Pulled from current campaign sites, public statements, and voting records (House Clerk, ProPublica, FEC, Capitol Trades). All entries cite primary sources in the Full Timeline.
Position summaries draw from Shreve's voting record (Clerk of the House, ProPublica), public statements, and shreve.house.gov press releases; and Wirth's campaign site (wirth4congress.com), 2024 platform, and primary debate statements (April 23, 2026). If a position is uncertain or has shifted, we say so.
IN-6 is a Cook Political Report R+16 district. By every conventional measure, that should mean it's not competitive. But conventional measures missed two things in 2026.
First: Shreve barely held off a grassroots challenger he outspent roughly 170-to-1. Sarah Janisse Brown took 47% of the Republican primary with about $18,000 raised against Shreve's $600M net worth. That isn't a vote of confidence in the incumbent — it's a warning shot from his own base.
Second: The same week Shreve survived 53–47, his Q1 2026 fundraising ranked 1,012th nationally. $49,700 total. 1.5% from individuals. An incumbent on House Appropriations should be raising six figures from corporate PACs alone. Something is wrong with the donor side of the operation — and it's not Wirth's fault.
Wirth has run this race before. In 2024 she lost roughly 30–66 with $7,269 raised. The structural map hasn't changed. But the political environment around it has: tariffs at the pump ($4.81/gal in Indiana, $0.35 above national), Medicaid cuts taking effect at 25% of Indiana's 52 rural hospitals, an estimated $1.1 billion in IN Medicaid funding cut over 10 years from the One Big Beautiful Bill Shreve voted for, and an incumbent who has voted with his party 100% of the time on issues that hurt his district.
Wirth doesn't have to flip the district to win. She has to make Shreve defend it. He hasn't held a public town hall in two years. The general election is 177 days. Every day he runs out the clock without facing voters in person is a day his record speaks for itself — and the record now includes 558 stock trades, $2.2 million in personal stock gains in January 2026 alone, a vote to cut Medicaid for 11.8 million people, and zero public answers about any of it.
The question is not "will IN-6 turn blue." The question is: when the incumbent will not show up, what does democratic accountability actually look like? — and the answer to that question is being written, in public, between now and November 3.
Jefferson Shreve has gained more power in Washington. IN-6 deserves more answers, more access, and more public accountability.
A representative should not be easier to find in a press release than in a room with constituents.
¹ Based on review of Rep. Shreve’s official House website, press releases, public social-media posts, local news coverage, and congressional calendars through May 2026. “No public record found” means no instance was identified within this reviewed source set. If we missed an event or response, send documentation and we will correct the record.
This page is the front line. Behind it: 116 sourced entries, 6 candidate comparisons, district data, and AI pattern analysis.
Also from PBHP: THE RECORD — Trump Administration (4,494+ sourced entries tracking the full federal record) · THE AMERICAN REPAIR MANUAL (Civic QA framework for the country)
This archive documents the public record. If any entry contains an error, an outdated figure, or an incomplete characterization, we will correct it. If Rep. Shreve’s office or any candidate would like to provide context, a statement, or a correction, it will be added directly to the relevant entry — unedited.
Contact: pausebeforeharmprotocol_pbhp@protonmail.com · Corrections are timestamped and noted. Previous versions are preserved in the public GitHub history.
Every entry uses three layers: THE FACTS (sourced from public records, FEC filings, news reporting), SIGNIFICANCE (why it matters for IN-6), and THE GOALPOST (documented talking points). The archive labels analysis as analysis. You can verify every claim against the cited sources.
Scope: This review covers Rep. Shreve’s official House website, press releases, public social-media posts, local and national news coverage, FEC filings, congressional records, and voting data from 2013–present. “No public record found” means no instance was identified within this source set — not a claim of absolute non-existence.
116 entries · 194 sources · 189 topics · Coverage: 2013–present · Updated: 5/31/2026 @ 7:30 PM EST
Every documented entry in chronological order — 2013 to present.
Filter entries by subject area. Click a topic to see all related entries.
Where do the candidates stand — and what does IN-6 actually need?
Wirth (D) vs. Shreve (R). The May 5 primary is over. The four other primary candidates are documented in the Primary Candidates tab for the historical record.
Indiana's 6th Congressional District is rated Cook PVI R+16. In 2024, freshman incumbent Jefferson Shreve took the seat with about 66% of the vote against Cinde Wirth, who raised about $7,269. By every conventional metric this should be a safe Republican hold. But two pieces of 2026 data complicate the conventional read.
In the May 5 Republican primary, Shreve held off a grassroots challenger he outspent roughly 170-to-1. Sarah Janisse Brown took 47% with $18,000 raised. In the same window, Shreve’s Q1 2026 fundraising came in at $49,700 total — ranked 1,012th nationally, with just 1.5% from individual donors. Both numbers are unusual for an Appropriations Committee incumbent in a safe district. Both suggest that the donor class and the GOP base have noticed something the topline R+16 rating doesn’t capture.
The general election asks a narrower question than “will IN-6 turn blue.” It asks: can an incumbent worth roughly $600 million who has not held a single public town hall in two years and has executed 558+ stock trades during one of the most consequential legislative sessions in modern history defend that record — in front of constituents — over the next 177 days? The two candidates’ positions on roughly twenty distinct policy areas are documented below.
The single largest fiscal divide. Shreve voted for the One Big Beautiful Bill, which cuts $1.2 trillion from Medicaid and SNAP and is projected to leave 11.8 million additional Americans uninsured. Wirth campaigns on Medicare for All and on a phased single-payer transition that protects rural hospitals.
Indiana manufactures more per capita than most states. The 10% global tariff regime — ruled illegal by the Court of International Trade on May 7, 2026 — has direct constituent costs visible in fuel prices, automotive parts, and component supply chains.
Shreve’s gun positions have shifted four times in ten years — from gun-friendly state senate candidate (2016), to Indianapolis mayoral candidate proposing assault-weapons restrictions (2023), to NRA-endorsed congressman (2024 onward). Wirth’s positions have been consistent over three campaigns.
The clearest experience asymmetry on the ballot. Wirth has spent more than a decade in K–12 classrooms and wrote federal education legislation that became law in 2020. Shreve has no education policy background; his vote pattern aligns with the administration’s push to dismantle the Department of Education.
Indiana has one of the country’s most restrictive abortion laws. The federal question is whether that restriction expands or whether Roe-era access is restored.
Indiana is the country’s seventh-largest manufacturing state and a major coal-and-gas energy producer. The federal climate fight is about EPA standards, fossil-fuel subsidies, and how clean-energy investment flows into the Midwest.
The federal immigration debate has shifted from comprehensive reform to mass-deportation logistics under the second Trump administration. The Senate’s $70B immigration enforcement bill (May 2026) became the vehicle for $1B in Trump-ballroom security spending.
The U.S.–Israeli attack on Iran began February 28, 2026. Trump declared hostilities “terminated” on May 1 to bypass the 60-day War Powers Act deadline while the naval blockade continued. By May 8, U.S. forces were trading fire with Iran in the Strait of Hormuz; Trump called the strikes a “love tap.”
The OBBB extended the 2017 Trump tax cuts and paid for them via Medicaid, SNAP, and clean-energy credit reductions. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the related 10% global tariff illegal on May 7.
The single most-documented ethical contrast in this race. Capitol Trades and Quiver Quantitative track 558 transactions in Shreve’s name across multiple STOCK Act filings, totaling roughly $244.8 million in volume. Quiver estimates $2.2 million in personal stock-market gains in January 2026 alone.
A core PBHP tracking metric. The site has not identified any public, advertised, in-person town hall held by Rep. Shreve during the 119th Congress (Jan 2025–present). Mobile staff office hours have run; those handle casework, not policy questions.
Q1 2026 FEC filings tell two distinct stories. Shreve has access to a $600M personal balance sheet but is raising less external money than a typical incumbent. Wirth runs a small-dollar volunteer-driven operation.
Indiana is a right-to-work state. The federal labor question is whether the PRO Act, minimum-wage increases, and worker classification rules expand or are dismantled.
The Education Department’s May 5 Title IX investigation of Smith College is the current federal flashpoint. The federal civil-rights enforcement question is whether trans Americans have statutory protection.
Shreve made his fortune in self-storage real estate; Wirth is running a campaign that treats housing as a fundamental right. The federal housing fight is about tax credits, supply incentives, and tenant protections.
IN-6 has a higher-than-average retiree population in its rural counties. The OBBB Medicaid cuts cascade into rural-hospital service cuts, which affect Medicare-age constituents disproportionately.
The Supreme Court’s late-April 2026 ruling narrowed Voting Rights Act protections for majority-Black districts. Florida and Tennessee enacted new maps within a week. Indiana’s Senate killed a redraw in December 2025; the Trump-aligned May 5 primary winners are expected to revive it.
A direct measure rather than a policy area. Shreve’s 119th Congress voting record shows zero documented departures from party leadership; his Heritage Action lifetime score is 0%, meaning Heritage records no Heritage-flagged defections in either direction.
Incumbents earn re-election partly through earmarks and federal-funding announcements. Shreve’s seat on House Appropriations gives him direct earmark leverage. The accountability question is whether the announced dollars cover the documented harm from his policy votes.
Two very different paths into IN-6 politics. Shreve’s political career has been one electoral loss followed by an appointed seat followed by another electoral loss followed by a federal win. Wirth’s has been three consecutive Democratic nominations in a deep-red district.
If the only metric is the Cook PVI, this race is over. But the Cook PVI did not predict the May 5 result — an incumbent narrowly defeating an unfunded grassroots challenger is not the behavior of a strong R+16 incumbent. The donor data tells the same story: a Q1 2026 fundraising report ranking 1,012th nationally is what a struggling open-seat candidate posts, not what a House Appropriations incumbent posts.
The other variable is the operating environment around the race. Indiana gas prices are 35 cents above the national average. Twenty-five percent of the state’s rural hospitals have already cut services in response to OBBB Medicaid reductions Shreve voted for. Spirit Airlines — the country’s largest ultra-low-cost carrier — folded May 2 because Iran-war fuel prices made its restructuring plan invalid. None of those facts have IN-6 county lines drawn around them. They affect the whole district.
Wirth does not have to flip the district to make the race a real contest. She has to make Shreve answer questions in public — about the trades, about the Medicaid vote, about the tariffs at the pump, about the war the executive declared "terminated" while it continued, about the redistricting plan that had to oust state senators in a primary to even have a chance of passing. The incumbent has 177 days to either show up to a debate, hold a real town hall, or run out the clock.
The accountability tools are public. The voting records are public. The disclosures are public. What this site can do is keep them in front of the district, every week, until the polls close November 3.
Sources for this comparison: Clerk of the U.S. House (votes), ProPublica Represent (votes), FEC.gov (fundraising), Capitol Trades / Quiver Quantitative (stock trades), Indiana Business Journal & Indianapolis Star (race coverage), Greenfield Daily Reporter (county results), Indiana Hospital Association (rural hospital data), Yale Budget Lab (tariff cost), Tax Foundation (tariff revenue), shreve.house.gov (press releases), wirth4congress.com (campaign positions). Where a position has shifted, both the prior and current versions are documented. Where a position is uncertain, we say so. Corrections welcome at the contact link in the About tab.
Historical record of all candidates who ran in the May 5 IN-6 primary. The two who advanced — Cinde Wirth (D) and Jefferson Shreve (R) — are documented in the Wirth vs. Shreve tab.
Wirth advanced and is documented in the Wirth vs. Shreve tab. Amyx, Baker, and Boyd ran but did not advance. All three are preserved here.
Side-by-side primary positions documented during the May 5, 2026 race. Shreve and Wirth advanced; Brown, Amyx, Baker, and Boyd did not. Preserved here so voters can see the full field they chose from.
All four Democrats broadly agree on raising wages, protecting healthcare, and opposing Shreve's record. The differences are in HOW — and those differences reveal which wing of the party each represents.
Understanding where IN-6 Democrats fit in the broader party landscape.
All 6 candidates compared across 12 policy areas. Positions sourced from campaign websites, debate statements, voting records, and news coverage. "No position" means no public statement was found.
In a district rated Cook PVI R+16, the Republican primary was supposed to be a coronation. It wasn’t. Jefferson Shreve held off Sarah Janisse Brown 53–47 — a margin of about 3,000 votes statewide. For an incumbent who outspent his challenger roughly 170-to-1, who sits on House Appropriations, who carried Trump’s endorsement and the NRA’s, that is not a comfortable outcome. It is the kind of outcome that has staffers in safe seats updating their resumes.
Brown raised about $18,000 against a $600M incumbent. She is a mother of fifteen — several adopted from Ukraine — a published author of more than 360 books, and the founder of a dyslexia-therapy program that has reportedly served 10,000+ children. Her platform was MAHA-aligned (Make America Healthy Again), pro–school-choice, “unwavering” 2A, and she went directly at Shreve’s NRA F-rating from his 2023 mayoral run. Whatever you think of those positions individually, she ran them on her own terms and on her own dime, and 47% of Republican primary voters in IN-6 picked her over their incumbent. That is not a vanity bid. That is a base that has noticed something.
Indiana doesn’t require party registration; voters choose which primary ballot to take at the polling place. So the crossover-voting hypothesis is operationally available, and there is some evidence it happened — though it’s probably not the whole story.
The data: In Marion County (where IN-6 overlaps with Indianapolis south), roughly 80% of ballots cast were Democratic in 2026 — up from about 60% in 2018 and 2022. Hamilton County (the largest IN-6 county) saw a 260% spike in early voting, with both parties contesting hard. Wirth still took 58.78% of the four-way Democratic field, so most Dems clearly pulled D ballots. But somewhere in the gap between Brown’s polling-prediction floor and her actual 47% finish, a non-trivial slice of voters who don’t normally show up in Republican primaries appear to have shown up.
The framing: “MAHA over MAGA” gave anti-Shreve voters a way to register dissent inside the GOP without crossing the partisan line on the rest of their ballot. Brown’s pitch is closer to libertarian-populist health-and-family conservatism than to movement MAGA — and for any Democrat or independent who concluded that a House Appropriations seat in MAGA’s back pocket was the worst outcome, taking an R ballot to vote for Brown was a coherent move. That said, even if every crossover voter went for Brown, 53–47 wouldn’t survive the test on its own. Most of the dissatisfaction registered in the IN-6 numbers came from Republicans inside their own primary. The site’s job is to record both possibilities — not to call which one mattered more — and to let November settle it.
Wirth’s 58.78% in a four-way race is a strong primary mandate. It also reflects a real tactical fact about IN-6: the Democratic primary electorate, when it shows up, is more progressive than it is moderate. The Einstein Fellowship, the federal education law authorship, the AFT/AFL-CIO union membership, and the Moms Demand Action affiliation all read more clearly to that primary electorate than “moderate Democrat” messaging would have. The November question is whether Wirth can hold that primary base while reaching the disaffected Republicans and independents who pushed Brown to 47%. Some of those voters do not policy-overlap with Wirth at all. Some of them — on healthcare costs, on rural-hospital closures, on stock trading, on town-hall accountability — absolutely do.
Kory Amyx underperformed expectations relative to Wirth, but earned the standing he ran on. He came in with no prior congressional run, modest donations, and a commitment to door-knock more than 23,000 households. He ran Medicare for All (phased), $20–25 minimum wage, and pledged 3+ public town halls per year. He finished third in Hancock County (894 votes — virtually tied with Boyd’s 919) behind Wirth’s 3,829. That is a steep climb for a first-time federal candidate against a three-cycle nominee with name recognition from 2020 and 2024. But the volunteer infrastructure he built does not disappear because the count went the other way; many of those door-knockers are now available to whoever holds the Democratic line in November — and that’s Wirth. From basically nowhere, with limited donations, Amyx made a real move. That deserves the record reflecting it.
Nick Baker ran the moderate “small-government Democrat” lane, betting that pragmatic centrism would beat progressive purity in a deep-red district. The numbers said no — he came in fourth in Hancock County. David Boyd’s federal-service-and-Navy-veteran background got him a hearing, but his absence from the April 23 Democratic candidate debate hurt his name recognition, and he didn’t consolidate the moderate vote. Both ran honest campaigns. Both deserve respect for standing up. Both are documented above.
Shreve enters the general with new pressures. Q1 2026 fundraising at the 1,012th-nationally tier is unsustainable for an incumbent on Appropriations. The 53–47 margin in his own primary is the kind of result that prompts donor-class second-guessing. The 558+ stock trades, the $2.2M January 2026 gain, and the Spirit Airlines collapse all became broadly visible during the primary cycle — the general electorate now has a richer factual record to evaluate than the 2024 electorate had. The $1.1B in projected Indiana Medicaid cuts from OBBB are now visible at 25% of Indiana’s 52 rural hospitals, several of which have already cut services. The gas at the pump is 35 cents above the national average. None of those facts are abstract in IN-6.
Wirth enters with new advantages. She has run this district before, so the operational learning curve is shorter. She has a clear primary mandate (58.78%) and the volunteer infrastructure of Amyx’s 23,000-door operation potentially available. The donor environment around an incumbent struggling to raise money is more favorable than it was in 2024. And the post-OBBB environment around healthcare, around Iran-war fuel prices, and around stock-trading scrutiny is genuinely different than it was in 2024. None of that changes the underlying R+16 math. All of it changes how the math is contested.
The general election is 177 days. The accountability question is the same one it has been: will the incumbent show up — to a town hall, to a debate, to a public answer about the trades and the votes — or will he run out the clock? The site will track which it is, every week, until polls close November 3.
In a heavily Republican district (Cook PVI R+16), primaries often determine the winner. The May 5 result reflected: (1) Shreve's incumbency advantage and money, narrowly held against an unfunded grassroots challenger (53–47); (2) a Democratic field where progressive credentials, moderation, and grassroots energy split four ways before consolidating around the eventual nominee. Whatever you think of the outcome, every name on this page chose to run. That itself is the precondition for accountability.
The data behind the representation gap — what's happening in the district while Shreve tweets about China.
The vocabulary of power — what these words actually mean, who uses them, and why it matters.
The Overton window describes the range of policies that the public considers acceptable. It shifts over time — and the shift can be engineered.
When someone tells you Medicare for All is "extreme," remember: every other developed nation on Earth has it. The United States is the outlier. What's extreme is paying $1,000/month for insulin that costs $2 to manufacture.
Both parties contain factions with different priorities. Understanding these factions tells you more about a candidate than the D or R next to their name.
The dirty secret of Congress: Most of the power isn't in floor votes. It's in committees. Committees decide which bills get a hearing, which amendments are allowed, and which legislation dies in a drawer. Shreve's Appropriations Committee seat is one of the most powerful positions in Congress — it controls where federal money goes.
Voter suppression in 2026 doesn't look like fire hoses and poll taxes. It looks like laws.
The SAVE Act that Shreve voted for (requiring proof of citizenship to register) solves a problem that doesn't exist — non-citizen voting is already illegal and virtually nonexistent. But it creates real barriers for elderly, rural, and low-income voters who lack ready documentation. In IN-6, that means the people who can least afford a trip to the DMV.
Every factual claim in this archive is sourced from at least one of the following: official Congressional records (Congress.gov, House.gov), FEC filings (OpenSecrets), established news organizations (NOTUS, IBJ, Indianapolis Star, Mirror Indy, Daily Journal, The Republic, Indiana Capital Chronicle, Fox 59, WFYI), nonprofit watchdogs (League of Conservation Voters, Heritage Action, NumbersUSA, POGO), government data (Census, Data USA, Indiana state agencies), academic research (Ball State, Brookings), and public financial disclosures.
THE FACTS: What happened. Sourced, dated, verifiable. No adjectives beyond what the source supports. If a number is reported, the source is cited. If a vote occurred, the roll call is linked.
SIGNIFICANCE: Why it matters for IN-6 specifically. This layer is analysis, and it's labeled as such. The analysis connects the action to the district's documented needs — healthcare, manufacturing, agriculture, education, housing. Every significance claim can be checked against the IN-6 data in the District tab.
THE GOALPOST: The framing used to defend or normalize the action. These are real talking points from press releases, official statements, and campaign materials — not straw men. The goalpost layer documents how the action is presented to constituents, so you can compare what happened with how it was sold.
This is not a campaign ad. It does not tell you who to vote for. It presents a factual record with transparent analysis. The comparison tab includes all declared Democratic primary candidates and documents where each stands. The "What IN-6 Needs" column draws from public data, not partisan preference.
This archive has a perspective: it believes representatives should be accountable, consistent, and focused on their district's needs. If that perspective leads you toward any particular candidate, that's the record doing its job.
If any factual claim in this archive is incorrect, contact us at pausebeforeharmprotocol_pbhp@protonmail.com. We will correct it the same day and note the correction. The credibility of this archive depends on accuracy, not persuasion. All previous versions are preserved in the public GitHub history.
“No public record found” means no instance was identified within the reviewed source set — it is not a claim of absolute non-existence. If Rep. Shreve’s office or any candidate would like to provide context, a statement, or a correction, it will be added directly to the relevant entry, unedited.
This section presents AI-generated analysis of patterns, contradictions, and structural concerns identified in the data. This is analytical opinion, not editorial — every observation is grounded in documented facts from the entries above.
⚠ TRANSPARENCY NOTE
This analysis was generated by Claude (Anthropic). It represents an AI system's pattern recognition applied to the documented record. It is not a human editorial. Readers should verify all claims against the sourced entries and form their own conclusions.
The most striking pattern in Shreve's record is the systematic alignment of his positions with whatever electorate he's courting. This isn't the normal evolution of political views — it's a pattern of wholesale position reversal timed to specific campaigns:
The question isn't whether politicians evolve — they should. The question is whether four contradictory positions in 10 years, each perfectly calibrated to the current electorate, represents genuine growth or calculated positioning. The pattern suggests the latter.
At approximately $600 million in net worth, Shreve is not merely wealthy — he exists in a fundamentally different economic reality than his constituents. This isn't about resenting wealth. It's about recognizing that wealth at this scale creates structural barriers to empathetic representation:
Shreve's career trajectory represents one of the clearest examples of the revolving door between industry and government:
This isn't illegal. It may not even be unethical by Washington's standards. But it illustrates why the American public has lost faith in government — the people writing the rules are the same people who benefit from those rules.
A systematic comparison of Shreve's messaging priorities against IN-6's actual needs reveals a striking disconnect:
Shreve's Top Messaging
1. China/foreign policy (~60%)
2. Border security/immigration
3. Build the Wall Act
4. TikTok/Chinese apps ban
5. "Advancing border security"
IN-6's Actual Crises
1. 12 rural hospitals at risk of closure
2. 60,000+ manufacturing jobs threatened
3. Opioid deaths: 41/100K
4. Fayette County: worst poverty in state
5. 2,200+ teacher vacancies
The gap between what Shreve talks about and what his district actually needs suggests he is optimizing for national Republican messaging (Fox News clips, leadership approval) rather than for constituent service.
In April 2025, Shreve executed 140+ stock trades worth $3.4M-$9.5M in a 10-day period following Trump's tariff announcements. The trades included companies (CSX, Schneider National, Uber) that fall under his Transportation & Infrastructure Committee's jurisdiction.
Shreve's path to Congress is unique — and not in a reassuring way:
Shreve has never won a competitive general election. His two city council seats were appointed. He lost the two competitive races he entered (2016 primary, 2023 mayoral). He won a 2024 congressional primary with just 28% in a crowded field, then won the general in a district so red (R+16) that the margin reflects the district, not the candidate.
The documented record reveals a representative who is structurally misaligned with his constituents on three critical axes:
The question for IN-6 voters isn't whether Shreve is a bad person — he isn't, and this record doesn't claim that. The question is whether a $600 million congressman who has never won a competitive general election, changes positions with every zip code, and spends his legislative energy on foreign policy while local crises burn is the best representation this district can get.
That question belongs to the voters. This record just gives them the facts to answer it.
Indiana's 6th Congressional District deserves a representative who represents them — not a party line, not a stock portfolio, not a campaign strategy. This archive exists because voters can only make informed decisions with organized, sourced information about what their representative has actually done.
Jefferson Shreve has held political positions since 2013. His record includes two appointed council seats, a primary loss, a 20-point mayoral loss, and one congressional election in a district where any Republican wins. It includes 140+ stock trades in a single 10-day period, zero traditional public town halls, and zero breaks from the party line in 490+ votes. That's not a partisan attack. That's a public record.
Democratic Primary — 4 Candidates
Kory Amyx — Connersville native, Ball State graduate, 20+ years in higher education and financial aid. First openly gay candidate for IN-6. Running a grassroots-funded campaign with zero self-funding and 23,000+ doors knocked personally. Supports Medicare for All (phased), eliminating federal income tax under $75K, replacing ICE with the Unity Pathway Act, legalizing cannabis, ending school vouchers, and a data center moratorium. Plans 3+ public town halls if elected.
Cinde Wirth — Three-time candidate (2020 state senate, 2024, 2026) and the 2024 Democratic nominee, earning ~30% against Shreve's ~66% on just $7,269 raised. Ph.D. in Cultural and Educational Policy from Ball State (2025), Einstein Fellow, AFT/AFL-CIO union member, Moms Demand Action volunteer, 10+ years teaching. Supports Medicare for All, abolishing ICE entirely, a 2–3% billionaire tax, fully funding public schools, ending vouchers, and reproductive rights.
Nick Baker — Age 46, personal injury and wrongful death attorney (Nick Baker Law LLC), IU undergrad, McKinney School of Law (2006), Super Lawyers Rising Star (2013–2019). Father of two, building a home on farmland in Camby. The only Democrat opposing ICE abolition and the only one supporting a public option over single-payer. Positions himself as the "most electable" in an R+16 district, invoking Lee Hamilton, Dick Lugar, and Birch Bayh as models. Also supports a $25 minimum wage, balanced budget, Clean Air/Water Act protections, and removing KKK-era laws from Indiana's books.
David Boyd — Age 41, Franklin Township. Former TSA officer with DHS counterterrorism experience, brief U.S. Navy service, Census Bureau field representative, IUPUI political science studies, current insurance adjuster in disaster response. Runs on bipartisanship, a $25 minimum wage, restoring ACA subsidies, expanding rental assistance, short-term food price controls, and protecting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Withdrew from the April 23 primary debate citing a scheduling conflict. Supports abolishing ICE and creating a new agency via legislation.
Where they agree: all four Democrats support raising the minimum wage, protecting reproductive rights, strengthening public schools, and addressing the rural hospital crisis. Where they split: healthcare model (Amyx/Wirth: single-payer vs. Baker: public option), immigration (Amyx: replace ICE; Wirth/Boyd: abolish ICE; Baker: reform ICE), and campaign approach (Amyx: grassroots populism, Wirth: policy credentials, Baker: electability pitch, Boyd: bipartisan framing).
Republican Primary — 2 Candidates
Jefferson Shreve (incumbent) — 2nd wealthiest member of Congress (~$600M net worth). Appointed to city council twice, lost the 2016 state senate primary and 2023 mayoral race by 20 points (60–40 to Hogsett), won the 2024 congressional general in an R+16 district. Now sits on the Appropriations Committee (Transportation & Housing, Homeland Security, Commerce). Voted with the party 100% of the time across 490+ votes. Made 140+ stock trades in a single 10-day period in companies his committees oversee. Has held zero traditional public town halls.
Sarah Janisse Brown — Greenwood resident. Mother of 15 (several adopted from Ukraine), grandmother of 5. Founded Thinking Tree Books (360+ educational titles, $1.5M+ business) and the Dyslexia Games therapy program (10,000+ children served). Former Fortville Town Council member. Grassroots-funded ($18,390 raised). Runs on school choice, parental rights, MAHA ("Make America Healthy Again") food policy, pro-life values, and "unwavering" 2nd Amendment support. Entered the race challenging Shreve for flip-flopping on guns and misaligning with district priorities.
This archive documents the incumbent's record and compares all six candidates' positions across 12 policy areas so that primary voters — and eventually general election voters — can make an informed choice.
This project is built with the Pause Before Harm Protocol (PBHP) — a framework for ethical AI-assisted accountability journalism. PBHP requires: source every claim, label analysis as analysis, never fabricate quotes, and present documented records rather than opinions.
Follow the project: facebook.com/plinst · github.com/PauseBeforeHarmProtocol/pbhp
Coverage from 2013 to present · Last updated: 5/31/2026 · 122 documented entries · 200+ sources · 189 topics · 12 comparison areas