Referendum Math: Decoding Indiana’s Insane Ballot Language

If you’re a Hoosier voter with a school referendum on the ballot this year, you’re going to see a wildly inaccurate question when you go to vote. Its language was written by our General Assembly. To the best of my knowledge, our lawmakers all have at least a high school diploma, but you wouldn’t know it by their math. Let’s take a look at just how bad it is.

How much did Netflix increase their pricing?

Earlier this year, Netflix raised the rate of their standard subscription from $18/month to $20/month. If you’re a subscriber, how would you describe how much more you’re going to pay per year?

If you’re a normal person, you’d almost certainly say that Netflix is now costing you an extra $24 per year.

But you could also say it’s now costing you an extra $240 per year. That would be a really weird way of looking at the increase. It’s not how most people would think about or describe it. But you could say, “Well, I could cancel Netflix at any time, so I’m going to say the cost went up $240 instead of $24 because I don’t have to spend that $240.”

Again, that would be weird, but not nearly as weird as how our legislators would describe it.

But how much MIGHT Netflix increase their pricing?

Let’s say to address customers’ concerns about pricing, Netflix had issued the following statement with the 2026 increase:

“While costs are rising, we are committed to increasing prices by no more than $2 per year, and will not exceed $30 per month by 2031.”

Now how much would you say their new $20 price increased your cost?

For most people, still $24 per year.

But someone might say, “Well if they might eventually charge $30 per month, then my cost per year just went up by $360.”

You’re probably thinking, “Ok, but that person would be crazy.” Maybe, but they’d still have a leg up on Indiana legislators..

What if the price increases by more than it increases?

We’re going to add a new element to this hypothetical. Concerned about streaming prices, Congress passed a law limiting Netflix’s monthly price. For this year, the law said $30 is the maximum. The max decreases by $2 each year through 2031, when it hits a floor of $20 per month.

You’d still say your cost went up $24 this year.

The crazy $360-increase person would probably stick to their guns, but begrudgingly acknowledge that by 2031, the price would have gone down to $240.

The Indiana legislature would proclaim that the increase is $360 per year right on through 2031, despite the fact that actual maximum price in 2031 is $120 less than the $360 they’re calling an increase.

That’s where we’re at with referendum language.

Shifting back to school referendums

Here’s what you need to keep in mind when you’re reading a referendum question on the ballot.

1. If you’re voting on a referendum that’s renewing or replacing one or more existing referendums, the question won’t reflect that.

   
   

   If you were currently paying $500 in property taxes for a referendum and the new referendum would actually reduce that to $400, the Indiana legislator requires the question to read that it will raise your taxes by $400. Despite the fact it would lower them by $100.

   
   

2. The question is not allowed to reference the rate that your schools are actually charging next year, but only the maximum rate they will ever be allowed to charge over the referendum’s 8-year life.

   
   

   Senate Enrolled Act 1 (SEA 1) is changing taxable property value calculations each year through 2031. Every school I’ve seen seeking a referendum is basing the requested rate off what they predict they’ll need once the changes are complete in 2031, and charging a lower rate in the intervening years.

   
   

   But even if your school corporation has already passed a rate that’s half the maximum, the question is required to state that your taxes next year will go up by the full amount.

   
   

3. The question states that the increase is ‘per year’, while ignoring those previously mentioned changes happening because of SEA 1.

   
   

   Between now and 2031, the homestead deductions that determine the value a homeowner pays taxes on will increase by 30% - 40%. The ballot question completely ignores that.

Pulling it all together

So here’s what all of the above means on the ballot, using Carmel Clay Schools as an example.

If our referendum passes, the school board is expected to apply a rate of $0.309 for 2027. For the owner of a $500,000 house, the amount of money being paid to referendums would increase $93, from $662 in 2026 to $755 in 2027.

But our legislature says the schools have to say they’re using the full rate of $0.4274, which would create the appearance of an increase of $400, from $662 in 2026 to $1,062 in 2027.

Except the legislature also says the schools can’t say what people are already paying, so it’s not a fake $400 increase, but a fake $1,062 increase that appears on the question.

Oh, and it has to say ‘per year’, even though that $1,062 maximum limit drops to $985 in 2028, $901 in 2029, $812 in 2030 and $712 in 2031.

It’s hard to believe anyone could look at our legislature and think that we need to slash school funding, but here we are.

If you don’t want to take my word for any of this, don’t. Go to your schools’ website or attend a board meeting and do your own research. Just please be informed when you go to vote this November.