Major gambling expansion on the move moving municipal elections.

Plus a brown order on immigration and more from the television studios at Wfyi.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending January 31st, 2025.

Indian Weekend Review is produced by Wfyi in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.

This week, Indiana would fully legalize online gambling and online lottery under legislation approved by a House committee, and the state's casinos are split on whether to support the online gaming expansion.

The bill would allow Indiana's existing casinos and racino to offer casino style games online and on mobile devices.

Casino Association of Indiana President Matt Bell says online gaming is important to the industry's ability to grow its market.

This is about an opportunity to meet players that we wouldn't normally meet within the walls of our casinos.

But Oliver Barry, who represents Terre Haute casino owner Churchill Downs, says online gaming will cannibalize brick and mortar casinos that support local workers and businesses.

Instead, it will primarily serve to benefit our state's tax coffers and the out-of-state operators, who will realize larger profit margins.

A legislative analysis of the bill estimates it could bring in as much as $221 million in state revenues by the second full year of online gaming.

Is online gaming and lottery the right move for Indiana?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week review panel.

Democrat Elise Shrock Republican Mike OBrien Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers and Niki Kelly, editor-in-chief of the Indiana Capital Chronicle I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting Statehouse Bureau Chief Brandon Smith.

Now, before we get to this topic, I want to acknowledge that the Indiana State Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed new disciplinary charges against Attorney General Todd Rokita today, Friday.

As we tape this just a little while ago.

We will talk more about that next week.

So back on this topic, Mike O'Brien.

I need next week off.

is is online gaming the right step forward?

That absolutely is the right step forward.

But before I go any further, I should disclose that I have several gaming interests in the state House who are all pushing really hard for for AI gaming.

but generally, I mean, just the dynamics of the issue.

It's not a partisan issue.

No.

the legislature really only takes up gaming issues once every like 6 or 8, ten years.

when there's kind of a critical mass of things that need to happen, that's really kind of the environment we find ourselves in.

There's been a multi-year push for free gaming, which would basically just expand the mobile games that are available right now, sports betting being the only one.

This would expand to other things.

we're hearing this week on moving the Rising Star Casino to New Haven, which is like a hugely controversial issue.

and there's some other things, like the charity measures EA pull tabs.

Can we put pull tabs on American Legion's VFW or, should we put, slot machines in bars and taverns?

yeah.

So there's a lot.

There's a lot.

There's a lot going on in gaming right now.

It's probably not going to go anywhere.

Rod Bray, the president of the Senate, has been really cool on it.

on any expansion?

Houston has always said we're not going to touch.

I can't make public policy decisions for revenue reasons.

And gaming, that's the only thing you do.

The only time you're you're making, changes to gaming is when revenue is is going down, which is what has happened in Rising Star with that, with that casino.

So there's a lot going on right now.

I think the legislature will eventually go there.

there's a little gaming market that that they can't really ignore anymore.

That's so prolific and and kind of unabashedly, like, promoted publicly.

It's not a hidden market anymore.

It's like on television.

Ryan Seacrest is a sponsor, and, you know, so it's getting it's getting serious.

And legislature's got to figure out what they're when they're going to go that direction.

One of the reasons I love talking about this stuff is it is nonpartisan or it's it's bipartisan in both directions.

Although my favorite moment from the hearing on the gaming expansion this week was the point you just made was brought up a lot, which is there's this huge black market that exists in Indiana because it's not legal, where you can bet online on all sorts of stuff beyond what's.

Legal for.

Sports in Indiana.

And, you know, there's a black market.

We it's we know it's happening in Indiana.

We need to regulate it and make money off of it.

And Jim Lucas said, are you talking about gaming or cannabis?

he has it's the same.

That's a point.

is this the right move for Indiana?

Well, I think in that hearing, you also heard, you know, it isn't Partizan because the dissenting votes were from two Republicans that said, hey, we need to think about how easy we make this for people who have gaming addictions, because now, instead of going to a place for gaming.

And granted, I understand the black market situation where we are, allowing this on a device that people have all the time.

We know that screen time in itself is an addiction.

so that is something we have to think critically about.

at someone who has an addiction.

Myself, I'm a recovering alcoholic.

I purposely do not keep alcohol in my home.

I have to go out to get it with this type of thing.

Everyone has a phone at this point and most people have smartphones, so that's something to really consider with this type of legislation.

the risk is high, I think.

Representative Layman talked about what happens for families who may have someone in their family who does have this type of problem, but their finances are connected.

they have a self exclusion, but can you do it on someone else?

Right.

So these are all things that need to be taken under consideration because yeah, sure.

This is a huge part of revenue for the state.

But the risks for everyday Hoosiers are pretty high.

I didn't mention this in the package, but if you go online to any of Indiana public Broadcasting station websites, you can read more about what I wrote.

a big part of this bill is, the creation of a new problem gaming program for the state of Indiana that would be funded by casinos and by the lottery.

I mean, we already have a problem gaming.

Yeah.

Not really, if that's the point.

I mean, this one would be funded way bigger, way more.

you have the Gaming Gaming.

Commission, the out of the gaming Commission.

It's a it's a division of mental health now.

It's like and it actually doesn't take it.

And it still leaves some of that stuff with the division of mental health, the stuff that comes from the sports wagering fund.

But this will create a new program that experts on problem gaming who testified, said would be a national leader in trying to help people.

Is that going to be an important part of trying to convince some lawmakers who have exactly the concerns that at least.

I think you have to have it to even have a shot for the bill.

You have to sort of have a balance.

you know, that I want people to understand kind of what we're talking about when you hear, like, the lottery.

And this started with the lottery and it was like, well, if we're going to give this to the lottery, then we have to give it to the casinos, you know?

And so, you know, it doesn't just mean like, you open up and you pick your, your Powerball numbers.

These are just literal electronic slot machine games.

And every time you click it $0.50, $0.50, $0.50 and you'll just sit there and do that.

Someone in the casino like relocation hearing called it the fentanyl of gaming.

Yes.

And so, you know, it is, I think, a lot more addictive, than some of the other gaming options we already have in Indiana.

Yeah.

I mean, that's there's been studies that suggest that this sort of AI gaming or even AI lottery is more addictive than than regular, gambling in a casino or even the lottery at the grocery store.

Both Speaker Houston figurines in a live at this.

But the Senate president pro tem, Rod Bray on yesterday when we talked to him made this very clear.

You do not make public policy on gaming for revenue reasons.

it's whether or not it's a good idea on this one, though.

In the time of a tight budget, maybe he can say that, but lawmakers can think what they think.

And will it convince some folks to?

Well, we could really use that money.

Revenue is certainly has become a big part of it, because that does produce a lot of money for state coffers.

The gaming industry does.

but it's it's there are other tangential, impacts, you know, jobs, casinos hire have employees and economic development for the businesses that are around the brick and mortar locations.

If there is a decrease in traffic to those establishments and you represent one of those districts, all of a sudden this becomes an issue beyond just the dotted line from, you know, the proceeds of casino proceeds into the state general fund.

There are other considerations, but this is a fascinating issue.

For all the reasons that you've talked about.

It's not Partizan.

There's so many other factors here having to do with geography, having to do with, essentially whether you have a dog and in the fight is what it comes down to.

And the other thing that's fascinating about this industry, when you talk about so many of the things we talk about certain types of insurance or solar, and wind turbines or rail and trucking, those are somewhat monolithic.

I mean, individually, if trucking is trucking, rail is real.

This is not monolithic because, there's so many it's multifaceted, to say the least, because you do have to be charitable gaming as an industry.

You do have the lottery for an industry, you do have casinos, and they all have different motivations and different agendas.

So it makes it very complicated.

On that issue, I wanted to ask you this.

if you talk about this being a tough road to how this session maybe.

But while the online lottery is part of this bill, it's been talked about separately before, and there doesn't seem to be nearly as many objections to that part of the bill as there's obviously a fight over iGaming itself.

Do they have to move together in your mind?

I think the I think all of the interest at the table on the other items would say, hang on a second.

It's a Niki's point that, they did they did drop the ball that that they could have done that administratively.

They had they did that.

They could have done that administratively.

But they informed the legislature right before the start of the 23 session that they were going to do it.

And the legislature said, now without us you're not.

And they and they and they change the law to force them to come back.

And just to say, I'm not sure we can say that all gaming I know the the line that's often cited, as you pointed out, Mike, is, you know, you can't make that revenue be a deciding factor.

But let's remember how riverboat gaming came.

Well, quote unquote, what a quaint thought Riverboat Gaming first came into was.

The.

Second session in 1993, went on June 30th, within hours of the end of the fiscal year.

And what I presume would be the closure of state government that came kind of out of nowhere and ended up in the budget bill.

So, I mean, it has a rich history of being part of a very fundamental cornerstone of revenue in our state.

All right.

Indiana mayors, city and town clerks and councilors would be elected in presidential election years under a bill approved by a Senate committee this week.

Elections for municipalities have at least 3500 people currently take place in the odd numbered years before presidential elections.

The Indiana Secretary of State legislative Director Keegan Prentice, says presidential election years have higher turnout than off year elections, and he says there would be significant cost savings.

Municipal elections.

We see about 20% voter turnout.

when we're talking about cost maximization, you're looking at multiple dollars, $10 per voter, whereas in a presidential election you're spending less than $0.50 per voter.

Mishawaka Mayor Dave Wood, a Republican, says his community spends about $40,000 for its municipal elections.

I don't believe you can put a price on democracy, but that is a very small price to pay.

Noblesville Mayor Chris Jensen, also a Republican, says local races would be buried under so many higher ballot offices.

There's very little room for conversations about local school issues.

Police and fire, outdoor recreation and quality of place.

There is an opt out in the bill for communities that don't want to move their elections.

The local council would have to approve a resolution, with voters then approving a ballot referendum on the issue at least.

Is this a good idea?

it doesn't seem like there's consensus on that.

and I think it could really undercut local voices when people go to the polls during election years.

There's a lot of national noise, and that tends to trickle down.

I'm afraid with a local election being moved under that same umbrella, we would lose sight of some of those local issues.

I think this is also probably, I think from the Republican side of things, they're looking at this strategically.

in presidential years, there's been higher Republican turnout.

So if you're trying to take cities like New Albany, like South Pole, and others putting the local elections under where you're getting more years, where you're getting more of the vote seems to be probably strategic.

I think this also is interesting to look at when you overlay another Senate bill.

I think it's Senate Bill 284, which is really concerning to me because it takes early voting from 28 days down to seven days.

It decreases it by three weeks.

So you're giving voters less time to vote.

You are increasing the noise under which they can vote.

that seems like a recipe for, less informed voters.

And less time for voters to do the thing.

That bill is.

Intentional about.

That bill.

Oh, but you can.

After people do so many things over and over again, you tend to.

Make sure that our time winning local elections.

that that bill that, you just reference is, is on the calendar for Senate elections on Monday.

is should we I see both sides of this argument?

If you if you take the the totality out of in a vacuum, I see the, the arguments on both sides for this, which is not a lot of people vote in these municipal election years.

And it's good if more people vote.

But on the other hand, I think it was Senator Greg Walker, Republican Senator Greg Walker in the committee hearing who goes, I have a guy at my church that I see every week who asked me recently, is it tough traveling to Washington, D.C., every week?

It's like I am a state lawmaker.

I'm a Bible study.

On Wednesday evenings.

This is state lawmakers now that they get tied to federal stuff.

City officials don't want to be.

And wouldn't this do that?

Luke Kelly's whole story once he that he caught heat back home because he didn't go to D.C. to vote against for the Clinton impeachment.

And they saw him at home mowing grass and look, and he's not in the Senate now.

I struggle, I, I don't I don't believe that the three dimensional chess that Elise laid out, we're not nearly that smart or coordinated.

but I do see both sides.

It but I tend to tend to disagree that we need to meet.

We need to we need to, like, start shoving everything into the high turnout election referenda of local local leaders at some point.

And I tended to depart from Republican ideas that we shouldn't have fold vote by mail.

I'm not for reducing the window for early voting, but but I the other way I well, it's like it's not really my job either to make sure that the guy understands that Greg Walker is not a U.S. senator.

It's not really my it's like, go do your job as a citizen.

I'm sorry about the turnout.

12%.

Maybe that's the candidates.

They're not they're not excited about the candidates.

Maybe they just don't care generally.

And I think that I do think that's a problem.

I don't know how you turn the dials and the incentives in election law to fix that, other than voters just needing to be motivated enough to educate themselves and get engaged.

part of the argument for this bill is the cost factor.

That's the county clerk's association is in favor of it because they say, you know, cities reimburse counties for the cost of running the election, but not for the cost of the county officials.

time like their employees.

Time is not compensated extra by the city.

So and they have to prepare for these elections, and it's costly for not a lot of turnout.

That's the argument that Secretary of State's office made when we're talking about elections.

Are you buying the we might save some money argument?

Well.

Could I queue up the quote we just had on, gaming issues?

Don't let revenue be a factor in the decision.

I'd like to bring that quote back, because I think it may or may not have been germane in that discussion.

It's very germane in this discussion.

I think if there's one thing we don't need to skimp on and find the cheap route, it's probably our elections.

We already have people for any number of reasons, real and imagined, that question, the sanctity and the purity of our elections and the integrity of our elections.

We don't need to go to the bargain basement to see how quickly.

I mean, you could do it all online.

Piggyback on on AI gaming.

I mean, you could place your bet and then bet who's going to win the election and then put the vote right below.

Got in that gaming bill.

They make it illegal to bet on elections.

All right.

Well but I do think that you can't look at cost and is a straight straight party.

Straight ticket voting.

What does that do in this bill?

because I'm guessing if you really.

Filed to end strategic and voting.

But I don't think.

My point.

Is my point is this if you really are just about if there's no political motivation at all, no partizan motivation, then put that in this bill and let people have to force them to go down and find the mayoral candidate or the or the commissioner candidate, rather than just the Democrats in Marion County oppose that.

Well, but but.

Right.

So let me, let me, let me let me ask this, in the committee hearing in terms of where is this going to go, which is the question I'm going to ask in the committee hearing.

This is one of those because, you see, you and I have seen this more than a few times.

Niki.

the vote was 7 to 2 along party lines, I believe, but at least three of the Republican who voted in favor of this bill did it by saying, I don't know about this bill.

I'm not sure I'm going to vote for it on the floor, but I'm going to move it along.

Right now.

I vote yes.

Does that tell you a little bit more about where this might be headed?

I mean, I, I think it just tells you that this one is pretty novel and very, very concerning.

And I think a couple of things that aren't, weren't raised in that hearing that I think are interesting is also what about county elections?

Are we going to move those to the presidential year or two?

I mean, why not?

Or maybe we need to combine counties and cities together for one.

Also, the idea that they would make it an opt in, I think it's a terrible policy.

Like I'm a little like you where I'm not sure where I fall on that bill, but the idea that half the state cities would be doing.

Is you think voters are confused?

Yeah, exactly.

The idea that.

Was brought up by somebody who testified that said that said, and I don't think they were saying get rid of the opt out.

They were saying, don't do it at all.

Yeah.

But it was yeah, you want to make it even.

Cities does that said, because you may not believe me that it's a strategy and maybe it's not a strategy when it's just a party philosophy, because every single year we see that every single year we see bills that affect voters and not in a good way.

So what type of precedent would something like an opt out set?

Yeah, for every year when voter rights are on the chopping block and it's for some and not others, and what does that mean?

Sadly, the people who will opt out more often than not are the voters themselves who don't take part.

So that's I don't know how we fix that problem.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we put an unscientific online poll question, and we want you to vote on should Indiana move city and town elections, two presidential election years, a yes or no?

Last week we asked you whether Indiana should continue cutting the individual income tax as state revenues grow by at least 3%, 49% say yes, 51% say no.

If you'd like to take part in the poll, could at why forego we're and look for the poll.

Well governor Mike Braun says he's ordering all state and federal law enforcement agencies to do what the Trump administration asks to help deport undocumented immigrants.

It's not clear if Braun's executive order does anything new on that issue, as Indiana law already requires law enforcement to cooperate with federal authorities.

Braun says the federal directive he's received is focused on identifying undocumented immigrants who've committed crimes.

Braun was asked of his executive order will involve law enforcement going into schools and churches.

He says the Trump administration isn't telling him to do that.

Don't ask.

Extrapolated into more than what we've seen here, because it's going to take a good.

While for this to take hold.

Indiana law already bans local governments from refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

Attorney General Todd Rokita has filed multiple lawsuits against local governments and law enforcement agencies in the last year that, he says, aren't complying with that law.

The Indiana National Guard is currently deployed to the southern US border to assist states with border security.

Braun says he'll continue that deployment.

Niki Kelly, A lot of Mike Brown's executive orders, I think this was number 29. a lot of them have been very substantive and have been doing things.

Is this one doing anything?

Yeah.

I mean, I wouldn't necessarily say performative, but it's I mean, I think it's one of the few that was a little less specific.

And, you know, having actual impact.

Now, I will say we do have law that says you, the locals have to cooperate with federal.

But I do think there's a difference between cooperating when I calls you up and ask questions and local law enforcement preemptively, proactively sending them information when they arrest someone for, you know, something else on the side of the road.

And so I will say that I think there's a little bit difference between sort of being proactive versus just answering questions and doing it when it comes to them.

To that point, I think there's a piece of legislation on the move in the Senate that would do the exact same thing.

It would say that any time, law enforcement agency arrests someone for, I believe the bill says misdemeanor or felony, in the state of Indiana, that they would then and if they have reasonable or I think actually they they made it a harsher, a more strict standard, I think it's a probable cause, which is the highest standard of proof, probable cause to believe that person is in the country without documentation that they have to tell federal authorities.

So do we.

Is this clearly just following along with what the Trump administration is doing?

I think it's probably is performative, and it probably, plays well with, with a large number of people.

And, this shows how you can't look for consistency in philosophy, or principle in politics because, you know, states rights operating independently is good until it isn't.

Home rule at the local level is good until it isn't.

you know, sometimes you want local officials and local prosecutors and sheriffs to be able to have some wiggle room.

Sometimes you don't.

I that's just that's just a statement of the obvious that that there's no this is one of those issues where you can't there's no philosophy.

It's very selective.

on what your, your approach is.

Brian was asked about this idea of, of police going into churches, going into schools.

And, you know, he said repeatedly throughout that press conference, you heard the quote, don't extrapolate this.

I'm not being asked to do that.

We're not doing that.

But we're seeing that happen across the country.

So why should we believe that?

That's not going to be happening here in Indiana.

That could happen here.

And and probably and probably is going to happen.

But it's it's wildly insane to me that it would be controversial, a piece of legislation that says if law enforcement, if law enforcement arrests somebody who presumably cannot produce any documentation that, that, that, that that creates probable cause, they will report that to immigration officials.

Why that hasn't been a law since 1789.

I don't know, what we're seeing here.

Of course it's, it's, it's Trump.

So it's it's always, you know, extreme.

but he's only in office because voters we underestimated how much, how much voters care about immigration policy in this country that we've seen how much they did not want millions of undocumented people coming across them.

How much debate.

That's right.

And that's why Trump's President.

Braun is stressing that this is about going after people who are committing crimes.

And then we have manufactured some of those crimes.

Since 2009, I have been trying to advocate for a bill driving cards for undocumented people.

That started with me.

We and that it's been a.

It's not spotlighting.

A bipartisan thing that has been blocked at the most.

It has gotten a committee hearing.

Yeah.

So that means that when we talk about criminals, which is a definition, definition that can mean a lot of things and unfortunately is used to scare people.

All right.

We are going to have to leave it there for this week.

And that is Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Elise Shrock.

Republican Mike OBrien.

Jon Schwantes of Indiana Lawmakers and Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week In Reviews podcast and episodes at wfyi.org/iwir or on the PBS App.

I'm Brandon Smith of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Join us next time because a lot can happen.

And an Indiana Week.

The views expressed are solely those of the panelists?

Indian Weekend Review is produced by Wfyi in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.