>>> FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP INDICTED.

THE GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE BAN FOR MINORS HEADS TO THE GOVERNOR.

PLUS A MAJOR CHANGE TO THE NONCOMPLIANT PROSECUTOR BILL AND MORE.

FROM THE TELEVISION STUDIOS AT WFYI, IT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING MARCH31, 2023.. INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS.

>>> THIS WEEK, DONALD TRUMP BECAME THE FIRST FORMER PRESIDENT IN U.S. HIGH WIND ALERT HISTORY TO BE CHARMED WITH A CRIME AS A MANHATTAN GRAND JURY INDICTED THE CONTROVERSIAL POLITICAL LEADER.

>> THE CHARGES RELATE TO PAYMENTS MADE DURING TRUMP'S 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN TO COVER UP CLAIMS OF AN GRAMMAR TALL AFFAIR.

IN A STATEMENT TRUMP CALLED THE ENTITLEMENT POLITICAL PERSECUTION, ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND A WITCH HUNT.

AS THE FORMER PRESIDENT RUNS FOR REELECTION HE ALSO FACES LEGAL TROUBLES RELATED TO ATTEMPTS TO INTERFERE THIS THE VOTE COUNT THIS GEORGIA'S 2020 ELECTION AND STORAGE OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS AT HIS HOME IN FLORIDA.

DOE THIS INDICTMENT DELIVER REELECTION FOR DONALD TRUMP?

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.

ANN DELANY DOES THIS EMBOLDEN TRUMP SUPPORTERS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR REELECTION?

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S ENOUGH TO GET HIM THE ELECTION, NO.

THE IDEA THAT A FORMER PRESIDENT IS IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES, EITHER IN OFFICE OR AFTERWARD CRAZY.

HE'S THE ONE WHO SAID IF HE SHOT SOMEBODY ON MADISON AVENUE HE WOULD GET THE NOMINATION.

>> FIFTH AVENUE.

>> FIFTH AVENUE, I'M SORRY.

I'M NOT FROM MANHATTAN, BUT HE SAID THAT IT WOULDN'T STOP HIS SUPPORTERS FROM SUPPORTING HIM AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PROOF OF OF THAT PUDDING PRETTY SOON.

I THINK SOME OF HIS SUPPORTERS HAVE DRUNK THE KOOL-AID AND THIS -- PROBABLY MAKES HIM A MARTYR IN THEIR EYES.

THEY DON'T CARE THAT HE BREAKS THE LAW.

THEY DON'T CARE WHAT HE DOES BECAUSE HE'S THEIR HERO NO MATTER HOW BAD HE IS.

>> DOES THIS DELIVER REELECTION FOR DONALD TRUMP?

>> I'M NOT SURE THAT IT DELIVERS THE NOMINATION.

DESANTIS IS UP AND DOWN, THE MARGIN CLOSEs AND OPENED BACK UP BUT TRUMP IS SOFTENING.

THAT IS CLEAR.

THIS DOESN'T EMBOLDEN THE BASE OF TRUMP SUPPORTERS, THE BASE IS EMBOLDENED.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE ARE THEY LEAVING HIM SO JUST ADD THIS TO THE PILE OF THE REST OF THAT.

I THINK THERE IS A -- THERE WAS AN ESTABLISHING CAN GROWING CONSTITUENCY OF PEOPLE THAT -- I INCLUDE MYSELF IN THIS.

I LOOK AT TRUMP AND GO WE CANNOT DO THAT AGAIN, THAT WAS CHAOS.

WHATEVER YOU THINK THE GOOD THINGS THAT CAME OUT OF THAT ADMINISTRATION THE OVERARCHING CHAOS WAS NOT WORTH IT.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE REAL CRIMINAL ISSUES THAT HE HAS ARE -- REPUBLICAN SECRETARY OF STATE OF GEORGIA TRYING TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION.

THAT'S NIXONIAN.

NOBODY DOESN'T THINK HE DID IT.

IF GEORGE W. BUSH DID THIS WE WOULD BE SHOCKED BUT IT'S NOT DELIVERING A NEW MEXICO NATION, IT'S JUST ADDING TO ANOTHER LIST OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE WERE UNWILLING TO BE DISSUADED BELIEVE.

>> TO THAT POINT, THERE'S A LOT THAT CAN HAPPEN BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN PEOPLE ARE CASTING BALLOTS WITH THIS INDICTMENT, INCLUDING MORE INDICTMENTS ELSEWHERE, BUT IN THAT SENSE, HOW MUCH WILL THIS AFFECT HIS CHANCES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?

>> I AGREE WITH WHAT HAS BEEN SAID THUS FAR, THIS IF ANYTHING PROBABLY PUTS HIM LEAPS AND BOUNDs AHEAD OF OF EVERYONE ELSE IN THE PARTY, INCLUDING RON DESANTIS AND OTHERS IN TERMS OF SECURING THE NOMINATION.

AGAIN I THINK YOU HAVE MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE LIKELY VOTERS WHO WOULD NEVER CAST A VOTE FOR DONALD TRUMP, SO I THINK HE'S DEBT IN THE WATER.

IF HE GET AS NOMINATION THAT'S AS FAR AS IT GOES WHICH WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL I PRESUME TO REPUBLICANS WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGAIN THE WHITE HOUSE.

THE OTHER THING, THE DANGER IS I SEE IS THIS ATTACK ON THE NOTIFICATION OF OR DEMOCRACY AND OUR JUDICIARY.

YOU CAN ONLY TAKE A HAMMER AND CLUB AWAY -- HIT THE NOTION OF AN INDEPENDENT AND A NOTION OF A NATION OF LAWS AND THIS NOW ACQUAINT CONCEPT APPARENTLY THAT PEOPLE ADHERE TO THAT EVEN IF THEY'RE AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, SO THAT'S ANOTHER BRICK OUT OF THAT WALL.

AND ANOTHER CAUTION, THESE INDICTMENTS, THEY ARE -- I GUESS IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS MINOR, BUT YOU CAN ALSO FRAME IT AS THE ACTIONS THAT ALLEGEDLY PRECIPITATED THE DIAMOND, BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE HILLS OF THE BILLY BUSH INTERVIEW WHERE PEOPLE WERE SAYING A WOULD BE PRESIDENT CAN'T SAY THAT ABOUT WOMEN AND THEN THE REVELATION OF THE STORMY DANIELS AFFAIR WOULD HAVE COME OUT SO YOU COULD ARGUE, AND AGAIN THAT'S NOT THE COURT OF LAW BUT IN A LARGER JUSTICE SENSE THAT IT EFFECTIVELY HIS CONDUCT DELIVEREDDED HIM THE PRESIDENCY.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY ARE YOU SURPRISED AT THE SEEMING KNEE JERK REACTION SO THEY THIS IS TIN VALID OR IT'S POLITICAL PERSECUTION?

I WAS GOING TO ASK ARE YOU SURPRISED.

THAT'S A SILLY QUESTION, OF COURSE YOU'RE END OF THE SURPRISED BUT MIKE JUST BROUGHT UP THE IDEA OF THE GEORGIA ISSUE WITH HIM POTENTIALLY TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE VOTE COUNT THERE.

IF THE DIME HAD BEEN ABOUT THAT, IS THE REACTION THE SAME IS THIS.

>> I DON'T THINK -- NO, I DO THINK SO.

NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE.

NO ONE'S READ THE INDICTMENTS, THEY'RE ALL SEALED BUT -- AND TO BE FAIR THERE AREN'T ANY DENIALS, NOT EVEN FROM DONALD TRUMP, THERE ARE NO DENIALS THAT HE DID OR DIDN'T DO IT, IT'S YOU WILL A ABOUT WEAPONIZING PROSECUTION, AND I WOULD SAY THE REASON IT'S THE FIRST -- I GUESS INDICTMENT AGAINST A PRESIDENT IS BECAUSE MAYBE THE OTHER ONES, I DON'T KNOW, DIDN'T HAVE NINE OR TEN DIFFERENT INVESTIGATIONS AT ONCE.

>> THIS GOES BACK YEARS.

>> IT FEEDS INTO THE CULTURE OF WHERE WE'RE AT AT A POLITICAL SYSTEM THOUGH.

THINK ABOUT HOW FEW IMPEACHMENTS WE'VE HAD OVER THE HISTORY AND HOW FREQUENT WE'VE HAD CALLS FOR THEM BY BOTH PARTIES, IT'S AUTOMATIC, WE'RE IMPEACHING DONALD TRUMP THE DAY AFTER HE GETS ELECTED, SO IF THE GEORGIA RECOUNT -- IF THAT'S -- THE YOU HAVE A DEMOCRATIC D.A.

BRINGING THIS AGAINST TRUMP AND IT'S TO EASY TO SAY IT'S POLITICAL.

>> TELL THAT TO EDWARDS WHO FACED THE SAME THING BUT THIS WAS MUCH WORSE BECAUSE HE WAS PAYING IT OFF WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT.

>> FEW WHY DON'T HAVE A REPUBLICAN CONSTITUENCY IN THE ENFORCEMENT ESTABLISHMENT WHAT OTHER RECOURSE IS THERE FOR DEMOCRATS TO ARGUEDLY -- >> .

>> LET'S SEE WHAT THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR DOES WITH JANUARY 62 BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A POTENTIAL INDICTMENT AS WELL.

>> TIME FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK.

EACH WEEK WE POST AN ONLINE POLL QUESTION AND THIS WEEK'S QUESTION IS WILL THE DIAMOND OF FORMER DONALD TRUMP HELP HIS REELECTION BID?

A.

YES.

B.

NO.

FASCINATED BY THE RESULTINGS OF THAT ONE.

LAST WEEK WE ASKED YOU IF YOU THINK THE INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS DOING ENOUGH TO ADDRESS RISING UTILITY BILLS.

90 PERCENT OF YOU SAY NO.

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

>>> HOUSE REPUBLICANS VOTED THIS WEEK THE BAN MEDICINAL GENDER AFFIRMING CARE FOR TRANSGENDER YOU'LL.

LAUREN CHAPMAN REPORTS THE BILL NOW GOES TO THE DESK OF GOVERNOR ERIC HOLCOMB.

THE BILL WOULD BAN GENDER AFFIRMING CARE LIKE HORMONE THERAPY AND PUBERTY BLOCKERS AND GENDER AFFIRMING SURGERIES.

THE SPONSOR ARGUED THE LEGISLATURE HAD AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM THESE PROCEDURES.

DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE BLAKE JOHNSON CALLED THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S VIEW OF IDENTITY MYOPIC.

>> WE TELL THEM IF THEY'RE TRUE TO THEMSELVES THEY DON'T BELONG IN INDIANA.

>> GOVERNOR HOLCOMB PREVIOUSLY VETOED ANTI-TRANS REPRESENTATION.

HE COLD REPORTERS PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT THEIR CHILD'S WELL-BEING.

>>> MIKE O'BRIEN, VERY WEAK VETO IN INDIANA.

ALL YOU NEED IS A MAJORITY IN EACH HOUSE AND THE ONLY WAY THE BILL GETS TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK IS WHERE WITH A MAJORITY IN EACH HIGHWAYS SO DOES IT MATTER WHERE ERIC HOLCOMB SIGNS THE BILL?

>> I THINK HE'S SHONE A WILLINGNESS TO BE MORE CENTRIST ON THESE ISSUEs.

THIS IS A BILL TRYING THE GET THE AHEAD OF THINGS THAT AREN'T HAPPENING IN INDIANA.

>> THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY HAPPENING, PEOPLE ARE SAYING ARE SAVING KIDS LIVES.

IF THIS WERE A BAN -- I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE HAD HUGE VOTES EVEN FROM DEMOCRATS.

>> IN ONE SENSE IT'S A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM AND IN ANOTHER SENSE, IN DEVILS OF THE LEGISLATURE, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEGISLATURE, IF YOU ALLOWED THE SURGERY -- IF YOU'RE TRYING THE PUT THAT BACK IN THE BOX AFTER IT STARTS HAPPENING FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF THIS INVOLVES THE TREATMENT FOR THIS EVOLVES AND AND THOSE COME ONLINE IN INDIANA THE LEGISLATURE REACTING TO IS FAR MORE DAMAGING IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, SO I THINK THEY'RE TRYING THE GET AHEAD OF THIS BEFORE IT'S HERE BUT WEAL SEE WHAT THE GOVERNOR DOES.

HE'S SHOWN A WILLINGNESS -- HERE'S IN THE SECOND TERM, SO WHAT DOES HE CARE?

HE'S ALREADY PICKED THIS FIGHT.

>> DOES IT MATTER WHETHER OR NOT HE VETOES IT?

>> I THINK IT DOES: IT SENDS A MESSAGE THAT INDIANA ISN'T FULL OF BULLIES THAT ARE INTOLERANT OF PEOPLE WHO AREN'T LIKE THEM.

I THINK IT SENDS A BETTER MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC THAN HAVING THIS ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE THE SURGERIES AREN'T OCCURRING AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE OCCURRING AND ON TOP OF OF THAT THE TREATMENTS HAVE PRINCIPAL CONSENT AND THEY'RE THE REPUBLICANS ARE SCREAMING THAT WITH NEED MORE PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN EVERYTHING, WELL THE PARENTS HAVE AGREED WITH THE CHILD THAT THIS IS NECESSARY AND NO THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT AND ITS MORALITY FOR THAT OF THE PARENT AND IT'S REALLY A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SUPERMAJORITY BEATING UP ON MORE VULNERABLE PARTS OF OUR COMMUNITY AND IT'S SHAMEFUL.

>> I BELIEVE ERIC HOLCOMB IT IS ABOUT POLICY WHEN HE'S DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO VETO SOMETHING.

FOR HIM HERE'S IN THE SECOND TERM, HE CAN'T RUN FOR REELECTION, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE TO RUN FOR UNLESS HE DECIDES TO CHALLENGE JIM BANKS WHICH SEEMS UNLIKELY.

WHAT ARE THE POLITICAL CALCULATIONINGS FOR ERIC HOLCOMB ON THIS IS THIS.

>> MEAN, NOT MUCH.

HE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO LOSE.

BUNCH OF PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE WHEN HE VETOED THE TRANSGENDER SPORTS BILL INTEREST LAST YEAR, YOU'RE SPORTS BILL SO THIS WOULD BE PRETTY SIMILAR TO THAT.

AND HE -- I THINK -- >> AFFECTING MANY MORE PEOPLE.

>> CORRECT.

>> I THINK THERE WAS BASICALLY ONE KID IN INDIANA AFFECTED BY THE BILL.

>> SO IT DOESN'T HURT HIM TO DO IT AND HE CAN MAKE MAKE A GOOD REASON WHY.

I MEAN THE MOST INTERESTING PART ABOUT THIS DISCUSSION IN THE BILL IS WE KEEP HEARING THESE UNPROVEN IRREVERSIBLE TREATMENTS, HORMONE THERAPY AND PUBERTY BLOCKERS HAVE GIVEN FOR DECADES FOR OTHER REASONS, OTHER DIAGNOSIS.

>> I WAS GOING TO THINK -- I THOUGHT BEFORE THIS PANEL DISCUSSION THAT HE WOULD HAVE SIGNED IT BUT BASED ON HIS -- THE BRAIN TRUST GIVING US A GLIMPSE OF -- >> (SPEAKING SIMULTANEOUSLY.)

>> YOU KNOW, STUDY UNFOLDING BELOW OR BORDERS, IF YOU GO ACROSS THE RIVER IN KENTUCKY, THEIR GENERAL ASSEMBLY JUST PASSED THE SAME LAW, BUT THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR VETOED IT.

WELL GUESS WHAT HAPPENED THE NEXT DAY, SIMILAR SITUATION, ONLY NEED 50 PERCENT PLUS ONE, OVERWROTE THAT VETO PLUS 14 OTHER BILLS IN ONE DAY, YOU TALK ABOUT THE POLICY DISCUSSION BUT STRANGELY ENOUGH THIS IS HAPPENING AS ANDY BESHEAR ANNOUNCES HERE'S SEEKING A SECOND TERM, BUT MY POINT IS IF HE STILL RETARIANS POPULARITY AND HAS A BILL -- IT IS LIKE THE TWIN SEPARATED AT BIRTH SCENARIO HERE MINUS THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR.

>> IT'S STILL THE SOUTH THOUGH POLITICALLY.

IT'S NOT REMARKABLE FOR KENTUCKY TO ELECT A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR.

>> INDIANA SENATE BILL UNDERWESTERN A COMPLETE OVERHAUL BEFORE A HOUSE COMMITTEE ADVANCED THE LEGISLATION THIS WEEK.

>> THE BILL ORIGINALLY TARGETED PROSECUTORS WHO REFUSED TO PROSECUTOR CERTAIN CRIMES.

BUT AFTER CHANGE IN CHI THE MEASURE NOW CREATES A PROSECUTOR REVIEW BOARD COMPOSED OF LOCAL PROSECUTORS THAT WOULD DECIDE IF A NEW SPECIAL PROSECUTOR'S UNIT UNDER THE INDIANA PROSECUTING ATTORNEY COUNCIL WOULD HANDLE CASES FOR ANY REASON.

'S PACK'S COURTNEY CURTIS SAYS HER ORGANIZE HAS BEEN OPPOSED TO PREVIOUS NONCOMPLIANT PROSECUTOR BILLS BUT SUPPORTS THIS VERSION BECAUSE IT GIVES OTHER PROSECUTORS THE POWER TO DETERMINE IF THAT SPECIAL PROSPECTOR UNIT SHOULD STEP?

>> WE TAKE AN EARTH TO FAIRLY EXECUTE THE LAWS SO IF THIS BILL PASSES WE WOULD EXECUTE THAT LAW AS WELL.

>> .

>> JON SCHWANTES, ARE PROSECUTORS REALLY GOING TO GO AFTER FELLOW PROSECUTORS?

>> I DOUBT IT.

I THINK THEY WILL GIVE A LOT OF DENCH TO THEIR COLLEAGUES AND THERE IS A MECHANISM FOR QUOTE, UNQUOTE, PUNISHING ELECTED PROSECUTORS.

IT'S CALLEDDED ELECTION, AND IT'S FOR FOUR YEARS AND NO LESS THAN THAT.

THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS IT'S A STATE STATUTE, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY OVERREACH BEYOND THE BORDER OR ANY SCOPE IN SE NEW YORK BECAUSE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO A DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN NEW YORK WHO WAS AWARE OF A CRIME AND DIDN'T PROSECUTOR IT LIKE SAY WHATEVER DONALD TRUMP IS ACCUSEs OF HAVING DONE?

THESE THINGS AS I'VE SAID BEFORE ALWAYS HAVE A WAY OF CUTTING IN A DIRECTION YOU DON'T EXPECT AND WE CAN LAUGH ABOUT IT NEW BUT THERE WILL BE THAT KIND OF TRUMP SCENARIO MINUS DONALD TRUMP IN THE NEXT DECADE WHERE THIS TESTS THE THEORY BUT OF COURSE THE POLITICS WILL BE FLIPPED ON THEIR HEAD.

>> THE SENATE HAS BEEN VERY KEEN TO GO AFTER SO-CALLED NONCOMPLIANT PROSECUTORS FOR YEARS AND THE HOUSE HAS BEEN UNINTERESTED IN THAT.

SO THIS IS THE HOUSE'S VERSION OF DOING SOMETHING WITHOUT TARGETING A NONCOMPLIANT PROSECUTOR BUT HERE'S THE THING THAT GETS ME ABOUT THIS POLICY.

THERE'S NEGLIGEES FOR WHAT THIS POLICY REVIEW OR THIS BOARD COULD CONSIDER.

I MEAN, WHAT DO WE THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN?

>> I DON'T KNOW, LIKE CAN I JUST SEND THEM A >> YES.

>> THEY'RE GOING TO BE BUSY BECAUSE IF THEY GET HALF OF THE LETTERS THAT JOURNALISTS GET FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SCREWED OVER BY PROSECUTORS THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN UNDATED.

BUT HERE'S THE DEAL, I'M TIRED ABOUT HEARING ABOUT NONCOMPLIANT PROSECUTORS.

IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS.

>> AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR I CAN TOLD YOU YOU GET PEOPLE THAT ARE SO EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED THEY DON'T CARE WITH A WHAT THE ELEMENTS OF A CRIME ARE AND AS A PROSECUTOR YOU KNOW THE ELEMENTS ARE MISSING AND YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T MAKE THE CASE, THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET IS I BELIEVE UNDATED WITH PEOPLE LIKE THAT WHO ARE NOT SATISFIED THE PROSECUTOR IS FOLLOWING THE LAW AND THE EVIDENCE.

THAT'S FACULTIES.

>> YOU WANT CHARGES FILED UNTIL YOU DON'T WANT CHARGES FILED.

>> CAN YOU MAKE COMPLAINTS THE OTHER WAY TOO?

>> I SEE IN REASON WHY NOT.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BILL PACIFIC NORTHWESTING THAT.

>> SO FORWARD ALL YOUR LETTERS TO -- >> ARE YOU SURPRISED A ALL -- THE INDIANA PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S COUNCIL HAS BEEN AGAINST THE BILL SINCE IT WAS FILED.

ARE YOU SURPRISED THEY'RE GOING ALONG WITH THIS?

>> AS A MATTER OF LEGISLATIVE INERTIA, YEAH, BECAUSE IT STILL STAYS UNDER THEIR PURVIEW AS A PROFESSION AND AS A GROUP AND THAT'S A PRETTY TIGHT KNIT GROUP OF PEOPLE.

>>S WHICH IS AT REASON WHY I DON'T SEE THEM ATTACKING EACH OTHER IN THIS WAY, UNLESS THERE'S MISCONDUCT BUT -- >> A MECHANISM EXISTS IN THESE SCENARIOS.

THE PROSECUTOR SAYS I CAN'T DO THIS FOR WHATEVER REASON OR TONIGHT WANT TO.

>> IF YOU'RE IPA C, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE HOUSE AGREES TO PICK UP THIS BILL.

>> BECAUSE IT TOOK AWAY THE ISSUE OF NONCOMMUNICATION -- >> WE'LL GIVE IT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL -- >> IN BILL NOW TAKES MORE POWER AWAY INTEREST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL -- >> WE HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS FOR THIS SO FOR I THINK PACK -- >> IF THIS DIES THIS SESSION -- >> THEY'RE GOING TO GET DOGGED.

>> HERE'S MY LAST QUESTION AND I'LL ASK YOU THIS, MIKE.

LET LET'S SAY THIS BECOMES LAW, IT'S IN PLACE FOR A COUPLE YEARS, IF RYAN CONTINUES TO BE THE PROSECUTOR OF MARION COUNTY AND CONTINUES TO NOT PROSECUTE CERTAIN CASES AS HOE SAID HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO, REPUBLICANS CLEARLY ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT THAT, OR AT LEAST SOME.

IF THIS BOARD DOESN'T DO ANYTHING, DO LAWMAKERS COME BACK CAN GO WE TRIED THIS METHOD SEW WE HAVE TO TRY SOMETHING ELSE.

>> IT DOESN'T DO EVERYTHING THAT THE LEGISLATURE COMPLETEDDED IT TO.

SO IT WILL COME BACK EVERY YEAR.

>> IS A SENATE COMMITTEE ADDED A WRINKLE TO A HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE LOAN MEASURE THIS WEEK BEFORE SENDING IT TO THE SENATE.

THE UNDERLYING BILL WOULD ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO APPLY FOR MONEY TO PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS FOR NEW HOUSING.

WHILE THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE HAS TO DO WITH RESIDENTIAL TIFFS.

>> TAX DOLLARS ARE DIVERTED AND USED TO PAY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS IN THAT GEOGRAPHIC AREA.

UNDER CURRENT LAW RESIDENTIAL TIFFS CAN ONLY BE USES IN AREAS WITH LOW NEW HOUSING GROWTH AND THEY MUST BE APPROVED BY SCHOOL BOARDS IN DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY THE TIFF.

THE HANDLE ADDED TO THE BILL WOULD REMOVE THOSE GUARDRAILS.

RYAN HOFF CAUTIONED LAWMAKERS ABOUT DOING SO.

>> NEW HOMES MEANS NEW RESIDENTS WHO REQUIRE SERVICES INCLUDING CONSTITUTIONAL LEVEL SERVICES LABOR COURTS, JAILSES AND ELECTIONS AND ANY TIFF USED THE PAY THIS ARE THAT IS DIVERTED TO RESIDENT COSTS.

>> HOFF SAYS SHÉ THEY SHOULD ADD A COUNTY LEVEL APPROVAL MECHANISM THAT ENSURES T A SETTLE OF EYES OVEN WHETHER IT'S THE APPROPRIATE POLICY.

BUT JENNA BENTLEY SAID THE SHACKLES NEED TO COME OFF RESIDENTIAL TIFFS, SHE POINTED TO A LOCAL COMMUNITY COVINGTON INDIANA THAT NEEDS SUCH HELP.

BOARD WON'T APPROVE IT.

>>> THE LANGUAGE ADD BID THE SENATE COMMITTEE COMES FROM A SEPARATE SENATE BILL WHICH SIDE NOT ADVANCED IN THE HOUSE.

>> , LET'S TALK ABOUT PROGRESSION FIRST.

SENATE HAS A BILL THEY CLEARLY LIKE.

HOUSE DOESN'T SEEM INTERESTED SO THE SENATE SAID WE'LL PUT IT IN YOUR BILL.

IS THAT ABOVE BOARD?

>> THEY DO THAT ALL THE TIME CAN I THINK IT IS FAIR; IT'S PASSED ONE CHAMBER IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE CONSIDERED CAN BOTH SIDES DO IT.

THAT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.

I JUST GET CONFUSED ON THE RESIDENTIAL TIFF STUFF BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A -- I DON'T KNOW, PSYCHOTICNESS GOING.

LIKE HALF THE TILE WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT TIFF AND IT'S BEING USED TOO MUCH AND WE NEED TO CLAMP DOWN ON IT AND THE OTHER HALF OF THE TIME -- LET EVERYONE DO IT AND -- >> THIS SESSION IT SEEMS LIKE THAT HALF OF THE TIME IS WHEN IT'S IN THE SENATE HALF AND WHEN IT'S IN THE HOUSE HALF THEY'RE NOT EVEN THOSE THE BILL DIDN'T ULTIMATELY GO THROUGH.

THIS IS IS REALLY -- I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES IN WHICH THE INDIANA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES% AND WHAT USED TO BE THE INDIANA ASSOCIATION OF CITIES AND TOWNS, NOW AIM, THEY'RE NOT USUALLY AT OPPOSITE ENDS OF AN ISSUE.

DOES THAT SHOW YOU SHOW COMPLICATED THIS IS?

>> IT IS COMPLICATED AND YOU COMPLETED LOOK FOR CONSISTENCY IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR PROBABLY FOR THAT MATTER ANY LEGISLATIVE BODY BECAUSE AS MUCHs A PEOPLE WANT TO PORTRAY THESE ISSUES AS BROAD PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES, THIS IS WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE BEST GOVERNANCE AND THIS IS WHAT'S BEST FOR THE GOVERNMENT CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE IT ALWAYS COMES DOWN TO THESE NUANCES, BUT WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR MY CORE CONSTITUENTS?

SO THE BRANCH NEVER BREAKS CLEAN.

>> FOR A LEGISLATURE OR SOME OF THE LEGISLATURE WHO HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT HOW MANY SCHOOL REFERENDUMS THERE ARE, ISN'T THAT A SURE FIRE WAY TO MAKE MORE SCHOOL REFERENDUMS?

>> NOT ONLY THAT BUT HAVE NO SAY IN HOW THE COMMUNITY IS GROWING AND HOW THAT SHOULD BE SPENT AND THE BURDEN THAT'S GOING TO PUT -- THESE DEVELOPMENTS COME ONLINE THE STRAIN THAT PUTS ON THE DISTRICT.

>> IT'S ABOUT HOUSINGS, WE WANT MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE THIS THIS COMMUNITY AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THE COMMUNITY LESS TAX DOLLARS.

>> THAT'S WHY THE TIFF IDEA IS A BAD IDEA.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO BORROW AND THEY CAN REGROUP IT WITH THE PROPERTY TAXES OVER TIME AND THAT DOESN'T PUT THE SAME BURDEN ON LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS OR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

THE IDEA OF A TIFF IS NUT.

IT OUGHT TO BE DOPE THE OTHER WAY AND WE NEED LOW COST HOUSING.

WE NEED HOUSING.

HOW MANY STUDIES DO WE HAVE THAT SAID PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE IN INDIANA?

SO IT'S NECESSARY TO DO BUT IT OUGHT TO BE DONE BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT NOT THE TIFF WHERE THE MONEY GOES SOMEPLACE ELSE, PUTS THE BURDEN ON SCHOOLS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.

SOMEBODY IS MAKE MONEY OUT OF IT.

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

OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY, REPUBLICAN MIKE O'BRIEN, JON SCHWANTES, HOST OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS, AND NIKI KELLY, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE.

YOU CAN FIND INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW'S PODCAST ON WFYI.ORG/IWIR 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.

THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE PANELISTS.

INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS A WFYI PRODUCTION IN ASSOCIATION WITH INDIANA'S PUBLIC