United States Supreme Court has never held that every supplier diversity program is unconstitutional. Instead, it has held that race-conscious contracting programs must be supported by evidence and narrowly tailored to satisfy constitutional requirements. Indiana designed its program around those principles through disparity studies, individualized certification, and participation goals—not rigid quotas.

“Ironically, the Attorney General’s own opinion reportedly concludes that Indiana may continue encouraging participation by veteran-owned businesses. In other words, this administration does not object to supplier diversity as a concept—it has simply chosen to eliminate opportunities for women- and minority-owned businesses while preserving them for another group. Apparently, government picking winners and losers is fine as long as they’re the governor’s preferred losers.

“Beyond the constitutional issues, this decision is simply bad economics.

“Real conservatives have long argued that government should promote free enterprise, maximize competition, and eliminate barriers to entrepreneurship. Those principles apply just as much to state contracting as they do anywhere else. The goal of Indiana’s supplier diversity program was never to guarantee contracts or lower standards. It was to ensure that every qualified Hoosier business had a meaningful opportunity to compete for taxpayer-funded work.

“More competition produces better pricing, greater innovation, and better value for taxpayers. It reduces dependence on a handful of entrenched contractors and opens the marketplace to new businesses that create jobs, invest in their communities, and strengthen Indiana’s economy.

“When a woman builds a successful engineering firm or a minority-owned manufacturer grows into a state contractor, that is not government dependency. That is entrepreneurship. That is capitalism. That is exactly the kind of economic success government should encourage.

“Indiana should be committed to expanding opportunity, not shrinking it. We should be strengthening competition, not reducing it. And above all, we should respect the constitutional roles of each branch of government. Until the General Assembly changes the law or a court declares it unconstitutional, the executive branch has a duty to faithfully execute the statutes enacted by the people’s elected representatives.”