♪♪ >> WE LOOK BACK AT THIS YEAR'S >> WE LOOK BACK AT THIS YEAR'S BATTLES OVER GOVERNMENT POWERS IN THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

VACCINE MANDATES, LOCAL HEALTH OFFICIALS AND THE GOVERNOR SUING THE LEGISLATURE ON THIS SPECIAL EPISODE OF INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW.

>> INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS, AND BY ICE MILLER, A FULL SERVICE LAW FIRM COMMITTED TO HELPING CLIENTS BUILD, GROW AND PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS.

MORE AT ICEMILLER.COM.

>> GOVERNOR ERIC HOLCOMB SUED THE INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY OVER LEGISLATION THAT WOULD GIVE LAWMAKERS MORE AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE DURING A PUBLIC EMERGENCY.

LEGISLATIVE LEADERS SAY THE LAWSUIT IS NOT A SURPRISE, CALLING THE ISSUE A FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT WITH THE GOVERNOR.

>> MANY LAWMAKERS FELT SIDE LINED DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AS THE GOVERNOR ISSUED DOZENS OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

SOME OF WHICH LEGISLATORS OPPOSED.

TO GIVE THEMSELVES MORE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVENE IN THE FUTURE, LAWMAKERS PASSED A BILL THAT ALLOWS THEM TO CALL A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DURING A PUBLIC EMERGENCY.

BUT HOLCOMB SUPPORTED BY SOME CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS BELIEVES THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNOR THAT POWER AND HE'S SUING TO FIND OUT FOR SURE.

IS THERE NO TIMETABLE FOR HOW THE LAWSUIT WILL PLAY OUT THOUGH HOLCOMB SAYS THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

HE SAYS THE LAW CREATES UNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES COULD BE SEVERE.

>> ANN DeLANEY, TODD ROKITA SAID HE DIDN'T GIVE THE NECESSARY PERMISSION TO HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND BRING THIS SUIT.

SO WILL THERE BE PROCEDURAL ISSUES LIKE THAT THAT PREVENT ANSWERING THE CORE QUESTION?

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK TODD ROKITA IS SO BUSY GRANDSTANDING RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR HE HASN'T LOOKED AT WHAT THE STATUTES SAY.

YOU NEED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S POSITION WHEN IT IS TWO STATE AGENCIES, THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE ARE NOT STATE AGENCIES, THEY ARE TWO CO-EQUAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AS ARE THE COURTS.

AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DECIDE DISPUTES BETWEEN CO-EQUAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

TODD ROKITA DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT, WHICH IS NOT UNCOMMON.

THAT IS WHAT THE COURT IS DESIGNED TO DO, THIS IS I THINK AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INVASION OF THE GOVERNOR'S PREROGATIVES AND POWERS, AND THE COURT WILL DECIDE IT.

AND TODD ROKITA IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS.

AND HE OUGHT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

BECAUSE YOU KNOW, IF HE'S CORRECT IN HIS INTERPRETATION, THEN HE HAS AN ETHICAL CONFLICT.

AND HE HASN'T EVEN ADDRESSED THAT.

BUT HE IS NOT CORRECT IN HIS INTERPRETATION.

THE GOVERNOR DOES NOT NEED HIS PERMISSION TO BRING A LAWSUIT >> WHAT DOES TODD ROKITA'S INSERTION INTO THIS PROCESS DO FOR HOW IT ALL PLAYS OUT ON SORT OF A POLITICAL LEVEL?

>> WELL, IT MAKES IT LOOK REALLY WELL-PLANNED, LIKE WE DID THIS ON PURPOSE, AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAD PLANNED ALL ALONG.

LOOK, THE IMPLICATION THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN BLOCK A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION BETWEEN TWO BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AS A -- HE'S NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER.

IT IS CREATED -- I THOUGHT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT WHEN WE DID SUPERINTENDENT.

>> I THINK SO, TOO.

>> THIS CREATION OF STATUTE COULD BE THE TRAFFIC COP BETWEEN A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION BETWEEN THESE TWO BRANCHES, EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE, OF COURSE THE JUDICIAL BRANCH SHOULD DETERMINE THIS.

IF WE FIND THEY CAN'T OR THE LAW DOESN'T PERMIT THAT, THEN THAT LAW NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.

THAT'S A HUGE PROBLEM HERE.

IF TRUE, WHICH I WAS INTERESTED IN WHEN I WAS THINKING THROUGH THIS WEEK, I WAS INTERESTED IN HEARING ANN'S ANSWER FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.

THAT'S A BIGGER PROBLEM.

EVEN IF -- WE'RE ONLY HERE BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR SAID YOU HAD TO WEAR A MASK.

LIKE WITH EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD, GLOBAL MASK MANDATE, AND INDIANA WENT ALONG WITH IT, AND THE CONSERVATIVES FREAKED.

LITERALLY THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE'RE HERE.

BUT IT HAS GOT TO BE ANSWERED.

WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION THE GOVERNOR IS ASKING THE COURT >> EXACTLY, HOW IMPORTANT IS IT THAT WE GET AN ANSWER TO THIS CORE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION THAT IS BEING POSED?

>> I THINK WE DO NEED AN ANSWER, THAT'S WHY THE GOVERNMENT IS SET UP THE WAY IT IS FOR THE JUDICIARY TO STEP IN AND ANSWER, NOT STEP IN, BUT WHEN ASKED TO STEP IN AND BE THE PROVE PROVPROVERBIAL -- >> NIKI, YOU DID A FAIR AMOUNT OF REPORTING ON THE ISSUE THAT TODD ROKITA IS RAISING HERE.

HOW MUCH DO YOU THINK THAT THAT -- HOW MUCH OF A STUMBLING BLOCK TO GETTING TO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION DO YOU THINK THAT WILL BE?

>> I THINK IT WILL BE SOMEWHAT OF A STUMBLING BLOCK, IN 2013, REED TRIED TO SUE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, IT WAS TOSSED BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T GIVEN PERMISSION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL -- SORRY, GLENDA RITZ.

THE LAW HAS BEEN USED BEFORE.

THE ONLY THING WE CAN HOPE FOR IS SPEAKER HUSTON AND ROD BRAY AS CLIENTS OF TODD ROKITA, DIRECT HIM TO FOCUS MORE ON ACTUALLY GETTING AN ANSWER FOR THE CITIZENS THAN ON DEFENDING THE POWERS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE.

>> I THINK DEFEND -- HOW DOES HE DEFEND THE POWERS OF THE LEGISLATURE AGAINST THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNOR WHEN HE IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE.

WHY IS THAT NOT AN ETHICAL CONFLICT FOR HIM >> SOME PEOPLE SAY IT IS.

>> THE INDIANA -- IT IS AN ETHICAL CONFLICT AND HE CAN'T BE INVOLVED IN THE DECISION.

>> THE POLITICAL HIERARCHY, IT SHOULD ALARM CITIZENS THAT AN OFFICE CREATED BY A LAW THAT WAS PASSED IS NOW TAKING -- TAKING IT UPON HIMSELF TO SAY WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND ISN'T, OR WHETHER HE CAN ASK A QUESTION TO A BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.

>> WHAT IF HE DOESN'T, WHAT IF HE STANDS UP AND OPINES ON ANOTHER ISSUE, NOT THIS ONE BUT ANOTHER, AND HE SAYS IT'S CONTITUTIONAL, DOES THAT MAKE IT CONSTITUTIONAL?

>> WHAT IF THEY'RE DIFFERENT PARTIES, NOW YOU HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO IS THE GATEKEEPER -- >> WHICH IS WHY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD BE APPOINTED AND NOT ELECTED.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> LOCAL HEALTH OFFICIALS ACROSS INDIANA CAN NO LONGER IMPOSE EMERGENCY RULES STRICTER THAN THE STATES AFTER REPUBLICANS OVERROAD THE GOVERNOR VETO THIS WEEK, INSTEAD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR CITY COUNCILS WILL HAVE TO ENACT THOSE RESTRICTIONS.

>> THE BILL ROW ROSE AFTER COMPLAINED OFFICIALS WENT TOO FAR DURING THE COVID PANDEMIC SHUTTING DOWN OR RESTRICTING BUSINESSES, REPUBLICAN SENATOR SAID THOSE SORTS OF DECISIONS ARE TOO POWERFUL FOR UNELECTED OFFICIALS TO MAKE ON THEIR OWN.

>> I WOULD CONTEND ACTIONS AND DECISIONS OF SUCH MAGNITUDE SHOULD HAVE A CHECK AND BALANCE.

>> DEMOCRATS CALL THE BILL AN UNWISE REACTION, YODER SAYS HEALTH DECISIONS SHOULD BE MADE BY EXPERTS, THE LOCAL HEALTH OFFICIALS.

>> WHAT THIS VETO OVERRIDE WOULD DO WOULD BE TO INTRODUCE MORE BUREAUCRATIC AND POLITICAL PRESSURES AND PUTTING HOOSIER'S HEALTH AT RISK.

>> THE BILL TOOK IMMEDIATE EFFECT.

>> ANN DeLANEY, FOUR VETOES OVER THE LAST TWO SESSIONS, THREE OF THEM OVERWRITTEN.

TO THE AVERAGE HOOSIER, WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT VETO OVERRIDES AND HOW THERE IS LESS OF A POTENTIALLY LESS OF A SPLIT BETWEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR THAN IT WOULD SEEM.

BUT TO THE AVERAGE HOOSIER, WHAT DO ALL THOSE VETO OVERRIDES SAY ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY?

>> WELL, I THINK IT INDICATES THAT HE'S AT ODDS WITH THE SUPERMAJORITY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, I THINK THAT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS.

BUT I ACTUALLY THINK THAT GOVERNOR HOLCOMB'S TRIED TO DO THE RESPONSIBLE THING, NOT AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIM DO ALL THE TIME.

BUT I THINK HE HAS TRIED TO STEER A MORE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD COURSE BETWEEN THE CRAZY ANTI-SCIENTIST WING OF HIS PARTY AND PEOPLE WHO WANTED HIM TO REALLY LOCK DOWN THE STATE TO KEEP COVID UNDER CONTROL.

SO I THINK HE'S DONE A RELATIVELY GOOD JOB OF THAT.

THEY, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE ONLY WORRIED ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH REDISTRICTING, AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO BE CHALLENGED IN THEIR PRIMARIES BY THE RIGHT WING OF THE FLAT EARTH REPUBLICAN SECTION.

AND SO THEY WANT TO SHOW THEY'RE REALLY WITH DONALD TRUMP, EVEN THOUGH IT IS INTERESTING THAT HIS NAME NEVER COMES OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS.

NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT DONALD TRUMP, BUT THEY ALL TAKE POSITIONS THAT HE WOULD FIND FAVORABLE POSITIONS TO TAKE.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT IS AT WAR HERE.

GOVERNOR HOLCOMB'S TRYING TO APPEAL TO THE STATE, AND TRYING TO PROTECT THE STATE, AND THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR LITTLE FIEFDOMS AND THE RIGHT WING OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

THAT'S WHY HAVING THESE SUPERMAJORITIES IS DESTRUCTIVE WITH THE GERRYMANDERING >> WORKED IT ALL IN, DIDN'T YOU?

>> AM I WRONG?

>> I FORGOT ABOUT THE VIGOROUS TRUMP DEBATE OVER LOCAL HEALTH CONTROL.

AND GERRYMANDERING.

SWINE BARN AND YOU GOT A BINGO.

>> TO THE PERSON WHO DOESN'T FOLLOW POLITICS CLOSELY AND SEEN THE DEBATE THE ENTIRE SESSION, WHAT DO ALL THESE VETO OVERRIDES, ADMITTEDLY THE GOVERNOR -- HAS A WEAK VETO.

>> NOT MANY OF THEM.

1%, LESS THAN 1%.

INTRODUCED 1100 BILLS, AND PASSED 3 OR 400, AND VETOED THREE OR FOUR OF THEM.

AND THREE WERE OVERRIDDEN.

MOST COVID RELATED, WHICH THERE IS A LOT OF POLITICAL PRESSURE ON RIGHT NOW.

SHELLY YODER'S POINT, INTRODUCED THIS POLITICAL ELEMENT TO A LOCAL HEALTH DECISION.

FAIR ENOUGH, BUT RIGHT NOW, I THINK IF YOU ASK SOMEBODY 18 MONTHS AGO WHERE THEY GET THE MOST COMPLAINTS IN COUNTY GOVERNMENT?

THE ANSWER IS THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

THEY TEND TO BE PUNITIVE, OVERREACT.

THAT WAS MY EXPERIENCE AS COUNTY CHAIRMAN.

THEY TEND TO COME DOWN HARD IN WAYS THEY DON'T NEED TO.

COMPLAINTS ABOUT LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS IN THIS STATE FOREVER.

WHETHER TALKING ABOUT SEPTIC SYSTEMS OR COVID MANDATES.

SO TO KICK THIS TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND SAY YOU GOT TO -- HEALTH DEPARTMENT IS GO TO ASK FOR THIS AND YOU GOT TO RATIFY IT, PEOPLE RATIFY IT ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS.

SO WE JUST -- THE IDEA THAT WE JUST TAKE THIS POWER AWAY AND GIVE IT TO ELECTED OFFICIALS IS INSANE, LITERALLY THE WAY THE WHOLE SYSTEM WORKS, ULTIMATELY THERE IS AN ELECTED OFFICIALS IN CHARGE OF RATIFYING THAT DECISION >> TO THAT END, IF YOU TAKE COVID OUT OF THIS, THIS ISN'T ONE OF THOSE -- AND WE TALKED ABOUT THOSE ISSUES WHERE IS IT LOCAL CONTROL OR STATE CONTROL AND THE PUSH AND PULL.

THIS IS SHOULD AN ELECTED OFFICIALS BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE DECISIONS OR AN APPOINTED OFFICIAL?

IN THAT SENSE, IF YOU DO TAKE COVID OUT OF IT, WHICH IS HARD TO DO, ADMITTEDLY, BUT DOES IT SEEM THAT ABSURD A NOTION, THIS BILL?

>> HARD TO TAKE, AS YOU SUGGEST, COVID OUT OF IT, THAT'S SHAPED OUR THINKING AND OUR LEGISLATING IN THIS STATE, AND 49 OTHER STATES FOR A YEAR-AND-A-HALF.

I GUESS IT IS PHILOSOPHICALLY THERE IS SOME IDEOLOGICAL CONSISTENCY IN SAYING THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE THESE LOCAL DECISIONS IN THE HANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ELECTED.

HAVING SAID THAT, THOUGH, HEALTH DEPARTMENTS NOT JUST THROUGH COVID, BUT SINCE PROBABLY CLOSE TO THE FOUNDING OF INDIANA, OR CERTAINLY IN THE MODERN ERA, HAVE ALWAYS HAD MORE LATITUDE BECAUSE THEY ARE SEEN AS HAVING GREATER EXPERTISE, THEY CAN MOVE QUICKLY, BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES WE'RE NOW, THE CDC'S REPORT TALKED ABOUT LAST FEBRUARY, NOT THIS FEBRUARY, BUT THE ONE PRIOR, AS BEING THE LOST MONTH, BECAUSE EVERYBODY SORT OF JUST TWIDDLED THEIR THUMBS.

THAT IS KIND OF WHAT ELECTED BODIES, I'M NOT KNOCKING THEM, THAT'S WHAT THEY DO, THEY'RE DELIBERATIVE BODIES, THEY DON'T TEND TO ACT AS QUICKLY AS MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, THAT'S WHY I THINK WE'VE HAD THE SYSTEM GROW UP THAT WE HAVE.

IT MAY SATISFY THOSE, IT DIDN'T MATTER WHO ISSUED THESE EDICTS, IF IT IS ELECTED, THEY'LL WANT THEIR SCALPS, YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT WANT TO BE TOLD THAT THEY COULDN'T GO OUT, GO TO THEIR FAVORITE TAVERN, THEY HAD TO WEAR A MASK, COULDN'T BE WITH THEIR FRIENDS, PERIOD >> WE'VE SEEN RIPPLE EFFECTS IN A COUPLE OF PLACES.

>> ELKHART AND TIPPECANOE LET SOME OF THEIR RESTRICTIONS LAPSE AFTER THEY WERE OVERTURNED.

WE SHOULD TAKE COVID OUT OF IT.

SOME OF THAT BILL AFFECTS THINGS THAT ARE NON-COVID RELATED.

AND NOW -- I DON'T THINK THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE THOUGHT THROUGH EVERY TIME THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WOULD SAY DOES A BOIL WATER ADVISORY, LET'S SAY SOMEONE DOESN'T WANT TO BOIL THEIR WATER AND WANT TO KEEP THEIR RESTAURANT OPEN, THEY'RE GOING TO GET AN APPEAL.

EVERY TIME THEY SHUT DOWN A RESTAURANT BECAUSE OF RATS, THEY'RE GOING TO GET AN APPEAL.

BECAUSE THAT RESTAURANT DOESN'T WANT TO SHUT DOWN.

THEY'RE GOING TO GET A LOT OF THINGS APPEALED TO THEM THAT THEY NEVER HAD TO DEAL WITH BEFORE >> THE INDIANA HOUSE RECENTLY DISMISSED AN ATTEMPT BY ONE LAWMAKER TO BAN ANY COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATES IN THE STATE BY ANYONE.

BUT THAT LIKELY WON'T BE THE LAST TIME THE ISSUE COMES UP IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

>> REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE JOHN JACOB TRIED TO INTRODUCE AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDISTRICTS BILL THAT WOULD BAR ANYONE VACCINE MANDATE THAT INCLUDES NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES SUCH AS BEING FIRED, BANNED FROM A FACILITY.

THE HOUSE REFUSED TO FACILITY IT.

THE VIOLATED HOUSE RULES SO THERE WASN'T A VOTE.

AFTER THE SESSION WHEN TODD HUSTON WAS ASKED WHETHER HE SUPPORTS THE IDEA, HE SAID HE STRUGGLES WITH IT.

>> I KNOW IT IS GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION THAT IS TAKING PLACE RIGHT NOW, ACROSS MEMBERS OF OUR CAUCUS, WE'LL HAVE I'M SURE THAT WILL BE THE DISCUSSION OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS.

>> HUSTON SAID LAWMAKERS CURRENT WORK AT THE ESTATE HOUSE IS SOLELY ON REDISTRICTING ANY VACCINE MANDATE BANS SHOULDN'T COME UNTIL NEXT SECTION.

>> NIKI KELLY, DO YOU THINK THEY WILL BAN VACCINE COVID MANDATES NEXT SESSION?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL GET ALL THE WAY THROUGH, THERE IS A CORE CONSERVATIVE GROUP WHO WILL PUSH THAT HARD, I THINK THERE HAD BE HEARINGS, BILLS, AND I WOULD SAY IT'S A TOSS-UP RIGHT NOW, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

IT IS QUITE A TIGHTROPE FOR REPUBLICANS, BECAUSE IN GENERAL THEY SORT OF STAND FOR THE IDEALS OF STAYING OUT OF PRIVATE-RUN BUSINESS, RIGHT?

BUT THIS WOULD TELL WHAT A PRIVATE-RUN BUSINESS IS OR ISN'T ALLOWED TO DO WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES.

IT WILL BE AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION, FOR SURE >> JON, I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL, I WILL ASK YOU BY THE TIME THEY GET TO CONSIDERING A BILL, AND EVEN PASSING A BILL LIKE THIS, IT WILL BE MONTHS FROM NOW, PRESUMING THEY ACTUALLY DO IT NEXT SESSION, IT WILL BE JANUARY, FEBRUARY, OR MARCH OF NEXT YEAR.

SO DO YOU THINK THAT THAT HELPS FOLKS WHO WANT TO SEE -- WHO DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS KIND OF LEGISLATION, BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE BEEN IN PLACE LONGER, THERE WILL BE LESS PERHAPS CONSTERNATION THE LONGER THESE ARE IN PLACE.

DO YOU THINK THERE IS ANYTHING TO THAT?

>> I DO THINK THAT'S THE CASE.

I MEAN, PEOPLE WILL BECOME MORE ACCUSTOMED TO THEM, BUSINESS WILL HAVE LARGELY BOUGHT INTO THEM, GOVERNMENT AT VARIOUS LEVELS FROM LOCAL TO FEDERAL HAVE -- WILL HAVE BOUGHT INTO THEM, AND THEY WILL HAVE PRODUCED RESULTS >> TO NIKI'S POINT THIS SEEMS TO PUT REPUBLICANS IN A BIT OF AN INTERESTING SPOT PHILOSOPHICALLY.

DO YOU THINK THAT THE INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHOULD BAN PRIVATE COMPANIES FROM IMPOSING THESE SORTS OF MANDATES?

>> I DON'T.

FIRST OF ALL, EVERYBODY SHOULD GET VACCINATED.

EFFECTIVE, WORKS, YOU SHOULD DO IT.

SECOND, I'M NOT SURE -- THE WAY YOU PHRASED THE FIRST QUESTION, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE SPEAKER SAID HE WAS UNSURE, I THINK HE WAS SAYING THE CAUCUS HAD DIFFERENCES OF OPINION AND WASN'T SURE.

I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING WITHIN THE CAUCUS ARE GROUPS OF PEOPLE THAT KIND OF TILT MORE EITHER TOWARDS THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE BUSINESSES, AND THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS, AND AS YOU CAN PROBABLY TELL WHERE I PERSONALLY COME DOWN ON THAT ISSUE.

I THINK THAT'S THE IDEOLOGICAL CONVERSATION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE HAPPEN, WHO IS GOING TO TRUMP WHOM?

THE RIGHT OF THE PRIVATE BUSINESSES TO SAY YOU CAN OR CAN'T, OR IS THE ULTIMATE RIGHT AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL?

I THINK WE WOULD KIND OF KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING TO COME OUT, I THINK THAT'S THE FIGHT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE INSIDE THE CAUCUS >> TO BE FAIR, I DID ASK YOU -- HOW HE PERSONALLY FELT ABOUT THE IDEA OF BANNING PRIVATE COMPANIES FROM IMPOSING THESE MANDATES, HE SAID I STRUGGLE WITH IT.

ANN, I DO -- >> I APOLOGIZE.

>> THAT'S FINE, I WANT TO ASK YOU, DO YOU THINK THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS GOING TO GO THROUGH AND BAN THESE MANDATES?

>> I HOPE NOT.

WHAT'S HAPPENING.

WHAT I'M HEARING FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE IS I GOT THE VACCINE, AND WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH THESE PEOPLE?

I'M SICK OF HEARING ABOUT THESE PEOPLE.

I'M SICK OF THESE PEOPLE WHO WON'T SPEND $20 TO GET A VACCINE THAT THE GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR, BUT COME IN AND WANT THE ANTIBODIES WHEN THEY GET SICK.

I THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE PUSHBACK.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY THEY HAVE TO TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN'T MAKE CERTAIN PARAMETERS ABOUT EMPLOYMENT.

THERE ARE CERTAINLY GENERAL STATUTES, IF IT IS A HEALTH EMERGENCY OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, AN ANTI- -- ANY PROBLEMS WITH -- AN ANTI-MANDATE FOR VACCINES TO AN EMPLOYER, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY COULD PASS THAT CONSTITUTIONALLY.

BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT, I HAVE EMPLOYEES, AND I MANDATED IT, AND THEY ALL GOT IT.

AND THEY ALL HAVE THE SENSE TO KNOW THAT IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR CO-WORKERS AND FAMILIES.

AND FRANKLY, I'M GETTING A LITTLE TIRED OF LISTENING TO THAT OTHER GROUP THAT TALK ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS, THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO INFECT OTHER PEOPLE.

NOR DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BLOW UP EVERYONE'S HEALTHCARE COSTS BECAUSE THEY'RE HOSPITALIZED FOR MONTHS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE SENSE TO GET VACCINATED >> I GUESS I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU HATE FREEDOM SO MUCH.

INDIANA REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS PS COURT BATTLE WITH GOVERNOR ERIC HOLCOMB OVER EMERGENCY POWERS.

A MARIAN COUNTY JUDGE RULED A NEW LAW WHICH ALLOWS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO CALL ITSELF INTO SESSION DURING A PUBLIC EMERGENCY IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

>> HOLCOMB ARGUED THAT ARTICLE 4 SECTION 9 OF THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNOR THE SOLE POWER TO CALL A SPECIAL SESSION, WHICH HOLCOMB TOOK TO MEAN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REGULAR SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE.

AND THUS INCLUDES THOSE EMERGENCY SESSIONS IN THE NEW LAW.

BUT JUDGE DIETRICH DISAGREES.

ARTICLE FOUR SECTION NINE SAYS THE LENGTH AND FREQUENCY OF THE SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BE FIXED BY LAW, DIETRICH SAYS THAT SPECIAL SECTIONS CLAUSE HOLCOMB CITES IS AN EXCEPTION NOT THE RULE.

LAWMAKERS GENERALLY GET TO DECIDE WHEN AND FOR HOW LONG THEY MEET, HE WRITES, THAT MAKES THE NEW EMERGENCY POWERS LAW CONSTITUTIONAL.

>> ANN DeLANEY ARE YOU SURPRISED BY THIS RULING?

>> HMM, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT.

YOU KNOW WHAT I KIND REALLY MUSING, THOUGH, TODD ROKITA IS RUNNING AROUND CLAIMING A MAJOR VICTORY.

HE ORIGINALLY SAID THE GOVERNMENT COULDN'T SUE WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION.

GUESS WHAT?

HE'S WRONG.

THEN HE SAID THE GOVERNOR DIDN'T HAVE STANDING, GUESS WHAT, HE'S WRONG.

THEN HE SAID THE ISSUE WASN'T RIGHT, HE'S WRONG ABOUT THAT, TOO.

WE SAID THIS ISSUE IS GOING TO BE DECIDED BY THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE WAY THIS JUDGE IS -- THERE IS A LOT TO ARGUE ABOUT THE WAY THE JUDGE INTERPRETED THE STATUTE, AND FOR -- THE FACT THAT WISCONSIN DID SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH THEIR RADICALLY PARTISAN SUPREME COURT IS NOT AUTHORITY FOR INDIANA.

FOR 170 YEARS, THIS HAS BEEN THE PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT EVERYBODY HAS FOLLOWED.

WE'VE DONE IT THROUGH A CIVIL WAR, THROUGH WORLD WARS, THROUGH OTHER PANDEMICS.

AND NOW WE'RE BEING ASKED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE LEGISLATURE TO CHANGE THAT, BECAUSE RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS ARE ANGRY THAT THEY DON'T HAVE AN UNFETTERED ABILITY TO INFECT OTHER PEOPLE WITH THE VIRUS.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD REASON TO CHANGE 170 YEARS OF PRECEDENT.

AND I THINK THIS IS VERY, VERY -- WELL, IT IS PRELIMINARY.

AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPEALED EVEN IF IT HAD GONE THE OTHER WAY.

THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO DECIDE IN >> MICHAEL O'BRIEN, IT WILL PROBABLY BE APPEALED TO A HIGHER COURT.

BUT IT IS ALSO [LAUGHTER] IT IS ALSO THE FIRST TIME IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS THAT GOVERNOR HOLCOMB HAS LOST ANYTHING IN THIS COURT BATTLE.

HOW BIG A BLOW IS THIS FOR HIM?

>> WELL, THE WHOLE POINT WAS FOR SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE TODD HUSTON, ROD BRAY AND GOVERNOR HOLCOMB, ALL OF THE SAME PARTY, TO RESOLVE THIS QUESTION.

AND THEY ALL ASKED I THINK OPENLY WITH THEIR OWN PERSPECTIVE CERTAINLY IN MIND, BUT THE FACT THAT -- WHATEVER YOU ASK THE COURT A QUESTION, YOU MAY NOT GET THE ANSWER YOU LIKE, FROM THE GOVERNOR'S PERSPECTIVE, AND I'M SURE THE LEGISLATURE APPRECIATED THAT THE LOWER COURT SIDED WITH THEM.

YOU KNOW, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

I THINK THE GOVERNOR SAID AS RECENTLY AS JUST FRIDAY AFTERNOON THAT HE'S LOOKING AT IT, HE'S STILL NOT SURE WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO APPEAL OR NOT.

WHICH IS NOT, FRANKLY, USUAL, WHEN YOU LOSE A CASE LIKE THIS, THAT ANN'S RIGHT IS ENDED UP APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT.

WHO KNOWS, MAYBE HE SAYS YOU'RE RIGHT, THE LEGISLATURE COULD BE IN SESSION WHENEVER THEY WANT.

>> MAYBE WE'LL HAVE A FULL-TIME LEGISLATURE.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT'S GREAT EITHER.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT HISTORY, SPEAKER HUSTON, BEFORE HE WAS SPEAKER, ROUTINELY HAD LEGISLATION THAT WOULD SHORTEN THE LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS, HE THOUGHT THEY WERE IN SESSION AND VOCAL ABOUT THIS, TOO LONG AND TOO OFTEN, THIS WAS CLEARLY FROM THE LEGISLATIVE LEADERSHIP STANDPOINT ALWAYS ABOUT AN EXCEPTIONAL PERIOD OF TIME, AND UNPRECEDENTED TIME IN OUR STATE'S HISTORY, THE LEGISLATURE'S RIGHT TO HAVE A VOICE AS BIG DECISIONS WERE BEING MADE, WE'LL SEE WHAT THE GOVERNOR DECIDES ON APPEAL AND WHAT THE SUBSEQUENT COURTS HAD TO SAY >> NIKI KELLY, MIKE JUST REFERENCED THIS, WE TALKED TO THE GOVERNOR THIS MORNING ABOUT HIS REACTION TO THE LOSS, DID HE SAY PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU EXPECTED TO HEAR?

>> I MEAN HE WASN'T REALLY -- I ASKED HIM IF IT WAS A SURPRISE.

HE SAID HE WOULDN'T USE THAT WORD.

BUT, YEAH, IT'S TRUE, HE WON ALL OF THE PROCEDURAL RULINGS LADING UP.

NOW HE'S LOST ON THE MERITS, WHICH FRANKLY IS THE BIG ONE.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW -- I MEAN HE'S TALKED A LOT ABOUT THIS NOT BEING ABOUT HIS ADMINISTRATION, BUT ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE EXECUTIVE VERSUS LEGISLATIVE.

GIVEN THAT BACKGROUND, I DON'T KNOW HOW HE DOESN'T APPEAL.

IT IS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION.

>> RIGHT.

>> I WOULD THINK HE WOULD WANT THE HIGHEST COURT TO WEIGH IN AND NOT JUST LET IT REST ON A TRIAL COURT RULING.

>> JON SCHWANTES, REALISTICALLY, EVEN IF THE LAW IS ULTIMATELY UPHELD, AND THE LEGISLATURE IS ALLOWED TO CALL ITSELF INTO SPECIAL SESSION OR EMERGENCY SESSION DURING A PUBLIC EMERGENCY.

IS THE REALITY GIVEN INDIANA'S POLITICAL HISTORY AND GIVEN HISTORY IN GENERAL, IS THE REALITY THIS LAW WILL PROBABLY ALMOST AND MAYBE NEVER BE USED?

>> YOU KNOW, I MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT THAT AT SOME POINT, BUT AS MIKE SUGGESTED, PEOPLE'S OPINIONS CHANGE.

TODD HUSTON'S OPINIONS APPARENTLY HAVE CHANGED.

CIRCUMSTANCES AND ISSUES CHANGE.

SO I WOULDN'T GO SO FAR AS TO SAY IT WOULD BE BUSINESS AS USUAL.

I THINK THAT THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH.

AGAIN, WE KNOW HOW WE GOT INTO THIS PREDICAMENT.

IT HAD TO DO WITH COVID, THE ISSUES ARE FAIRLY NARROW, BUT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE NOT NARROW.

THEY -- AS NIKI SUGGESTED THIS IS ABOUT FUTURE GOVERNORS OF EITHER PARTY OR BOTH PARTY AND ABOUT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY REGARDLESS OF WHICH PARTY CONTROLS IT.

SO I THINK IT WILL BE APPEALED IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, AND I DON'T THINK WE KNOW YET EXACTLY WHERE A LEGAL WORLD WILL COME DOWN ON THIS >> THAT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THIS WEEK.

IF YOU'D LIKE A PODCAST OF THIS PROGRAM, YOU CAN FIND IT AT WFYI/IWIR.

I'M BRANDON SMITH OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING, STAY SAFE, HEALTHY, GET VACCINATED IF YOU CAN, ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR HOLIDAY WEEKEND.

JOIN US NEXT TIME, A LOT CAN HAPPEN IN AN INDIANA WEEK.

>> INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS, AND BY ICE MILLER.

ICE MILLER IS A FULL SERVICE LAW FIRM COMMITTED TO HELPING CLIENTS BUILD, GROW AND PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS.

MORE AT ICEMILLER.COM.

THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE PANELISTS.

"INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW" IS A WFYI PRODUCTION IN ASSOCIATION WITH INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING