Music President Donald Trump found guilty on all counts.

Indiana spends nearly half $1 billion on its voucher program.

Plus, an amended abortion lawsuit from providers and more.

From the television studios of WFYI.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending May 31st, 2024.

Indiana and Week in Review is made possible by the supporters of Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Former President Donald Trump has been found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

It's a historic verdict as Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, campaigns again for the white House.

It's the first time a former or sitting U.S. president has been convicted of criminal charges.

On Thursday, 12 New York jurors said they unanimously agreed that Trump falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels to influence the 2016 election.

It's unlikely any of the other four ongoing criminal cases against the former president will be heard before November.

The latest NPR PBS NewsHour Marist poll showed that 17% of voters said they would be less likely to vote for Trump if he is convicted.

15% said they would be more likely.

And 67% said it makes no difference to their vote if Trump is found guilty in his hush money trial.

What does the historic verdict mean for Trump's chances in Indiana?

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 Ebony Chappel, the Market Director for Free Press Indiana.

I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting Digital Editor Lauren Chapman, filling in for Brandon Smith.

Ebony is this verdict enough to sway moderate for Indiana Republicans?

So perhaps.

But also, I would say if nothing has swayed them to this point, maybe this just isn't the thing.

You know, we've seen over this past 24 hours lots of energy.

Trump has said that he's going to appeal all of this.

It's a scam.

and I think that this is just going to be another opportunity for his supporter base to be emboldened to be in power and to show up to the polls for him in November.

Yeah, Jon, same question.

I mean, Indiana Trump won Indiana by double digits.

I mean, what's the chance?

I don't imagine that will change.

Maybe the margin won't be as significant, but I think it's still going to be a red state as it relates to presidential politics.

I think where this will have some impact is with independents and those that, and that's, you know, a significant group, not perhaps overly large in this state, but a significant group in states where you have some very, close polling and some close margins one way or the other.

and I think those some of those folks might take a guilty verdict into account in a way that apparently, again, according to the polls we've seen in the past, you know, day or so and, and they reflect what we had seen days and days and days before, that is you have those core Trump supporters who are just not going to do go anywhere else.

And as was suggested, if anything, this causes them to double down and say the fix was in.

I've got to do my part to, you know, rectify, this, this, this, this, you know, this mis-justice Yeah.

So so it's, but again, I all things considered, I think I, Donald Trump, I'm sure if you got him with truth serum, he would have preferred not to have been, convicted.

And wouldn't work.

On him.

Well, I don't know.

Okay.

I'm not sure we'd learn anything different.

Yeah.

Yeah, exactly.

No, no more of the same.

Because I'm.

I'm convinced that he believes that, you know, he was wrong.

You know he was wrong.

Yeah.

Well yeah I mean I'm kind of looking at the gubernatorial race in the effect that you know, Trump endorsed Mike Braun back in what November, December.

you know, does this have an effect on, you know, moderate Republicans that may have otherwise voted for Braun?

No, no.

Certainly not.

I don't think this trickles down to the, to the Governor's race.

Otherwise we would have seen that in in play in the, in the primary.

And I think what we saw was Donald Trump endorsed Mike Braun early on in that race state exactly where it was that the entire time it didn't move at all.

you know, and will this, will this affect moderate Republicans to any point if they haven't been affected so far?

I think they haven't been.

I think they I think they were already swayed.

I don't think there's slam.

I think there's I don't think they learned anything new this week with like with a guilty verdict.

This was kind of who they thought he was.

And there's not enough of them to really change the outcome.

Otherwise we'd be congratulating Brad Chambers on his protest candidates, even for for Governor, because I was the whole point of that.

It was to try to capture moderate Republicans and send them, you know, the Mitch Daniels direction.

Yeah.

and there's just not.

And those that math just doesn't work anymore.

That's not where we're at right now.

Mike Braun's going to be elected governor.

at least not in a primary election.

And I mean, do Indiana Democrats have a chance of capitalizing on this?

You know, looking a little bit further down the ballot?

Well, further down the ballot, I think that's the case.

Yes, I think there are there are enough and there are independents out there.

And when you look at why he did what he did, I mean, I understand this was all about falsifying the records, but the reason he did it was to stop the Stormy Daniels story from coming to be aired right before the election.

And when you realize that in obviously, he lost the popular vote in 2016, but the electoral vote in several of the states was very close and I've got to believe that it is entirely conceivable that had that story broken before the election, he might not have gotten the electoral total that he got.

So yeah, he.

That otherwise you don't do any of this.

Yeah.

You don't.

That's right.

You know there's no payoff.

It's just like tell your story.

So you're looking I'm going to go away.

That's that's right.

He believed it.

Yeah.

And I think it does have an impact to have a conviction despite the things that that the Republicans are saying out there.

And Jim Banks ought to be ashamed of himself, the idea that he wants to occupy Richard Lugar's seat, saying what he said about this verdict, they are so disrespectful of the law.

It is appalling to me.

Okay.

They're supposed to be elected officials who believe in democracy, who believe in our system of checks and balances.

And yet if it doesn't go their way, it has to be corrupt.

That's their mantra.

And I think a lot of people are tired of it.

There are Republicans out there not enough to change the outcome presidentially in Indiana.

But I have talked to Republicans, long time visible Republicans who say the party's left them behind.

They're not voting for Trump.

But that's not a new revelation.

I think there are more tweaks.

I mean.

That's right.

I don't think the verdict effective that with the moderate Republicans.

I think Mike's right on that.

But on independence, it's no longer what happens if he is a criminal?

He's a criminal.

Okay.

And that and the jury didn't have any problem finding him guilty of all 34 counts.

That says something to people.

I think normal.

People, not Republican, MAGA people.

You know, the impact, it seems to me, goes beyond just this, the outcome of the November election.

It will take years, if not decades, to repair the erosion of trust in the system and in the institutions and in the judiciary.

That, to me is a is a very troubling concern, because if you if that unravels, you know, you don't have much, you don't have much left.

That's assuming that that trust can ever be repaired.

I think we're at a point where it's irreparable.

The fact that we are sitting here having a discussion about possibly having a presidential candidate do this while being a convicted felon, he'll be able to vote for himself in Florida, but, but not, excuse me, in New York, but, you know, wherever.

So it is just really, strange that we're even having this conversation.

So I think from a voter perspective, the harm is irreparable at this point.

I remember there were three other pending .. four other cases.

Yeah, that all, all criminal.

Yeah.

But not likely to take place.

Before it takes place before the election.

But by the way, he can't pardon himself on this one.

Right on federal.

Yeah.

Well time now for Viewer feedback.

Each week we pose an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question Does Trump's guilty verdict affect his chances of winning Indiana, though?

A yes or B for no?

Last week's question is the state right to change its care policy for medically complex children?

19% of you said yes, 81% said no.

If you'd like to take part in the poll, go to WFYI.org/IWIR and look for the poll.

A bench trial set to conclude Friday challenges Indiana's near-total abortion ban with an amended lawsuit from abortion providers.

The lawsuit challenges the “serious health or life” exception to the law, as well as the prohibition on abortions beyond hospitals and surgical centers.

Arguments in the trial focused largely on what the providers call “an unconstitutionally narrow” exception, to protect the serious health or life of a pregnant person.

Medical experts testified that the language of the law legislates medical decisions using non-medical language, and they said doctors may be more likely to delay essential care by waiting until the threat to life is much higher.

In court filings, attorneys for the state largely argue these issues have been decided by the Indiana Supreme Court's 2023 decision, which found that the ban did not violate the state's constitution.

The High Court left the door open to challenges on the specifics of the law.

It's notable that the judge overseeing this trial is the same judge who ruled on the preliminary injunction that halted the abortion law for nearly a year.

Well, this amended lawsuit make headway for abortion rights activists.

I think there's a possibility, because if you look at what the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in reviewing the 2023 statute, that is at the heart of this this case, they said that there's nothing wrong with the statute per se.

But its.

Constitutionally.

But they also said there is.

And this, as far as I know, the first time that the courts had said, you know, specifically there is a protection under Indiana's Constitution for the life and health of women who are in these situations.

Now, that didn't spell out the fine points, which is, but it did invite, it seems to me this these types of lawsuits where, and this I'm sure will not be the only one.

I'm sure this will be an ongoing issue where we have ongoing litigation to fine tune, because oftentimes the judiciary and the medical world don't actually mesh very well.

the terms, the nomenclature are different.

And when you use terms that the judiciary has spelled out, what does that mean?

In the medical world?

It's sometimes a murky proposition at best.

Exactly.

Yes.

So.

So, there is possibility, and the Supreme Court opened the door to that.

It seems to me about what constitutes a serious risk to health.

Not only and as we saw in the trial, on day two, not only physical health, but mental health and which is a significant aspect of this as well.

Absolutely everything.

Yes.

So I'm glad that these type of, discussions and things are taking place, because we have to add some clarity when you leave things in the space where it's ambiguous, ambiguous.

Excuse me with a medical provider being forced to.

Now I have to figure this out.

I have to say, you know, it just invites even murkier waters.

So, you know, it's interesting to see this continue.

I mean, and we're also talking about, you know, the fact because of this, you know, vague definition, that the only abortion providers, the only hospitals that are providing abortions in the state of Indiana are almost exclusively located in Indianapolis, according to court documents.

So even if you do have a legal right to an abortion under Indiana's near-total ban, you don't have access to it under, you know, the current landscape.

Which is even more of a reason for us to pay attention to access overall for public health across the state, because many of our rural areas, places outside of the 465 bubble are left out in underserved.

Absolutely.

And I mean, does this conversation continuing help or harm Democrats as we look toward the November election?

Well, I think it I'm hoping that the decision will help women and women's health.

is it an issue for Democrats in this election, you bitch, or whatever?

Okay.

It it is because Republicans want to restrict it.

They don't care what the risks are to women's health.

They don't care about accessibility for women.

And that was shown in the discussion or in the testimony yesterday.

I mean, you have conditions there that can be fatal.

They may not be fatal in the first few weeks of pregnancy.

But how long do we have to wait?

Well, that's that's the issue.

And having Todd Rokita in every one of those hospital rooms making that decision is frightening.

So yes, clarity is needed.

Constitutionality has been decided.

But how the statute applies and what it does needs to be determined by a judge and, a bench trials.

The way to do it.

It looks like this judge knows what she's doing.

And I'm optimistic that there will be some expansion so that women's health can be a little bit better protected than it is now.

Yeah.

Mike, I mean, kind of same question.

opposite side does, you know, does this ongoing conversation about Indiana's near-total abortion ban help or harm Republicans looking toward the November election?

I'm not.

Sure.

There's a lot of people who are, you know, weighing both sides aware to be on abortion anymore in American politics or Indiana politics.

Now that we've legislated this, you know, it 90 days for an election.

Yeah.

Last cycle in a in a special session which didn't seem to affect the outcome, the Republicans still won overwhelmingly.

you know, the decision to bring this back to the to the judge that put the original injunction in place.

It's a Bloomington Democrat, you know.

No, it's not it's.

Not she's.

Not.

Actually.

Democrat.

They you know, no, they declare she's not from case.

It's actually a Republican.

It's a Republican from one of the.

Other Jackson County Special Judge.

Oh, that's.

Right, they did that.

Yeah, I knew that to say if the if you lose.

So I think this this is going to be another, you know, fix to operation where, you know, I think.

What I think or I think we are is we're going to be forever and all time, like we did for a half a century leading up to the over for it being overturned on the ground floor of now, the pro-choice community trying to build that case back and then having to do it state by state, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

And the politics will be what the politics are in Indiana.

I think what the politics are going to be, it's it's not going to affect the outcome.

Oh, I don't think that's true.

The reason it didn't reach the well, the reason it didn't affect last time was because you.

Guys heard for the election.

No, it wasn't enforced.

When when the last election when the election you're talking about occurred.

You know it's going to have some impact if, if not here, at least in other states, because The New York Times this week did an interesting analysis looking at the number of Republican candidates for Senate and House federal.

Again, not in Indiana necessarily, but who have flip flopped is a word they use to have altered their positions dramatically now heading toward the general election, where they have very much soften what had been, you know, iron clad, no exception.

Yeah.

Pro-Life, stances before birth.

So if they were not sensitive to the political ramifications of of that, I.

Don't think they change.

Well, just like we we talked about earlier, Donald Trump obviously thought that the Stormy Daniels things could be a threat and he acted.

This is another example.

If you see.

It until you're past it though, you don't see the shift until you're.

Yeah.

Until it's happened.

Right.

Just but you have these candidates who are right already a justice.

Right.

So you don't see it until like, I can sit here and say it's not gonna affect the outcome.

And we sit here and six months ago, wow.

What really affected the outcome.

But it hasn't affected the outcome so far.

And it year for the last election.

Very true.

And also to be fair, Indiana tends to be about 2 or 3 years behind the natural.

Yeah, natural.

Daylight saving time.

I thought we changed that.

Yeah.

I'm still waiting for the money.

To pour in.

I didnt know if it was now or in three years.

Moving on.

The Indiana Department of Education's annual choice report shows Indiana spent nearly half $1 billion to private schools through the state's voucher program.

Almost 70% of students in the program have no record of attending an Indiana public school.

The number of students participating in the voucher program grew by about 32%, as enrollment in private schools hit a record high participation increased across all income brackets, but families making more than $150,000 account for nearly 20% of this school year's total.

Nearly doubling over last year.

In 2023, lawmakers eliminated most requirements for participation and raised the income eligibility to about $220,000 for a family of four.

Mike O'Brien, what does this data say about Indiana's education funding?

I think more and more we are for all kids, having all kids, having a choice and where they and where they go to school and what we're where those parents choose to send them.

And I know there's been controversy over the 400%.

It seems like every time that that income cap gets bumped, you lose more people who are for who originally for school choice.

When it was poor kids in poor communities, performing schools, failing schools.

you know, but there are true believers who believe, no, this should be this should be how we do it for for everybody.

And I also I, which I've never kind of related.

I grew up on the South Side of Chicago, in a neighborhood that had really bad public schools.

They weren't just bad, they were dangerous.

And I came from a single income family.

My dad was a police officer.

My mom didn't work early in my life, but so they had to send me to a parochial school that was tuition based, which was not easy.

Now, if the state of Illinois had come in with vouchers and paid for that, that would have been life changing for us financially at the time.

But, you know, we weren't at 400% of federal poverty.

We're probably at 200% or 150%, you know, being a public servant.

But that would have made a huge impact on me.

And I think that does get lost.

We get we get these fights over income caps.

And all in all, this one does get lost.

So there is a real impact on on kids in communities that have that have failing schools and need options.

but I mean, not to tee up in for doesn't tell me doesn't that also I mean, we're talking about the amount of money that was taken away from public schools as because money follows the student.

You're talking about more than $500 million that did not go to public schools.

That where 90% of the students are.

Yeah, where which also means that those those schools that need money in order to pay their teachers to have, you know, staffing for transportation, doesn't that sir.

Said it set another way.

500 million, million of taxpayer dollars that the parents were paying to send kids to public schools.

They were also paying to send their kids to score.

Yeah, but they were able to spend that money.

All of the students getting the hardship.

This has been framed, this these are rich parents who are now.

Getting.

A free ride.

Yeah.

Well they were getting they were paying for it.

And now the state paying for it.

And that is what's ironic about this is, you know, when you talk about the Medicaid funding, we're going to take Medicare Medicaid money away from kids with disabilities whose parents are trying to care for them.

And yet we're going to give it to people who are already financing their children's private.

And that is why we slated the whole thing about this.

This whole program is was a fraud from the beginning.

It was originally only for low income students in failing schools, and you had to attend public school and you had to show that it was failing.

And then you got the voucher you know all about.

It was all about giving to people who can get by without it.

Okay.

It was a.

Bipartisan problem that was at the popular.

Expense, at the expense of all of the students in normal public education.

And you know what's going to happen with this, too?

We don't know that this is the ceiling, that the six, the usual tuition, the range of tuition, average range of tuition in the private schools are 6 to 8000.

Okay.

Well, maybe they need a new gym.

Maybe that tuition goes up.

Well, maybe the state subsidy goes up.

There's no end to this.

And like these programs, once you give it, you cannot take it away.

And these parents aren't the type that are going to let you take that away.

We'll never say never will.

Yeah.

So I think a part of the issue is around narrative.

We have a collective narrative about public school, which became even more complicated when you add it in the conversation about innovation in charter schools.

So we're dealing with a narrative issue where you have people that are believing that these schools are not good enough for their children, so they have to send them somewhere else.

I am a huge proponent of school choice, but school choice across the board.

I do think that what needs to happen is an elevation of the narrative around public school, an elevation of what our sources of funding are.

As far as making sure that families, no matter where they want to send their children, are able to do so.

Something else I thought about is how a six figure job now is not the same six figures that it was five years before.

I want to use it, etc.. Yeah, so we're dealing with a different situation.

Yeah, there's there is no question about that.

But but you know, you've got to think about where the majority of, of the money goes.

And part of what I'm concerned about is they've had 20 years of this education reform, 20 years.

And the results are pitiful.

They are.

They.

Are so cross that something.

Isn't.

Working.

Something isn't.

Working.

You want it to happen?

Well, the narrative does change.

You're right.

And the framing of this by necessity, because the rules of engagement have dramatically changed.

But the one thing I is just, I would say that, this is going to be at some point, the idea was, this is good because only a small fraction of people go to private schools.

But as this grows and grows and grows, what is the cap?

Because it could.

Be snow capped.

In terms of the the the split between public and private.

That's the interesting.

Moving on to realize, the Indiana Secretary of State's office spent $35,000 on election security guide mailings sent to hundreds of election officials and law enforcement officers across Indiana.

The Indiana Capital Chronicle reported.

The 180 page document includes a compilation of materials from authoritative sources, a spokesperson for the secretary of state's office told the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

The election security guides and materials were designed to encourage threat awareness and informed election security, which is why the guides with lanyard, whistle and card reading Blow the whistle on election interference were sent to local law enforcement agencies, as well as counties, state and federal emergency management offices.

The guide also notes that while the information inside is from cited sources, it may not be correct.

In a national survey of more than 900 election officials released this month, 38% reported having experienced abuse, harassment or threats because of their election work.

That was up from 30% in 2023, according to the left leaning Brennan Center for Justice, which conducts the surveys.

And Delaney, is Indiana doing enough to keep poll workers safe?

This little stunt by Diego Morales doesn't do anything to keep poll workers say, if they were interested in keeping poll workers safe, he and Todd Rokita and Jim Banks would stop lying about the outcome of the 2020 election.

I mean, that's what's caused the foment, and the foment is coming from their supporters, gamed at election workers.

That's where the trouble is, we don't have voter fraud in Indiana.

And if we do, shame on them because they've been running the elections for the last 20 years.

So it's not it doesn't do anything.

And they need to stop lying about who won in 2020.

And that would help to restore some faith in the electoral process that they're undermining.

Absolutely.

I mean, and we're also talking about a General Assembly that just earlier this year passed, you know, greater protections for poll workers is, you know, this is a little bit of a you're a poking because it's a lot of money to drop on a packet of information that largely.

But it's also the role that office, if he's got one job is it's the liaison with and coordinate with clerks to make sure that these elections are run securely and safely.

And that's what you and that's what he's doing.

And if you listen to what he's saying, that's all that's what he's doing.

There's some secret.

Legislators.

Why don't you send them to the entire General Assembly?

Why didn't he?

Why did he?

Why did he?

Yes, because they just passed this legislation.

And they need him to look at the legislation.

Oh, maybe they needed.

To talk all day long about how these guys are doing all this stuff left and right, what they shouldn't be, do and get their out of their lane.

They're doing this.

They're just out of his lane.

This is exactly what he should be doing.

Although that's only jobs.

Secretary of state also regulate securities.

And I know I understand that, Jon, I in the context of what you said, the.

One thing that maybe going.

To restore.

Faith in the electoral process, that's what his job is.

Okay, rather than criticizing or saying.

It seems like a big.

Job.

Well, it is a big job, but it is his job, the job of the person who is running the election.

I don't understand why there is not more of a focus on making sure that voters have access to factual, proven, multiple times factual information.

Also, does that say blow the whistle?

Yes.

Okay, so they also short some, some money for that.

So let's just put that out there.

And I wish you could blow the whistle.

Here like a bell.

The whistle on him.

And that is Indiana we could review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney, Republican Mike O'Brien, Jon Schwantes of Indiana Lawmakers and Ebony Chappel of Free Press, Indiana.

You can find Indiana Week in reviews, podcast and episodes at FYI Dawgs Wire or on the PBS app.

I'm Lauren Chapman of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Join us next time, because a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

The opinions expressed are solely those of the panelist.

Indiana Week in Review was a production in association with Indiana's public broadcasting stations.