♪♪ >> YOUNG AND BRAUN VOTE AGAINST >> YOUNG AND BRAUN VOTE AGAINST JUSTICE JACKSON.

HOLCOMB VS.

THE LEGISLATURE AT THE SUPREME COURT.

PLUS, HOSPITALS AND INSURERS CASTING BLAME, AND MORE, ON INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING APRIL 8, 2022.

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

♪♪ THIS WEEK, THE US SENATE, IN A BIPARTISAN VOTE, CONFIRMED KETANJI BROWN JACKSON AS THE NEXT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE US SUPREME COURT.

WHEN SHE TAKES ON THE JOB LATER THIS YEAR, SHE WILL BECOME THE FIRST BLACK WOMAN IN HISTORY TO DO SO.

BOTH OF INDIANA'S SENATORS VOTED AGAINST HER.

>> IN A STATEMENT, REPUBLICAN SENATOR TODD YOUNG SAID AFTER MEETING WITH JACKSON AND REVIEWING HER RECORD AS A JUDGE, HE BELIEVES SHE WILL LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH, WHICH HE SAYS HE OPPOSES.

SENATOR MIKE BRAUN SAID MUCH THE SAME.

AFTER MEETING WITH JACKSON, BRAUN SAID HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST HER AGAIN AFTER PREVIOUSLY VOTING AGAINST HER FOR A FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT BECAUSE HE THINKS SHE'S A JUDICIAL ACTIVIST.

INDIANA DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIR MIKE SCHMUHL SAID YOUNG AND BRAUN LET PARTISANSHIP COME BEFORE AMERICAN HISTORY.

>> DOES AN INDIVIDUAL NOMINEE MATTER ANYMORE WHEN IT COMES TO SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATIONS?

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 LINDSEY ERDODY, I'M INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATEHOUSE REPORTER BRANDON SMITH.

MIKE O'BRIEN, JACKSON WAS NOMINATED BY A DEMOCRAT.

IS THAT THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERED TO YOUNG AND BRAUN?

>> I THINK IT IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

SENATOR BRAUN WAS CONSISTENT IN HIS VOTE, CAST THE SAME VOTE FOR THE SAME REASONS.

>> UNLIKE SOME OF HIS REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES.

>> TODD YOUNG, HE WOULD BREAK WITH TRUMP.

HE WOULD BREAK WITH THE PARTY WHEN TRUMP WAS STILL IN OFFICE.

ALWAYS HAD A GOOD EXPLANATION FOR WHY.

WAS THOUGHTFUL ABOUT IT.

I ALWAYS TRUST HE TAKES A THOUGHTFUL APPROACH TO THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS.

I APPRECIATE IT.

WE'RE KIND OF GAINING, THREE REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR JACKSON.

BUT JUST THREE MORE THAN DEMOCRATS THROUGH TRUMP'S NOMINEES.

MAYBE WE'RE GAINING, I DID APPRECIATE MURKOWSKI, PART OF HER REASON FOR YES VOTE WAS TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THIS PROCESS REPRESENTS ANYTHING IN REALITY.

LIKE GO BACK TO ANYTHING THAT -- OF HOW THIS ACTUALLY OUGHT TO OPERATE.

THAT'S ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS.

WE'VE DESTROYED FROM AN INSTITUTIONAL STANDPOINT THE PROCESS OF NOMINATING AND APPROVING.

GOD FORBID YOU HAVE A REPUBLICAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND A -- >> TO THAT POINT.

INCREASINGLY, IS IT GOING TO BECOME YOU HAVE TO HAVE BOTH THE SENATE AND THE -- TO GET.

>> TO GET ANYTHING DONE.

I DIDN'T EXPECT -- SENATOR BRAUN, I DID EXPECT BETTER FROM SENATOR YOUNG.

AND I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED.

HE HOLDS UP RICHARD LUGER AS HIS ROLE MODEL AND MENTOR.

AND RICHARD LUGER WOULD BE ROLLING OVER IN HIS GRAVE AT THIS MOVE.

BECAUSE RICHARD LUGER APPROVED OF ANY NOMINEE THAT HE THOUGHT WAS QUALIFIED REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT WAS A DEMOCRATIC APPOINTMENT OR NOT.

AND THIS SHOWS THAT ALL TODD YOUNG WAS INTERESTED IN DOING IS CATERING TO THE RIGHT WING OF HIS PARTY.

AND IT DIDN'T MATTER THIS WAS AN EMINENTLY QUALIFIED PERSON.

IT DIDN'T MATTER THAT THESE TWO SENATORS ARE THE FIRST SENATORS IN THE HISTORY OF INDIANA TO VOTE AGAINST BOTH A WOMAN AND AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN.

AND WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THEM?

SHE'S EMINENTLY QUALIFIED, TWO-TIME HARVARD GRADUATE, HE COULD NOT EVEN BRING HIMSELF TO DO THE RIGHT THING IN THE TRADITION OF RICHARD LUGER, THAT'S DISAPPOINTING.

>> THE MODEL ANN TALKED ABOUT AS LONG AS YOU'RE QUALIFIED I WILL VOTE FOR YOU, IS THAT JUST GONE AT THAT POINT, JON?

>> IT SEEMS TO BE, THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.

THAT'S NOT THE WAY WASHINGTON OPERATED FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS.

AND DICK LUGER IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT, HE WAS ON RECORD SAYING PRECISELY WAS ANN TALKED ABOUT.

I LOOK AT THE CREDENTIALS.

AND POLITICS, TO HIM, WAS NOT AN EMOTIONAL THING, IT WAS AN INTELLECTUAL ENDEAVOR, WERE ALL THE Ts CROSSED AND Is DOTTED IN TERMS OF THE RESUME.

HE DID VOTE FOR ELAINE THAT, AND SONIA SOTOMAYOR.

HE VOTED FOR JOSLYN ELDERS WHEN SHE WAS A NOMINEE, A CLINTON NOMINEE FOR SURGEON GENERAL.

AND THAT WAS VERY CONTROVERSIAL, BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO DO THINGS SUCH AS HAVE CONDOM DISTRIBUTION IN SCHOOLS, HEAVEN FORBID.

BUT HE WAS TRUE TO FORM, WHETHER IT WAS AN AMBASSADOR, WHETHER IT WAS -- I THINK THAT IS KIND OF THE NOTION THAT -- I DON'T WANT TO GET IN THE FOUNDER'S HEADS, THE NOTION OF GOING TO THE SENATE TO CONFIRM NOMINEES WAS BASICALLY ANOTHER REVIEW, ANOTHER CHECK, IF YOU WILL, NOT LET'S START FROM SCRATCH AND SEE, YOU KNOW, THE POLITICS OF THIS.

BECAUSE SOMEBODY WON AT THE BALLOT BOX.

THAT COMES WITH PRIVILEGES SUCH AS GETTING APPOINTMENTS OF YOUR ILK.

>> TO THAT POINT, LINDSEY, TO THE FIRST QUESTION, DOES AN INDIVIDUAL NOMINEE MATTER ANYMORE, DOES IT ONLY MATTER WHO NOMINATED THEM?

>> TO THIS -- AT THIS POINT, YES, I THINK SO.

I MEAN, I THINK MIKE IS PRETTY OPTIMISTIC THAT MAYBE WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT BETTER BECAUSE WE HAD A COUPLE REPUBLICANS -- >> A FEW.

>> A FEW.

[LAUGHTER].

>> MORE THAN A COUPLE.

>> YOU'VE HAD THAT A LITTLE BIT THROUGHOUT THE PAST FEW NOMINEES WE'VE HAD.

TALKED A LOT ABOUT LUGER VOTING FOR OBAMA'S APPOINTEES, AND JOE DONNELLY VOTED FOR ONE OF TRUMP'S NOMINATIONS.

SO YOU'VE HAD IT HERE AND THERE.

BUT YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE CLINTON ERA TO SEE MORE WIDESPREAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

AND I THINK IT IS JUST GOING TO KEEP GETTING WORSE AND WORSE AS WE GO ON IN TERMS OF THE PARTISANSHIP.

AND LIKE YOU WERE SAYING EARLIER, HAVING TO HAVE THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE SENATE TO REALLY GET ANYTHING DONE, AND ESPECIALLY HAVING A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE.

>> IT'S WORTH REMEMBERING THAT HAD WE NOT SPENT THE MONTHS AFTER THE ELECTION TALKING ABOUT THE ELECTION WAS A TOTAL FRAUD, WE WOULD HAVE ONE TWO IN GEORGIA -- AND THIS PROCESS WHICH COULD HAVE FORCED JOE BIDEN, IF YOU BELIEVE THIS WAS AN EXTREME NOMINATION, THAT REALITY, THAT POLITICAL REALITY MAY HAVE FORCED PRESIDENT BIDEN TO NOMINATE A MODERATE.

>> THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIBERALISM, NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTIVISM.

THE PEOPLE THAT REPUBLICANS PUT ON THE SUPREME COURT OR THE MOST ACTIVIST JUDICIOUS.

>> POINTING FINGERS, FOCUSED ON WINNING GEORGIA.

>> BLAMING TRUMP?

>> YES.

>> GOOD!

>> GOES BEYOND HOW ONE VOTES ON THE ACTUAL NOMINEE WHEN IT COMES UP FOR A VOTE.

IT ALSO HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER THERE WILL BE CONSIDERATION OF THE NOMINEE AT ALL.

NOW WE HAVE THE ROLES THAT MITCH McCONNELL IMPOSED, IF IT IS WITHIN X MONTHS, THIS IS TOO CLOSE TO HAVE SOMEBODY.

IF WE HAVE ANOTHER OPENING, AT THIS POINT, I PRESUME WE MIGHT BE IN THAT WINDOW OF THAT NO MAN'S LAND.

>> CLARENCE THOMAS WILL DO THE RIGHT THING AND RESIGN.

>> TIME NOW FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK.

EACH WEEK WE POSE AN UNSCIENTIFIC, ONLINE POLL QUESTION.

THIS WEEK'S QUESTION: WOULD SEN. TODD YOUNG AND SEN. MIKE BRAUN HAVE VOTED FOR ANYONE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN NOMINATED FOR THE SUPREME COURT?

A.

YOUNG MIGHT HAVE.

B. BRAUN MIGHT HAVE.

C. BOTH MIGHT HAVE.

D. NEITHER WOULD HAVE.

>> LAST WEEK'S QUESTION: WHO CAME OUT THE WINNER IN ABDUL-HAKIM SHABAZZ'S LAWSUIT AGAINST ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD ROKITA OVER PRESS ACCESS?

69% ABDUL, 70 TODD ROKITA.

TODD WAS VOTING A LOT.

4% BOTH, 20% NEITHER.

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

THE INDIANA LEGISLATURE'S POWER TO ACT DURING A PUBLIC EMERGENCY WHEN IT'S NOT IN SESSION IS AT STAKE IN A LAWSUIT HEARD BEFORE THE STATE SUPREME COURT THURSDAY.

>> THE CORE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE INDIANA CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNOR SOLE AUTHORITY TO CALL A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE.

BUT MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION THURSDAY CENTERED ON WHETHER THE GOVERNOR SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SUE IN THIS CASE.

EARLY ON, JUSTICE GEOFFREY SLAUGHTER NOTED THAT THE LAW IN QUESTION, HEA 1123, DOESN'T STOP THE GOVERNOR FROM USING HIS POWER TO CALL A SPECIAL SESSION.

>> JUSTICE GEOFFREY SLAUGHTER: THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT 1123 THAT PREVENTS HIM FROM DOING THAT RIGHT AWAY.

SO, HOW IS HE IMPAIRED?

HOW IS HE HARMED?

>> YET LATER ON, SLAUGHTER QUESTIONED THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING LAWMAKERS ABOUT HIS POSITION THAT THE GOVERNOR IS BARRED FROM SUING THE LEGISLATURE, WHICH SLAUGHTER CALLED ASTONISHING.

>> JUSTICE GEOFFREY SLAUGHTER: SO, YOU'RE SAYING THAT ERIC HOLCOMB AS GOVERNOR CAN'T BRING THE SUIT BUT ERIC HOLCOMB AS PRIVATE CITIZEN MIGHT WELL.

>> AND THAT ENCAPSULATES WHY IT'S HARD TO PREDICT THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE MERELY FROM THE JUSTICE'S QUESTIONS.

THERE'S NO TIMETABLE FOR THEIR RULING.

>> ANN DELANEY, SHOULD WE BE WORRIED THE CORE QUESTION WON'T BE ANSWERED?

BY THE SUPREME COURT?

>> I THINK THE SUPREME COURT WILL ANSWER THE YES, IT IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.

THE ARGUMENTS THAT TODD ROKITA THROUGH HIS MOUTH PIECE OF FISHER THEY'RE NOT ONLY IRRELEVANT, IT IS AMAZING TO ME, THIS IS THE BIGGEST ARGUMENT FOR ABOLISHING THE OFFICE OF ELECTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

HOW DOES HE DECIDE WHO HE REPRESENTS IN THIS?

AND HE DECIDES HE REPRESENTS THE CASE THAT HE THINKS IS GOING TO APPEAL TO HIS RIGHT WING GROUPS AS OPPOSED TO DOES HE REPRESENT THE GOVERNOR OR DOES HE REPRESENT THE LEGISLATURE?

THE POINT SU CAN'T MAKE A DECISION LIKE THIS, WHICH IS WHY THE GOVERNOR HAS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE HIS OWN COUNSEL, HAS TO BE ABLE TO GET A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.

HE AS AN INDIVIDUAL COULD BRING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, BUT NOT GOVERNOR IS LAUGHABLE.

ON TOP OF THAT -- >> OR ASTONISHING.

>> THE IDEA THAT HE'S NOT HARMED BECAUSE HE CAN STILL CALL A SPECIAL SESSION IGNORES THE HISTORY.

WHEN YOU HAVE AN ISSUE OF WHETHER THERE IS A SPECIAL SESSION, THE GOVERNOR HAS POWER TO NEGOTIATE AS TO WHAT IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED, AND HOW LONG IT IS GOING TO GO, WHAT ISN'T GOING PTO BE ON THE TO WHICHICS, YOU TAKE THAT OUT OF THE WAY, IF THE LEGISLATURE FLAUNTS THE CONSTITUTION BY CALLING THE SPECIAL SESSION ON ITS OWN.

THE OTHER PROBLEM WITH THIS IS I WATCHED FISHER'S ARGUMENT, I WAS SHOCKED AT HOW DISRESPECTFUL HE WAS TO THE SUPREME COURT AND HOW HE JUST TOSSED ASIDE QUESTIONS HE HAD AS NOT BEING IMPORTANT OR RELEVANT.

I CAN'T IMAGINE A SOLICITOR GENERAL DOING THAT TO THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE STATE.

I WAS OFFENDED.

>> ANN POINTED OUT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ISSUES, THERE ARE MULTIPLE IMPORTANT ISSUES.

ONE, WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE CAN COME IN AND PASS LAWS DURING A PUBLIC EMERGENCY ON THEIR OWN AS OPPOSED TO HAVING THE GOVERNOR CALL THEM IN.

THAT MATTERS TO HOW A STATE REACTS DURING A PUBLIC EMERGENCY.

THERE IS ALSO THIS QUESTION OF WHETHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ABSOLUTELY HAS TO GIVE THE OKAY FOR THE GOVERNOR TO SUE THE LEGISLATURE, OR THE GOVERNOR TO SUE IN GENERAL.

WITH ALL OF THOSE COMPETING INTERESTS, THOUGH, IS THERE A REAL CHANCE THAT HOOSIERS AREN'T GOING TO GET A LOT OF CLARITY OUT OF THIS PROCESS?

>> I THINK WE'VE GONE WELL BEYOND -- JUST THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, RIGHT HERE, EVERYWHERE HAS GONE WELL BEYOND WHY WE'RE HERE TO BEGIN WITH.

THE LEGISLATURE WANTED TO HAVE A SAY IN THE EMERGENCY POWERS THAT FAIRLY, IN THEIR DEFENSE, WERE NEVER PASSED CONTEMPLATING THEY WOULD BE IN PLACE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.

PLUS, TORNADOES, PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY, IN A NARROW SENSE, A SCOTT COUNTY H.I.V.

OUTBREAK, NARROW THINGS, THAT REQUIRED -- >> TERRORIST ATTACKS.

>> EXCEPTIONAL POWER, ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, NEVER CONTEMPLATED BEING IN PLACE TWO YEARS.

LEGISLATURE THAT YOU DIDN'T WANT TO -- THEY JUMPED UP AND DOWN -- >> BUT THEY ALSO COULD HAVE CHANGED HIS EMERGENCY POWERS.

>> SO THE QUESTION OF STANDING, OR HARM, YOU ARE SETTING UP A SCENARIO WHERE THE GOVERNOR RETAINS A SPECIAL SESSION, WHAT IF THE LEGISLATURE SAYS WE DON'T WANT THAT, WE WANT THIS ONE WHERE WE CAN DO ALL THOSE THINGS, WE WANT TO DO ALL THESE THINGS.

>> BE A FULL TIME LEGISLATURE.

>> WE'VE ALREADY, IN THE DEBATE OVER THIS LAST YEAR, WE HAVE MORE AND BREACHED THAT FULL-TIME LEGISLATURE CONVERSATION.

AND EXPECTATION THAT IF THEY DON'T LIKE SOMETHING THEY CAN COME IN THE NEXT DAY AND TRY TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, WHICH THEY TRIED TO DO IN NOVEMBER AND COULDN'T GET CONSENSUS ON WHAT TO DO TO ELIMINATE THE EMERGENCY ORDER.

SO IT WOUND UP NEVER TAKING PLACE.

WE CREATED ANOTHER SPECIAL SESSION IN STATUTE FOR REDISTRICTING TO ACCOMMODATE VERY REAL DELAYS -- >> THEY JUST NEVER ADJOURNED.

>> RIGHT.

SO IT DOES FEEL -- I'M IN THE BUILDING EVERY DAY, IT DID FEEL LIKE WE WERE NEVER NOT IN SESSION, GOING BACK TO NOVEMBER OF 2020.

>> AN INTERESTING WRINKLE, TO ME, IN YESTERDAY'S ARGUMENT WAS THIS BROUGHT UP THE QUESTION OF PART OF THE LEGISLATURE'S ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT WE'VE BEEN BASICALLY CALLING OURSELVES INTO SESSION FOR DECADES WITH WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE TECHNICAL SESSION, WHICH IS WHAT THEY DO.

THEY SAY BEFORE THEIR SESSION ENDS, THEY SAY, OKAY, THIS DATE, WE'RE GOING TO COME IN JUST IN CASE WE NEED TO FIX GRIEVOUS ERRORS OR OVERRIDE GUBERNATORIAL VETOES, SET TO COME BACK MAY 24 TO DO JUST THAT.

IS THERE A CHANCE THAT COULD GET STRUCK DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT?

>> I'M FASCINATED TO SEE HOW THIS RULING IMPACTS THAT, AND THOUGHT IT WAS SO INTERESTING THAT THAT CAME UP IN THIS DEBATE.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

THEY HAVE ADJOURNED SINE DIE, THEY ARE DONE.

YET THEY COME BACK IN FOR THIS DAY, IT'S NOT ORG DAY, NOT STARTING A NEW SESSION, IT IS JUST THIS DAY ON ITS OWN WHERE THEY'RE THERE.

A LOT OF TIMES THEY'RE NOT DOING THINGS OF SUBSTANCE, WE ALREADY KNOW THIS YEAR THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN AND CONSIDER A VETO OVERRIDE OF THE TRANSGENDER YOUTH SPORTS BILL.

THAT'S PRETTY SUBSTANTIVE.

>> HOTLY POLITICAL IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY AND HOTLY POLITICAL IN THE CONVENTION.

>> IT'S PLAYING OUT.

>> THAT'S WHY.

>> EXACTLY.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS ONE OF THOSE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

>> LET'S HOPE SO.

>> DO AWAY WITH THE TECHNICAL SESSION.

>> GIVEN THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED ABOUT THAT, I THINK THERE WILL BE SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR TECHNICAL.

>> I THINK SO, TOO.

>> JON, I'M GOING TO GET A LITTLE AHEAD OF OURSELVES RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS LET'S SAY THAT THE LEGISLATURE DOESN'T WIN THIS CASE, LET'S SAY THEY DON'T GET TO HAVE THIS EMERGENCY SESSION THEY'VE TRIED TO CREATE.

I'M GOING TO LEAVE THE TECHNICAL SESSION PART OUT OF IT FOR A MOMENT.

WHAT DOES THAT DO TO -- DO THEY GO BACK AND NOW DO THEY SAY TO GOVERNOR HOLCOMB, FINE, WE COULDN'T DO THAT, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY SOME OF YOUR EMERGENCY POWERS, WHAT DO THEY JUST TRY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION AS SEVERAL JUSTICES SUGGESTED THE MOST LOGICAL PATH.

>> THAT CERTAINLY WOULD BE THE MOST LOGICAL, NEAT, CLEAN.

VOTERS HAVE A SAY, WE ALWAYS SAY WE WANT VOTERS TO HAVE A SAY, OUR PROCESS IS PASSED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND THEN TWICE, TWO SUCCESSIVE SESSIONS, AND THEN TO VOTERS.

THAT'S WHAT OTHER STATES HAVE DONE, CAME OUT IN TESTIMONY THAT THERE WERE ONLY 11 STATES BASICALLY HAD GIVEN GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S THIS POWER INITIALLY.

THEN OVER THE YEARS, FOR WHATEVER REASON, MORE HAVE DONE SO, UP TO 35, 36.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ROUTE, WHICH IT DOES TAKE MORE TIME.

THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT WHEN YOU'RE CHANGING CONSTITUTION.

SO DO THEY -- THEY PROBABLY TRY TO NIBBLE AWAY AT IT.

KEEP IN MIND THAT THE HYSTERIA THAT SURROUNDED COVID AND BIG BROTHER TELLING PEOPLE TO WEAR MASKS, AND THIS AND THAT, AND THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES, WAS IT FAKE?

MAYBE THAT'S GONE.

AND MAYBE THERE WILL BE A DESIRE TO MOVE ON TO OTHER ISSUES, WHICH I THINK WE WOULD ALL BE PLEASED TO SEE THAT HAPPEN.

BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, AND -- >> THE LIKELIHOOD OF THIS LAW BEING USED ANY TIME SOON SEEMS PRETTY REMOTE.

>> I WAS SURPRISED BY THE AMOUNT OF ATTENTION GIVEN TO STANDING WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.

>> ROKITA HAS THROWN UP ALL THESE NON-ISSUES.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

HISTORY, YOU LOOK AT -- WE GO BACK TO WHEN SPECIAL SESSIONS WERE CREATED, FROM A BIBIENNIAL TO ANNUAL.

TRADITION IS ON THE GOVERNOR SIDE, HISTORY IS ON THE GOVERNOR SIDE.

>> AND THE CONSTITUTION.

>> AND THE CONSTITUTION ON THE GOVERNOR SIDE.

>> NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRIAL COURT.

>> THE TRIAL COURT STANDS FOR -- TOO.

>> IT DOES MATTER.

I MEAN, NO ONE REALLY SAYS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE LEGALITIES IF YOU LISTEN TO THE ORAL ARGUMENT.

THE REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE GVERNOR IS HAS PISSED OFF THE MORE CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS OF HIS OWN PARTY, SO THEY'RE GOING TO GET EVEN USING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS AIDING AND ABETTING, BUT YOU CAN'T SAY THAT.

>> THE JUSTICES PRESUMABLY AREN'T LOOKING AT THAT.

>> AND YOU CAN'T PUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OVER THE GOVERNOR, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, TRYING TO SAY HE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE GOVERNOR.

>> INDIANA'S LEGISLATIVE LEADERS SENT LETTERS TO THE STATE'S HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND INSURERS A FEW MONTHS AGO.

IN IT, THEY TOLD THEM TO ACT NOW TO REDUCE HEALTH CARE COSTS, OR LAWMAKERS WILL TAKE STEPS TO DO SO NEXT YEAR.

AND SOME OF THE RESPONSES TO THOSE LETTERS HAVE BECOME PUBLIC.

>> IU HEALTH, THE LARGEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE STATE, MADE ITS REPLY PUBLIC.

IN ITS LETTER TO LEGISLATIVE LEADERS, IT DEFENDED ITS EXISTING PLANS TO ADDRESS HIGH HEALTH CARE COSTS.

THAT INCLUDES MOVING A GOAL TO REACH NATIONAL AVERAGE PRICES TO JANUARY 2025 (UP FROM DECEMBER 2025).

IU HEALTH ALSO LAID SOME BLAME AT THE FEET OF LAWMAKERS.

IT SAYS INDIANA'S POOR CITIZEN HEALTH IS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO HIGH COSTS, AND NOTES, IN ITS LETTER, THAT INDIANA RANKS 47 OUT OF 50 IN THE COUNTRY FOR PUBLIC HEALTH SPENDING.

BUT THE HEAD OF THE INSURANCE INSTITUTE OF INDIANA SAYS IT'S LARGE HOSPITALS THAT ARE TO BLAME.

STOP RAKING IN RECORD PROFITS YEAR AFTER YEAR STOP SHIFTING FUNDS AROUND TO MASK THE BOTTOM LINE, WRITES MARTY WOOD, REPRESENTING HOOSIER INSURANCE COMPANIES IN A RECENT OP-ED.

IT'S LIKELY THAT DEBATE WILL CONTINUE INTO NEXT SESSION.

>> JON SCHWANTES, DOES THIS MAKE YOU PESSIMISTIC ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR POSITIVE CHANGE?

>> WELL, ONE MUST DEFINE POSITIVE CHANGE.

WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT DOGS IN THE FIGHT.

IF BENEFIT MEANS LOWER -- I DON'T SEE THAT NECESSARILY HAPPENING.

I DON'T THINK THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY -- I THINK THAT'S WHY WE RATHER THAN SEEING PROPOSALS WITH ACTUAL BILLS THAT WOULD IMPOSE VERY RIGID STANDARD, WE ACTUALLY SAW THIS SORT OF, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO FIRE A SHOT ACROSS YOUR BOW, WE'RE GOING TO SEND THIS LETTER, IF YOU DON'T COME UP WITH A PLAN BY APRIL 1, WE MIGHT DO SOMETHING.

KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS A REPUBLICAN SUPERMAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE.

GENERALLY NOT WANTING TO GET INTO THINGS SUCH AS PRICE CONTROLS, AND TELLING THE PRIVATE SECTOR EVEN IF IT IS THE NON-PROFIT, QUASI GOVERNMENTAL SECTOR HOW TO DO THEIR BUSINESS OR SET PRICING, IT IS NOT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

THE FACT THIS IS A STATE BECAUSE OF ELI LILLY AND ROCHE.

WE DERIVE A LOT OF FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM OUR BIOTECHNOLOGY AND PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AND MEDICAL ADVANCES.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO, THE STATE, I DON'T THINK THAT TRIES TO PUT THE KIBOSH ON THAT AND SEE PEOPLE FLEEING ELSEWHERE.

SO, I THINK IT IS PROBABLY -- THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED, BUT IT WON'T BE ADDRESSED, ONCE AGAIN, AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

THIS IS NOT ADDRESSED AT THE STATE LEVEL.

>> ROD BRAY SENT THIS LETTER.

TODD HUSTON SAID WE DON'T WANT TO COME DOWN HARD ON THEM, BUT E WILL IF THEY DON' E WILL IF THEY DON' ANYTHING.

ANYTHING.

WHAT REALISTICALLY CAN STATE LAWMAKERS DO IN THIS AREA?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I MEAN, TO THE QUESTION BEFORE ABOUT DOES THIS MAKE YOU OPTIMISTIC OR PESSIMISTIC ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN?

IN 2020 THEY PASSED SOME LEGISLATION THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY BOILED DOWN TO TRANSPARENCY OF HEALTH PRICING.

ANY SAID AT THE TIME THAT WAS GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT AND LOWER HEALTHCARE COSTS, STEP ONE IN THAT DIRECTION.

BUT THAT SAID, YOU HAVE TO KNOW THAT LIKE THIS WEBSITE EXISTS WHERE YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PRICES.

AND YOU HAVE TO BE GOING TO THAT, AS A CONSUMER, YOU HAVE TO BE SHOPPING AROUND AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO GO TO I.U.

HEALTH BECAUSE THEIR PRICES ARE TOO HIGH, I'M GOING -- >> YOUR INSURANCE DOESN'T ALWAYS ALLOW YOU THE FREEDOM TO DO.

>> EXACTLY.

SO MANY CAVEATS.

AND HAVING THE TIME AND WILL TO DO SUCH A THING FOR THAT TO REALLY HAVE ANY SORT OF AN IMPACT.

AND SO YOU SAW THAT HAPPEN IN 2020, THEN THEY SEND THIS LETTER AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING IF YOU DON'T.

BUT I THINK IT IS BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO PICK THE WINNERS OR LOSERS, AND DON'T WANT TO, BECAUSE EVERYONE IS JUST POINTING FINGERS AT EACH OTHER, THE HOSPITALS, INSURANCE COMPANIES, AND THEN THE HOSPITALS ARE SAYING WELL, PUBLIC HEALTH SPENDING IS BAD, IT'S YOUR FAULT.

>> TO THAT POINT WHERE A LOT OF THE RESPONSES, IT SEEMS, TO THIS LETTER FROM THE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS WAS, YEAH, WHAT ABOUT THEM?

IS THAT MAYBE WHERE STATE LAWMAKERS PLAY A ROLE IN GETTING THEM TO STOP POINTING FINGERS AT EACH OTHER?

>> I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE GOVERNOR MIGHT BE ABLE TO COME IN AND SAY, LOOK, YOU'RE RIGHT, WE'RE AT 47th IN THE COUNTRY ON SPENDING ON HEALTHCARE AS A STATE.

AND WE'RE GOING TO DO X AND Y AND Z AND TRY TO GET DIABETES, AND OBESITY AND SMOKING UNDER CONTROL TO HAVE A BETTER IMPACT ON ALL THE COSTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH HEALTHCARE, IN RETURN WE WANT SOMETHING FROM YOU, AND SIT DOWN AND NEGOTIATE THOSE THINGS.

YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE ANY POWER TO ENFORCE IT IS ANOTHER QUESTION.

BUT IT THE LEAST HE COULD SIT THEM DOWN AND SAY IF WE DO THIS WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO IN.

>> GOVERNOR HOLCOMB HAS BEEN TALKING ALREADY ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH SPENDING.

HE'S GOT THIS -- EXCUSE ME, THIS PUBLIC HEALTH COMMISSION THAT HE CREATED, THEY'VE BEEN STUDYING THINGS SEVERAL MONTHS, CONTINUE THE REST OF THIS YEAR, HOLCOMB HAS BEEN TELEGRAPHING FOR A WHILE.

I'M COMING TO THE LEGISLATURE DURING BUDGET WRITING WITH A BIG OL' DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INCREASE PUBLIC HEALTH SPENDING.

I'VE BEEN PERSONALLY SKEPTICAL THAT LAWMAKERS ARE PREPARED TO GO THAT DIRECTION.

DOES SOMETHING LIKE THIS CONVERSATION HELP THE GOVERNOR IN THAT ARGUMENT?

>> I THINK A ONE, I'VE WORKED IN THE STATEHOUSE AND LOBBY PD FOR PROVIDERS, THEN INSURERS NOW, PART OF THIS BIGGER CONVERSATION, JUST FULL DISCLOSURE.

>> TO BLAME.

>> FINGERS POINT, WE CAN DEFINITELY POINT.

>> WHY NOT.

BUT IN 20 YEARS OF DOING THIS, ONE THING THAT HAS CHANGED THIS CONVERSATION IS THAT INSURANCE HAS LARGELY GOTTEN OUT OF THE MARKET OF PROVIDING INSURANCE AND EMPLOYERS ARE ACTUALLY AT RISK FOR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY'RE SPENDING, THAT OBAMACARE KIND OF FORCED THE MARKET TO MOVE THAT DIRECTION.

NOW YOU'VE GOT EMPLOYER -- WHAT CREATED THE KIND OF URGENCY AT THE STATEHOUSE AND CHANGE THE DYNAMIC, EMPLOYERS CAME IN AND SAID WE CAN'T DO THIS ANYMORE.

SO SOMETHING HAS GOT TO CHANGE.

AND BETWEEN DRUG COMPANIES, INSURERS, PROVIDERS, INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, THE GOVERNOR LEADING ON PUBLIC HEALTH.

THAT'S ALL PART OF THE SOLUTION, EMPLOYERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES ARE -- >> I THEY WE COULD STOP THE ADVERTISING DRUGS ON TELEVISION, TOO.

YOU GET THIS ADVERTISEMENT THAT -- YOU COULD DANCE.

>> FINALLY, A SOUTHERN ILLINOIS COUNTY TREASURER, ASHLEY GOTT, A MAN, WILL FACE OFF IN A PRIMARY THIS YEAR AGAINST A WOMAN WHO JUST RECENTLY CHANGED HER NAME TO ASHLEY GOTT.

MIKE O'BRIEN, IS THAT THE MOST DEDICATION TO ELECTORAL STRATEGY YOU'VE EVER HEARD OF?

>> I GREW UP IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.

I LOVE IT.

>> WOULD YOU GO THAT FAR TO WIN AN ELECTION?

>> NO.

NO.

BUT AS COUNTY TREASURER, IT IS NOT LIKE IT IS PRESIDENT.

>> IT STARTS AT THE COUNTY TREASURER.

CHANGING HER NAME EVERY SINGLE TIME.

THAT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THIS WEEK.

OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY REPUBLICAN, MIKE O'BRIEN, JON SCHWANTES OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS, AND LINDSEY LINDSEY ERDODY IF YOU'D LIKE A PODCAST OF THIS PROGRAM YOU CAN FIND IT AT WFYI.ORG/IWIR OR STARTING MONDAY YOU CAN STREAM IT OR GET IT ON DEMAND FROM XFINITY AND ON THE WFYI 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 THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE PANELISTS.

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