>>> RESIDENCY QUESTIONS ABOUT DIEGO MORALES, AN ABORTION CARE PROVIDER SUES TODD ROKITA.

PLUS, ELECTION PREDICTIONS AND MORE.

FROM THE TELEVISION STUDIOS AT WFYI, IT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING NOVEMBER 4, 2022.

THIS WEEK AN INDIANAPOLIS STAR PIECE SAYS THAT REPUBLICAN SECRETARY OF STATE CANDIDATE DIEGO MORALES MAY HAVE COMMITTED VOTER FRAUD IN 2018.

THE STAR OPINION PIECE BY JAMES BRIGGS SAYS THAT MORALES CLAIMED A HOMESTEAD DEDUCTION ON HIS TAXES FOR A RESIDENCE IN MARION COUNTY SINCE 2017.

BUT IN 2018, WHILE RUNNING FOR CONGRESS IN INDIANA'S 4th DISTRICT, MORALES CLAIMED TO LIVE AND VOTED FROM A RENTAL IN HENDRICKS COUNTY.

MORALES TOLD THE STAR IN AN INTERVIEW EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT HE LIVED IN HENDRICKS COUNTY IN 2018.

THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, WHO HAS BEEN DOGGED BY NUMEROUS OTHER ISSUES DURING HIS CAMPAIGN, DID NOT RESPOND TO BRIGGS'S QUESTIONS ABOUT RESIDENCY AND POTENTIAL VOTER FRAUD.

WITH ELECTION DAY AROUND THE CORNER, WILL THIS MATTER?

IT'S THE FIRST QUESTION FOR OUR INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW PANEL.

DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY, REPUBLICAN MIKE O'BRIEN, 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.

FEELS LIKE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE?

>> THINGS HAPPENED THE WAY THEY HAPPENED.

>> THEN WE HAVE CONNIE LAWSON FOR 11 YEARS.

>> THIS IS AN UNFORCED ERROR BACK THEN.

HE DIDN'T HAVE TO LIVE IN THE DISTRICT.

TODD ROKITA WHO OCCUPIED THAT SEAT BEFORE, THE ONE WHO RAN FOR IT, DID LIVE IN THE DISTRICT FOR A TIME, YOU KNOW, REDISTRICTING, WHEN THE DISTRICT CHANGED.

YOU KNOW, SO IT WAS AN UNFORCED ERROR BACK THEN.

I DO REMEMBER, I WAS DISTRICT CHAIRMAN, I WAS CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CHAIRMAN, IN THAT DISTRICT AT THAT PERIOD, AND I REMEMBER THERE BEING QUESTIONS ABOUT KIND OF WHERE HE LIVED.

PEOPLE KNEW HE WASN'T, YOU KNOW, NATURALLY FROM HENDRICKS COUNTY OR HADN'T BEEN A RESIDENT FOR A LONG TIME.

SO I KNEW THERE WERE QUESTIONS AROUND THAT.

THE HOMESTEAD THING JUST MAKES IT MESSIER.

ULTIMATELY I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE THRESHOLD QUESTION.

WILL THIS AFFECT THE OUTCOME?

WHAT HAPPENED WITH CHARLIE WHITE IS THAT IT IS WHAT HAPPENS MOST OF THE TIME IN THESE RACES, AND THAT IS YOU BALLOT TEST QUESTIONS FOR THE PARTY.

AND RIGHT NOW YOU'VE GOT A NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT THAT'S PUSHING HARD RIGHT BY ALL ACCOUNTS.

YOU'VE GOT INDIANA -- AND THAT EFFECT IS EXAGGERATED IN A STATE LIKE INDIANA.

IT'S ALREADY LEANING HARD REPUBLICAN.

SO IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE OUTCOME.

IT'S PROBABLY GOT TO BE CLEANED UP AND ANSWER AT SOME POINT, THOUGH.

>> YEAH.

IN THE SHORT TERM, THIS IS PROJECTED TO BE A CLOSE RACE.

EVEN BEFORE THIS.

IS THIS COMING TOO LATE TO MAKE A NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE?

>> I THINK IT'S THE DEATH BY A THOUSAND NICKS.

I MEAN -- >> YOU SAID THAT THE FIRST TEN TIMES.

>> WELL, IT'S ALSO TRUE.

NOW WE HAVE ANOTHER NICK.

I MEAN, HE DENIES THE ELECTION OF JOE BIDEN.

HE WANTS TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE BALLOT BOX.

HE RAILS AGAINST VOTER FRAUD.

THE ONLY VOTER FRAUD WE'VE HAD DOCUMENTED IN THIS STATE, IN MY MEMORY, HAVE DEALT WITH REPUBLICANS WHO ARE EITHER INCUMBENTS OR CANDIDATES FOR SECRETARY OF STATE.

>> WE'VE GOT SOME FROM SOUTH BEND.

>> THAT WAS ON PETITIONS.

>> THAT'S A BIG A -- THAT'S A BROAD CATEGORY.

>> THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO GET A PRESIDENT ON THE BALLOT.

>> IT IS A DIFFERENCE.

IT IS A DIFFERENCE.

THE IRONY IS BETWEEN LYING ABOUT HIS VETERAN STATUS AND FIRED FROM THE OFFICE AND TOUCHING, GROPING OF WOMEN AROUND HIM, I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE IS THE FATAL BLOW, BUT HE IS THE WORST CANDIDATE I HAVE EVER SEEN NOMINATED BY EITHER PARTY FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE.

AND SHAME ON HOOSIERS IF HE GETS ELECTED.

AND BY THE WAY, HE'LL PROBABLY, WITHIN THE FIVE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, WIND UP BEING PROSECUTED.

THEN HE'LL HAVE TO RESIGN AND THEN THE GOVERNOR WILL HAVE AN APPOINTMENT WHICH WE'VE SEEN HAPPEN BEFORE WITH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

>> WE'LL SEE WHAT CINDY DECIDES TO DO.

>> I WOULDN'T COUNT ON THAT ONE EITHER.

>> MICKEY, -- NIKI, WILL THERE BE A FATAL BLOW?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

>> WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE AHEAD OF OURSELVES FROM TOPIC FOUR.

>> WE ARE.

I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE IS FRUSTRATED, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT MATTERS ANYMORE.

I MEAN, AS LONG AS IT'S A REPUBLICAN AND AS LONG AS IT'S A DEMOCRAT, I'M SAYING THIS ON BOTH SIDES, THIS JUST HAPPENS TO BE, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO MATTER WHAT THESE CANDIDATES DO OR DON'T DO OR SAY OR DON'T SAY.

PEOPLE ARE JUST, LIKE, REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, YES.

THAT'S ALL WE CARE ABOUT IS HAVING THAT OFFICE.

AND, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK THIS CAME OUT A LITTLE TOO LATE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

IF THE OPPONENT HAD HAD TIME TO MAYBE MESSAGE ON IT A LITTLE MORE, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TILT IT, BUT PROBABLY NOT.

>> I THINK YOU JUST ASKED, DOES ANYTHING MATTER ANYMORE, WHICH IS A QUESTION I'VE BEEN ASKING A LOT, ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS, I SUPPOSE.

BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THE ONLY DISQUALIFYING THING THAT A REPUBLICAN COULD SAY IS I SUPPORT ABORTION RIGHTS.

AND EVEN THEN, DEPENDING ON HOW LOCAL THE RACE IS, IT MAY NOT DISCALL THEM.

>> OR WHETHER IT'S A PRIMARY OR NOT.

>> OR WHETHER IT'S A PRIMARY.

>> TREE FALLING IN THE FOREST AND NOBODY HEARS IT -- >> BUT WAIT, THAT'S NOT TRUE ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE WHERE A TEXAS DEMOCRAT WON BECAUSE HE'S PRO-LIFE IN THAT PARTICULAR DISTRICT.

SO DOES ANYTHING MATTER ANYMORE?

>> APPARENTLY NOT.

AND IT IS -- >> WELL, WE'LL SEE.

>> WE WILL SEE.

BUT IT IS CERTAINLY SAD, I THINK, AND BECAUSE THE NOTION OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY SEEMS TO HAVE DISSIPATED, IF NOT DISAPPEARED ALTOGETHER.

WHICH IS SAD BECAUSE THESE ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO ARE THERE TO DO THE BIDDING OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND SHOULD BE EXAMPLES OF ETHICAL CONDUCT AND THE BEST SORTS OF BEHAVIOR, NOT JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE FOLLOWING THE LETTER OF SOME STATUTE, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE CHAMPIONS OF DOING THINGS THE RIGHT WAY.

BUT, AGAIN, I KNOW THAT'S SORT OF QUAINT, BUT I REMEMBER BACK AT IU, I BEING TOO THE ONLY "A" PLUS I EVER GOT WAS INDIANA POLITICS.

GREAT SPEAKERS, BY THE WAY.

YOU'D KNOW MOST OF THEM.

BUT IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE VETTING PROCESS.

AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW, IF YOU EVER RUN FOR OFFICE, YOU'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH DAYS OF, YOU KNOW, PRACTICE OPPOSITION RESEARCH AND EVERYTHING YOU'VE EVER DONE WOULD BE LOOKED AT AND SCRUTINIZED.

BOY, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE.

HE'D HAVE TO REVISE THAT PART OF THE SYLLABUS BECAUSE ANYMORE, IF ANYONE POSES THE QUESTION, IT'S CERTAINLY NO ONE LISTENS TO THE ANSWERS OR IF THEY DO, THEY DISREGARD THE POTENTIAL IMPACT BECAUSE I THINK HE'S RIGHT.

IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYMORE.

>> ALL THAT MATTERS IS -- >> ALMOST ALL OF THESE THINGS, AGAIN, THERE USED TO BE THE NOTION THAT SOMETHING AS SILLY AS SOMEBODY WHO TAKES A BOLD POSITION, AND YOU WOULD FIND DOCUMENTATION OF SOMETHING THAT WAS DIMETRICALLY OPPOSITE A YEAR EARLIER, SOMEBODY IS ESSENTIALLY TALKING OUT THE BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH.

THAT WOULD BE A HORRIBLE THING FOR A CANDIDATE.

THAT WOULD ALMOST BE A DISQUALIFYIER NOW.

WELL, THAT'S FAKE NEWS.

EVERYTHING'S FAKE NEWS, I GUESS.

SO, YEAH, I AGREE 100%, IT'S SAD.

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ABORTIONS HERSCHEL WALKER HAS TO PAY FOR, BUT APPARENTLY IT'S NOT TWO.

IT'S UNBELIEVABLE.

>> YEAH.

>> TIME NOW FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK.

EACH WEEK WE POSE AN UNSCIENTIFIC ONLINE POLL QUESTION AND THIS WEEK'S QUESTION IS WHO WILL WIN INDIANA'S SECRETARY OF STATE RACE?

REPUBLICAN DIEGO MORALES, DEMOCRAT DESTINY WELLS OR LIBERTARIAN JEFF MAUER?

LAST WEEK'S QUESTION WAS SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE FURTHER RESTRICT TEACHER COLLECTIVE BAR DEFINING RIGHTS.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE PART IN THE POLL, GO TO WFYI.ORG/IWIR AND LOOK FOR THE POLL.

>>> DR. CAITLIN BERNARD FILED A LAWSUIT THIS WEEK AGAINST INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD ROKITA OVER HIS INVESTIGATION INTO THE ABORTION CARE SHE PROVIDED TO A 10-YEAR-OLD RAPE VICTIM FROM OHIO.

RECORDS SHOW THAT DR. BERNARD FILED THE PROPER PAPERWORK WITH THE STATE AFTER PROVIDING AN ABORTION TO A 10-YEAR-OLD GIRL AND COOPERATED WITH AUTHORITIES INVESTIGATING HER RAPE.

BUT ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD ROKITA WENT ON CABLE TV EARLIER THIS YEAR, ACCUSED BERNARD OF BREAKING THE LAW WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AND THREATENED TO REVOKE HER MEDICAL LICENSE.

SINCE THEN HE LAUNCHED INVESTIGATIONS OF BERNARD BASED, HE SAYS, ON CONSUMER COMPLAINTS AGAINST HER.

BERNARD IS SUING TO PUT A STOP TO THAT.

THE LAWSUIT SAYS NONE OF THE COMPLAINTS WERE FILED BY ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY DEALT WITH BERNARD.

IN A STATEMENT, A SPOKESPERSON SAID THE OFFICE REGULARLY INVESTIGATES COMPLAINTS MADE BY NONPATIENTS AND DOES SO IN A UNIFORM AND NARROWLY FOCUSED WAY.

ANN DELANEY, ON ITS FACE, THIS LAWSUIT SEEMS TO JUST BE ABOUT THIS INDIVIDUAL CASE.

BUT IS IT ABOUT MORE THAN THAT?

>> IT'S OBVIOUSLY ABOUT MORE THAN THAT.

I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, AND FULL DISCLOSURE, IT'S MY DAUGHTER WHO FILED THE LAWSUIT.

BUT SECONDLY, HIS CONDUCT, AND WE TALK ABOUT THE HIGHEST STANDARDS, HIS CONDUCT IS NOT ONLY ILLEGAL, IT'S IMMORAL.

I MEAN, HE IS USING HIS PLATFORM AS ATTORNEY GENERAL TO HARASS SOMEBODY WHO'S LEGALLY DOING EVERYTHING SHE'S SUPPOSED TO DO UNDER THE LAW.

HE IS NOT TAKING THE NORMAL INVESTIGATION.

YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DETERMINE THAT IN QUIET.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SECRET TO PROTECT THE REPUTATIONS.

HE WAS ON FOX NEWS BEFORE AN INVESTIGATION EVER STARTED DECLARING.

>> HE KEPT THE INVESTIGATION CONFIDENTIAL IN THAT SENSE BECAUSE IT HADN'T EVEN STARTED YET.

>> THE FACT OF AN INVESTIGATION IS ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE CONFIDENTIAL, NUMBER ONE.

ON THE FACE OF THOSE COMPLAINTS, THEY ARE FACIALLY INVALID, AND HE KNOWS IT, OKAY?

AND THEN SECONDLY, HE'S SUPPOSED TO HAVE A NARROW INQUIRY INTO JUST WHAT THE ALLEGATIONS ARE.

HE'S NOT.

HE'S GOING AS BROAD AS HE CAN GO.

HE'S GOT A SUBPOENA THAT HE WANTS EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THE IDENTITY OF THE 10-YEAR-OLD.

OKAY?

SO HE IS COMPLETELY OUTRAGEOUS.

AND ON TOP OF THAT, HE HAS VIOLATED THE SECRECY, WHICH IS INCUMBENT UPON HIM.

AND HE CLAIMS THAT HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE HIPAA VIOLATIONS.

SOMEBODY APPOINT HIM AN ATTORNEY FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

I MUST HAVE MISSED THAT APPOINTMENT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY JURISDICTION THERE EITHER.

SO SOMEBODY HAS TO REIN HIM IN BECAUSE OTHERWISE I COULD ISSUE A COMPLAINT TO MY DOCTOR NEXT DOOR SAYING HE HAS A PRO-CHOICE SIGN OUT THERE, AND HE'S PROBABLY NOT GIVING THE RIGHT LEVEL OF REPORTING TO THE STATE OF INDIANA.

AND HE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.

>> IF THE COURT OKAYS THIS -- HECK, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T -- ARE WE GETTING A WINDOW INTO WHATEVER INDIANA'S ABORTION LAW ENDS UP BEING AFTER THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT TAKES A LOOK AT IT IN A COUPLE MONTHS, WHATEVER INDIANA'S ABORTION LAW ENDS UP BEING, ARE WE GETTING IN A WINDOW INTO HOW AT LEAST THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL PLANS TO TRY TO, QUITE FRANKLY, HARASS PEOPLE WHO PERFORM ABORTIONS, EVEN LEGAL ONES?

>> YEAH.

I MEAN, THIS TIES INTO WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE.

DOES ANYTHING MATTER DID HE UNTIL MORE?

I WAS THINKING BACK TO WHEN THIS 10-YEAR-OLD CASE CAME UP.

AND I WAS SHOCKED -- MY POLITICAL STRATEGIC SENSIBILITY WAS SHOCKED BY THE SPEED WITH WHICH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND TALKING HEADS HAD TO GET IN FRONT OF A CAMERA AS FAST AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE TO SUGGEST A NUMBER OF THINGS.

THE GIRL DIDN'T EXIST WAS THE FIRST ONE THAT THEY STARTED.

WELL, A LOT OF THESE GUYS STARTED WITH, REPUBLICANS THAT WEREN'T FROM INED INDINDIANA OR ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THIS CASE.

THEN THEY HAD TO WALK THAT BACK.

THE SPEED WITH WHICH, IT'S, LIKE, THAT'S A POLITICALLY EXPLOSIVE SITUATION.

LIKE, FORGET ABOUT THE TRAGIC, HORRIFIC NATURE OF IT.

>> AND IT SEEMED TO HAVE HAD AN IMPACT ON INDIANA'S DEBATE OVER ABORTION.

>> RIGHT.

AND IT WAS POLITICALLY EXPLOSIVE.

SO GIVE IT A SECOND.

FIGURE OUT WHAT'S REAL AND WHAT'S NOT.

FIGURE OUT WHAT YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE AND THEN WHAT YOUR AUTHORITY IS TO GO INVESTIGATE IT QUIETLY AND BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

AND IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS.

YOU'RE DOINGED DOWN UNDER IT SIX MONTHS LATER.

NOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET SUED FOR YEARS, RIGHT?

HE'LL BE DEALING WITH THIS FOR YEARS.

>> NOT TO MENTION THE DISCIPLINARY COMPLAINTS, WHICH WERE FILED AGAINST HIS LICENSE, WHICH I ASSUME ARE UNDER INVESTIGATION.

>> JOHN -- >> SORRY.

>> LET ME RUN ON THAT THOUGHT REAL QUICK.

BUT BACK TO WHAT WE WERE JUST SAYING, NOTHING REALLY MATTERS.

WELL, OF COURSE THEY'RE IN FRONT OF THE CAMERAS AS FAS AS POSSIBLE.

BECAUSE THERE ARE GOING TO HEAR WHO BELIEVE THE GIRL NEVER EXISTED.

AND THEY KNOW THAT.

AND THEY CAN GET OUT OF IT ON THE BACK END.

>> THAT'S WHAT ROKITA'S DOING.

>> IF A COURT SAYS TO TODD ROKITA THIS IS NOT OKAY, YOU CANNOT DO THIS, HOW SOON DOES THE LAW CHANGE TO ALLOW HIM TO DO IT?

>> OH, I DON'T THINK IT DOES.

>> I'M NOT SURE HE EVEN -- I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING HE WOULD ACTIVELY VIOLATE THE LAW, BUT -- >> NO, NO.

LAWMAKERS.

>> BUT I WOULD SAY IT BECOMES ANOTHER RALLYING CRY FOR HIM AND HIS CONSTITUENCY TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS ACTIVIST JUDICIARY IS -- >> ALL REPUBLICAN APPOINTED, ALMOST.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

>> YEAH.

>> I'M MAKING -- I'M JUST SAYING WHAT THE TALKING POINTS COULD BE.

>> YEAH.

YOU DON'T NEED THE FACTS.

>> THEN THEY'RE TRAITORS.

>> IT IS KIND OF BIZARRE LAND WE LIVE IN.

LET'S JUST STIPULATE THAT.

WE USED TO DEBATE POLICY.

WE ALL KIND OF AGREED ON THE FACTS.

IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD PLAY A BOARD GAME BECAUSE THERE WERE RULES THAT EVERYBODY -- MONOPOLY OR RISK, WHATEVER GAME.

NOW IT WOULD BE LIKE EVERY MOVE YOU'RE DEBATING WHETHER THE RULES MEAN THIS OR THAT.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW THIS CONTINUES, FRANKLY.

IT'S NOT -- I MEAN, I'M AN OPT MIST, BUT THIS IS STARTING TO MAKE ME THINK THAT I SHOULD RECONSIDER.

IT IS CHALLENGING.

A NEGATIVE -- WHAT HE WOULD VIEW AS A NEGATIVE DECISION COULD BE A RALLYING CRY.

AND I'M NOT SURE THERE'S A LOT OF APPETITE ON THE PART OF THE LEGISLATURE AS IT'S CURRENTLY -- AS IT'S CURRENTLY COMPOSED TO MAKE DRAMATIC CHANGE, TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH.

>> MAKE ANY CHANGE.

>> THIS -- MIKE JUST POINTED OUT, THIS PROCESS PROBABLY ISN'T GOING TO PLAY OUT QUICKLY BECAUSE YOU ALSO HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS GOING ON WITH TODD ROKITA.

HE CAN STILL BE SUED FOR DEFAMATION BY DR. BERNARD.

I THINK IT'S TWO YEARS WHETHER SHE WANTS TO DECIDE TO DO THAT.

THIS IS LIKELY GOING TO BE A THING WE TALK ABOUT WITH TODD ROKITA FOR THE REST OF HIS CURRENT TERM AS A MINIMUM, RIGHT?

AND THEN DOES IT HURT HIM IN THE FUTURE?

>> LET'S BE HONEST, HE'S FINE WITH THAT.

YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S BEEN PRETTY CLEAR THAT HE SEES IT AS, YOU KNOW, BEING RESPONSIVE TO HIS SPECIFIC REPUBLICAN CONSTITUENTS, AND HE DOESN'T PARTICULARLY CARE ABOUT THE OTHER CONSTITUENTS IN THE STATE.

>> OR THE LAW.

>> AND SO AS LONG AS HE CAN RALLY PEOPLE BEHIND HIM, AND HE CERTAINLY BELIEVES IN THE NO, YOU KNOW, ALL PUBLICITY IS GOOD PUBLICITY THING.

>> HE DOESN'T CARE WHAT THE LAW SAYS EITHER.

>> IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A FOX OR ANY NETWORK THAT HE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN APPEARING ON, THIS IS PROBABLY, EVEN BEING SEEN AS SOMEBODY WHO'S FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT, AS IT WERE, WOULD MAKE HIM A HOT COMMODITY.

>> I THINK THE CHAMBER WEIGHS ON THIS, TOO, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF LICENSES OUT THERE FOR ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT PROFESSIONS.

AND IF YOU GIVE HIM A ROADMAP TO GO IN THERE AND MAKE HIMSELF, YOU KNOW, A HERO TO THE RIGHT WING AND MAYBE GET THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FOR GOVERNOR, HE WILL DRIVE THAT CAR AS FAST AS HE CAN DOWN THAT ROAD.

>> THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE WHAT MATH ELECTRIC UTILITYIES CAN USE TO PAY SOLAR CUSTOMERS FOR THE EXCESS ENERGY THEY DELIVER TO THE GRID, SOMETHING THAT WASN'T SPELLED OUT WHEN LAWMAKERS PHASED DOWN NET METERING.

INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTNG'S REBECCA THIELE REPORTS, DEPENDING HOW THE COURT RULES, IT COULD TAKE SOLAR CUSTOMERS EVEN LONGER TO PAY OFF THEIR PANELS.

>> WITH APPROVAL FROM THE STATE, CENTERPOINT ENERGY IS SUBTRACTING THE ENERGY SOMEONE WITH SOLAR PANELS USES FROM HOW MUCH THEY PRODUCE ALMOST IN REALTIME, INSTEAD OF MONTHLY AS IT DID BEFORE.

SOLAR ADVOCATES SAY THIS MEANS LESS MONEY FOR SOLAR CUSTOMERS.

A STATE APPELLATE COURT HAD RULED AGAINST CENTERPOINT.

IN THIS APPEAL, THE UTILITY SAYS THEIR MATH GOES WITH THE INTENT OF THE NET METERING LAW AND THAT THE COURTS SHOULD DEFER TO THE INDIANA UTILITY REGULATORY COMMISSION'S EXPERTISE.

LAURA ANN ARNOLD IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE INDIANA DISTRIBUTED ENERGY ALLIANCE.

SHE SAYS THE INDIANA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SAYS TO CALCULATE THE DIFFERENCE OVER "THE BILLING PERIOD" AND LAWMAKERS DIDN'T CHANGE THAT MATH IN 2017.

SHE WAS THERE.

>> I FEEL AS THOUGH CENTERPOINT AND THE COMMISSION ARE GASLIGHTING US.

>> BUT CENTERPOINT OFFICIALS SAY THE IURC FOLLOWS THAT ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND IT DIDN'T AGREE THAT THE MATH SHOULD BE CALCULATED MONTHLY.

>> A LOT IS RIDING ON THE CASE.

THIS SAME QUESTION IS BEING DEBATED IN LOWER COURTS WITH FOUR OTHER INDIANA ELECTRIC UTILITIES, PRESUMABLY WAITING TO SEE HOW THE HIGH COURT RULES, AND THERE'S NO TELLING HOW LONG THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT WILL TAKE TO MAKE THEIR RULING.

BUT NIKI KELLY, LAWMAKERS COULD SOLVE THIS RIGHT NOW BY PASSING A NEW BILL ON HOW THIS SHOULD BE CALCULATED.

ARE THEY GOING TO WADE INTO THIS ONE?

>> PROBABLY.

IT WOULD BE AN EASY, YOU KNOW, SLIP INTO ANY BASIC UTILITY BILL THAT THEY HAVE COMING UP IN JANUARY.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THE BIG ISSUE IS THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO INVESTED IN SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THINKING OF A CERTAIN RETURN, AND NOW THAT'S KIND OF BEING PULLED OUT FROM UNDER THEM.

AND, OBVIOUSLY, THE LEGISLATURE'S NOT INTERESTED IN INCENTIVIZING THIS, ALTHOUGH FRANKLY IT'S NOT EVEN AN INCENTIVE.

IT'S LITERALLY JUST YOU GET CREDIT FOR WHAT YOU PUT ON THE GRID.

IT'S NOT EVEN REALLY AN EXTRA.

>> YEAH, IT SEEMS JUST LIKE BASIC FAIRNESS.

>> RIGHT.

>> A LITTLE BIT ON ITS FACE.

SO, JON, IF THE LEGISLATURE DOES WEIGH IN, THEY COULD WEIGH IN PRESUMABLY IN ONE OF TWO WAYS.

ON THE SIDE OF THE CUSTOMERS, ON THE SIDE OF THE UTILITIES.

WHICH WAY DO YOU THINK?

>> LIKE REVERSE THE 2017 STATUTE THAT ESSENTIALLY GUTTED -- THEY CAN DO THAT, TOO.

>> BUT THAT SEEMS EXTREMELY -- >> THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

THERE'S A COUPLE OVERARCHING THEMES HERE.

ONE IS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON THIS ISSUE AND ANY NUMBER OF ISSUES DOESN'T LIKE THE BUREAUCRACY.

AND I DON'T MEAN THAT IN A BAD WAY, BUT PROFESSIONALS WHO REGULATE THINGS.

THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO CEDE ANY SEEMING AUTHORITY OR CONTROL TO EXPERTS IN A GIVEN FIELD, WHETHER THAT'S ALCOHOL, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSURE OR WHETHER IT'S ENERGY POLICY OR -- I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE LOATHED TO ACTUALLY TRUST ANYBODY IN THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT THAT THEY HAVE HELPED ASSEMBLE.

SO THAT'S A THEME THAT SEEMS TO BE, LET US TAKE CARE OF IT BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE IS QUALIFIED.

AND THEN WHEN YOU -- WE JUST HAD AN ENERGY POLICY TASK FORCE THAT ONE OF THE OVERRIDING PRINCIPLES WAS WE'RE NOT GOING TO PICK FAVORITES, YOU KNOW.

AND ARE YOU ESSENTIALLY PICKING FAVORITES BY SAYING THAT YOU -- I MEAN, YOU COULD ARGUE BOTH SIDES.

YOU KNOW, IS THIS LETTING THE MARKET WORK OR NOT?

BUT WE'RE CERTAINLY DEVOTING ATTENTION TO A SOURCE OF ENERGY THAT OTHER SOURCES ARE NOT GETTING ATTENTION, AND BY ITS VERY DEFINITION, ANY KIND OF TWEAKING OF THE STATUTE PROBABLY TREATS THAT SOURCE OF ENERGY DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHERS.

SO THAT HAS TO BE RECTIFIED.

>> SAME QUESTION TO YOU, I GUESS, WHICH IS IF THEY WEIGHED INTO THIS, ARE THEY LIKELY TO COME DOWN ON THE UTILITY SIDE?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK THERE'S BEEN -- THE MARKET AND THE POPULARITY OF THESE RESIDENCIAL SOLAR PANEL SYSTEMS, I THINK A LOT OF THESE GOT SOLD PROBABLY WITHOUT HAVING ALL THE FACTS.

YOU'RE GETTING, YOU KNOW, I GET CALLS ALL THE TIME.

A LOT OF PROMISES.

YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW THE MATH BEHIND THE DEAL CAN CHANGE BECAUSE IT'S NOT -- BECAUSE IT'S SUBJECTIVE.

AND IT'S -- THE DECISIONS ARE -- CAN BE REVISITED AT ANY TIME EITHER BY THE LEGISLATURE OR THE REGULATORS OR THE UTILITIES THEMSELVES.

YOU KNOW, BUT I DO THINK THE LEGISLATURE HAS REALLY INCREMENTALLY TAKEN A LOT OF STEPS TOWARDS AND SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

>> YEAH.

TO THAT END, I MEAN, THAT SEEMS TO BE WHERE THE MARKET IS GOING, TOO.

UTILITIES THEMSELVES ARE WINDING DOWN ON FOSSIL FUELS IN THIS STATE.

NOW, WE'RE STILL MORE RELIANT THAN A LOT OF OTHER STATES, BUT THEY ARE WINDING THEM DOWN.

WHY, IF YOU'RE THE LEGISLATURE, DO YOU LOOK AT THAT AND GO, OKAY.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO AT LEAST PUSH BACK AGAINST THAT TOO MUCH HARDER.

>> I WOULD HOPE SO BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU'RE GETTING PEOPLE, EVEN THE FORMER CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS ARE NOW COMING AROUND TO THE NOTION THAT WE HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM BECAUSE OF OUR RELIANCE ON FOSSIL FUELS.

SO ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO ENCOURAGE RENEWABLE ENERGY IS A GOOD THING.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HAVE SOLAR PANELS, BUT I'M WILLING TO BET THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE WITH SOLAR PANELS THAN THERE ARE UTILITIES.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION ALSO -- >> THERE'S A LOT OF MAJOR COMMERCIAL SOLAR PROJECTS.

>> THAT'S TRUE TOO.

>> THAT'S BECOME A BURDEN.

>> SO FIVE GOT ALL OF THAT, AND IT SEEMS TO ME -- >> PUSHING AGAINST THAT, TOO.

>> IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY OUGHT TO THINK ABOUT COMING DOWN TO THE SIDE OF THE CONSUMERS.

>> ALL RIGHT.

ELECTION DAY IS TUESDAY, AND, BOY, IF YOU HAVEN'T VOTED ALREADY, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DO.

AND SO IT'S TIME FOR PREDICTIONS.

LET'S START WITH INDIANA'S U.S. SENATE RACE BETWEEN INCUMBENT REPUBLICAN SENATOR TODD YOUNG, DEMOCRAT TOM McDERMOTT, AND LIBERTARIAN JAMES.

MIKE O'BRIEN, WHO'S GOING TO WIN THE SENATE RACE?

>> TODD YOUNG AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE CLOSE.

>> IS THE MARGIN BETWEEN 5 PERCENTAGE POINTS?

>> NO.

IF YOU'VE WATCHED TODD YOUNG IN THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS, HE'S STILL RUNNING HIS OWN ADS AND DOING HIS OWN THING, BUT HE'S SPENT A LOT OF TIME FOR CAMPAIGN BEING IN THE FIRST DISTRICT AND PROSECUTOR FOR MARION COUNTY AND A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE.

IT'S REFLECTIVE, YEAH, I THINK.

HE'S LOCKED IN.

>> I'M GOING TO GO WITH THE POLL FROM OUR -- >> TOM McDERMOTT.

>> -- LISTENERS, McDERMOTT.

>> WITHIN 5.

>> HIGHER THAN 5?

>> I'LL TAKE THE OVER.

>> TODD YOUNG, BUT I THINK IT COULD BE A LITTLE CLOSER.

AND MAYBE NOT 5, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE POLL THAT ANN'S REFERRING TO ACTUALLY HAD IT AT 10.

>> IT WAS 10.

>> SO LET'S BE REALLY BOLD AND SAY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 5 AND 10.

>> ALL RIGHT.

I THINK TODD YOUNG WINS AND I THINK BY MORE THAN 5 PERCENTAGE POINTS.

MAYBE THE MOST INTERESTING RACE OF THE NIGHT TUESDAY MIGHT BE THE INDIANA SECRETARY OF STATE RACE BETWEEN MORALES AND WELLS, MAURER.

IT'S GOING TO BE CLOSE, I THINK.

>> I'M GOING WITH DESTINY.

I THINK SHE'S GOING TO SURPRISE YOU.

I REALLY DO.

>> IS THIS THE YEAR THAT DEMOCRATS CAN WIN A STATEWIDE OFFICE LIKE SECRETARY OF STATE?

>> I'M NOT SURE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO WIN MUCH OF ANYTHING ON TUESDAY.

I THINK THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT IS PRESSING THEM SO HARD NATIONALLY AND IT'S PUSHING EVERYTHING REPUBLICAN IN INDIANA.

I THINK DIEGO'S GOING TO WIN.

THE INTERESTING PART FOR ME IS THE GOVERNOR'S RACE IN 2022, CAME IN THIRD PLACE.

I'M GOING TO SEE IF HE CAN GET THE 10% THRESHOLD.

>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY SECOND QUESTION.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR DIEGO?

>> YEAH.

>> IF THERE'S SOMETHING WORTH CELEBRATING IN A DEMOCRATIC EVENT TUESDAY NIGHT, IT WILL BE THIS RACE.

I THINK WELLS IS RUNNING A SMART RACE.

REPUBLICANS, IF HAS BEEN THOSE THOUSAND NICKS.

THE NAME HURTS HIM, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE.

SHE HAS A SHOT.

SHE HAS A SHOT AT AN UPSET.

>> I THINK DIEGO WILL PULL IT OFF.

>> YEAH.

I'M WITH MIKE ON THIS ONE.

IF THERE'S A REPUBLICAN, I'M PICKING THE REPUBLICAN IS JUST KIND OF THE WAY IT FEELS LIKE THIS CYCLE IS GOING SO I'M GOING TO SAY MORALES WINS.

I'LL COME BACK TO REAL QUICK, WILL DEMOCRATS HAVE ANY CHANCE AT AUDITOR OR TREASURER, MIKE O'BRIEN?

>> NO, WE HAVE GREAT CANDIDATES THERE.

>> I'M PASSING ON THAT QUESTION.

[ LAUGHTER ] >> NO.

>> NO.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WILL DEMS LOSE SEATS IN THE STATE SENATE?

ANN.

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

>> I DON'T THINK SO EITHER.

>> NO.

>> NO.

>> AND WHO WILL CONTROL THE U.S. HOUSE AND THE U.S. SENATE?

REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS?

>> GOD, I HOPE DEMOCRATS ON BOTH, OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ABORTION BAN.

>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE SENATE.

THE HOUSE I THINK SEEMS PRETTY SETTLED.

>> SENATE STAYS WITH THE DEMS, BARELY.

REPUBLICANS TAKE THE HOUSE.

>> SAME.

>> I THINK REPUBLICANS TAKE BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE.

>> OH.

>> I THINK BY MORE THAN -- I MEAN, THEY'LL REALLY TAKE THE HOUSE AND I THINK THEY TAKE THE SENATE BY TWO OR THREE SEATS.

I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE U.S. HOUSE HERE IN INDIANA, WE HAVE A VERY INTERESTING RACE IN THE 1st CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

GREEN AS YOU MENTIONED AGAINST INCUMBENT DEMOCRAT FRANK MURVAN.

HE'S LOOKING TIGHT FOR WHAT'S BEEN A DEMOCRATIC SEAT FOR I BELIEVE A CENTURY NOW.

NIKI, DO REPUBLICANS PULL OFF THE UPSET THERE?

>> I THINK HE'LL JUST SQUEAK IT OUT.

THIS RACE GOT REALLY INTERESTING IN THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS, BUT MAYBE NOT QUITE ENOUGH.

>> I THINK FRANK MURVAN HOLDS ON.

>> BOY, IT WON'T BE FOR LACK OF MONEY OR TRYING OR EFFORT.

>> THIS IS THE TIME.

>> IF YOU LOOK DOWN AT THAT FIRST STATE SENATE DISTRICT, IF THERE IS A PICKUP FOR REPUBLICANS, IT'S MICHAEL GRIFFIN AND DAN'S REALLY BENEFITED FROM, YOU KNOW, $14 MILLION IN REPUBLICAN MONEY COMING INTO THAT DISTRICT.

>> I DIDN'T HEAR A PREDICTION.

>> OH, I'M SORRY.

WE'LL GO WITH JENNIFER -- LONG SHOT, FIRST TIME SINCE RECONSTRUCTION.

>> MURVAN.

>> I THINK JENNIFER.

I'M PICKING REPUBLICANS.

>> YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE.

>> I THINK REPUBLICANS TAKE EVERYTHING.

>> SO WHAT DO YOU DO IF YOU LOSE?

>> I'LL BE WRONG.

>> HE HAS TO BUY THE ELECTION PIZZA.

>> YOU'LL BE LIKE ME.

>> THAT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THIS WEEK.

OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY, REPUBLICAN MIKE O'BRIEN, JON SCHWANTHE SAYS OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS AND NIKI KELLY OF THE INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE.

YOU CAN FIND INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW'S PODCAST ONLINE OR ON THE PBS VIDEO APP.

I'M BRANDON SMITH OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

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