J.D.

Ford passes on a lieutenant governor run.

Randy Head elected GOP chair, plus executions to resume and more from the television studios at WFYI It's Indiana in Review for the week ending June 28th, 2024.

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

This week, important bill first reported that State Senator J.D.

Ford has opted not to seek the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor at next month's state party convention.

Ford, the first openly gay member of the Indiana General Assembly, had first floated the idea of a run for lieutenant governor after gubernatorial candidate Jennifer McCormick announced conservative Democrat Terry Goodin was her choice for running mate.

Goodin voted to ban gay marriage in 2011, though last week he said he regrets that vote and supports gay marriage now.

The LG nomination race will still be contested at the convention.

Two others, Bob Kern and Cliff Marsiglio, have already filed to run against Goodin.

Does Ford's decision indicate growing support for McCormick's pick?

It's the first question for our Indiana Weekend Review panel.

Democrat Ann DeLaney, Republican.

Whitley Yates.

John 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 Delaney, Are Democrats starting to come together over Terry?

I think so.

I think he's done a very good job reassuring Democrats that his position on these issues has evolved, as as many people's positions on these issues have evolved over the last, you know, ten, 20 years.

And, once he reassured people that he regretted his vote against gay marriage and, and is in favor of the Democratic platform, it was a given that he would be, really, seriously opposed.

I mean, I know there are two candidates in there, but neither one of them have any support at all, so.

So it's, it's a it's going to be a unity fest, unlike the Republicans convention.

If if the Democratic convention does become more unifying around Goodin does that boost the Democrats ticket as Republicans are still trying to figure out the Braun Beckwith ticket?

I don't think there's anything that's going to boost the Democrats ticket.

I think when looking at the splintering and the disarray of the Democratic Party, specifically in Indiana, but honestly, it's from the nationwide down.

I'm not necessarily sure that the LG pick does anything to help the ticket to be honest.

And when thinking about the way the party has shifted, specifically the progressive movement, I don't think that they're going to accept a retraction, a change or an evolution in someone's views that were so staunch against their lifestyle.

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

And when you talk about splintered, the idea that the gubernatorial nominee of the Republican Party has his lieutenant governor rejected.

We're talking about schism here.

And then you put forward a person who is to the right of Attila the Hun, who, you know, you take the word white out of the Klu Klux Klan platform, and you put Christian nationalists and he could be a card carrying member of the Klan.

Because he's a pastor?

No, because he's a right wing fanatic who thinks that his religion is the only religion.

And his view of the world is the only view that any thinking patriotic American should have.

That's why I.

Wholeheartedly disagree with you on.

That.

Well, just listen to.

What he says.

What they just made a point that I do want to talk about.

There's been a lot more attention, for obvious reasons, on lieutenant governor candidates this cycle than maybe any cycle that I can ever remember.

By the time we get to Election Day, especially if Goodin is the nominee and things settle down and the turmoil in the Democratic side settled down over that, will the candidates make that much of a difference?

How do, say, the the impact?

There's a direct relationship, it seems to me, between the impact and the ability of the opposing side to make it an issue and the decision making and the wherewithal to finance, messaging that.

Now, if Democrats see the Beckwith nomination as problematic and as somehow suggesting that it's a party in array, or that there's, you know, danger looming in the second, most important office in the state, and they are willing to a make that a priority issue and then fund it to an extent that it becomes part of the conversation, then it could have an impact.

Other than that, I don't think, the second spots on the ticket really matter that much.

I mean, as a practical matter, if you wanted to find a Democrat who had held office in a legislative body, say, in the 90s 80s into 2005, let's say in middle of the Aught, you'd be hard pressed to find a Democrat who in some way, shape or form didn't wasn't on record against gay marriage.

Again, I pointed out last week that we're talking about Joe Biden.

We're talking about Evan Bayh.

We're talking about any number of individuals who have become champions.

So I mean, that would be a very small pool of candidates from which you could pick.

So I don't see that being a negative.

The bigger issue here is the Beckwith, nomination, but only to the extent it seems to me that Democrats have the desire and the ability to do it to make it an issue.

in J.D.

Ford, in his, he posted a message on his campaign's Facebook page explaining his decision not to run, explaining that he he sat down with God and believed it was genuine, that this conversion, this change of mind.

But he talked about the need to try and win over rural voters, southern Indiana Democrats, who no longer seemingly exist or migrated to the Republican Party.

Can anyone really do that any more?

I mean, you can to a point, but you got to have a lot of money to get out there and to I mean, you can't go house to house and meet people personally.

Obviously, I think of a lot of people sat down with Terry Goodin.

And they would say, oh, he is intelligent and articulate.

And, you know, it's got a lot to say on education.

And he's a farmer.

So he's got, you know, a lot of, you know, information on the ag industry.

And roots in those communities.

And those communities.

But you have to I mean, you can't do that without money.

Like, you got to be able to take your message from the, you know, the grassroots to the to the top of the macro level.

Yeah.

All right.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post an unsigned online poll question.

And this week's question is, should conservative Democrat Terry Goodin be nominated for lieutenant governor by the Democratic convention delegates?

A yes will be no.

Last week, we asked to weather Micah Beckwith a nomination for lieutenant governor.

Will help or hurt Mike Brauns campaign.

I will make a note, as I sometimes do, that we had more than quadruple the number of votes we normally have for this poll question, 72% of whom are saying Micah Beckwith will help.

Mike Braun, 20 to 21% say that will hurt.

7% said he will have no effect.

If you'd like to take part in the poll, go to fiy.org/wire and look for the poll for former state Senator Randy Head is the new chair of the Indiana Republican Party.

After the party state committee unanimously elected head the position this week had served 11 years in the state legislature, worked as a deputy prosecutor, and currently works as a lobbyist.

He ascends to the position of party chair after current chair Anne Hathaway announced last week she would step down.

Hathaway became the first woman to lead the Indiana GOP last year, but said recently she only ever intended to serve temporarily until after this year's primary election.

Head is a member of the committee that elected him chair, and says the relationships he built there will help him hit the ground running.

Head was endorsed for the job by Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Braun.

What does this some kind of quiet down, some of what seemed like chaos within the party over the last couple of weeks?

You know, I think that's a really interesting perspective.

As someone that has worked inside the party for now, three chairmen.

There was no chaos.

The way that change happens and the way that leadership usually transitions is very normal, specifically within the GOP, who's had two different chairs in the past four years.

And so I think Randy and his leadership, I'm going to say personally, I'm excited.

And there are a lot of people that are invigorated and excited, specifically seeing how he ran the convention.

He was very decisive.

And I think that his level of leadership in Indiana is not only welcomed, but it's going to be something that is refreshing to the Indiana Republican Party.

There's some question about, needing someone who can kind of bridge what seems like two camps in the Republican Party at this.

Point, at least.

To the sort of the sort of Eric Holcomb led wing that had been in control of the party apparatus for a little while.

And then obviously, the the, the grassroots sort of group that clearly Michael Beckwith is a voice for and a figurehead for is Randy head the sort of person who can bridge that gap.

Well, I think he has the potential to do that.

Yes.

The question is, does he succumb to the influence of the crazies in the Republican Party and start denying that Joe Biden was elected and, and saying that that that, you know, nobody, by the way, ever says that Donald Trump was innocent of the charges for which he was convicted.

But they all say it's all retribution or it's all orchestrated.

When you have that kind of dynamic coming out as Anne Hathaway, I was quite disappointed to see her say that, when she was state chair.

If he doesn't succumb to the temptation to cater to the right wing crazies in the Republican Party, I think he has the potential to do that.

I'm a little concerned about the fact that I know he's resigned his positions as a registered lobbyist for a number of different groups, which he has to do by statute, but they are now in the position of having part time chairs as a regular thing and having been a chair and full time.

The problem is always conflicts.

I mean, he may not be lobbying anymore, but but Krieg will be lobbying, certainly.

And the potential for conflicts in that when you have the Republican state chairman in House and the lobbyists from that in House, Republican state chair go to legislatures, legislators.

It seems to me it's a it's fraught with risk.

wasn't fraught with risk for Joe Hogsett who was at Bo's who became mayor.

And he wasn't a lobbyist.

He wasn't, but he was a lawyer and had great relationship.

This is the same situation the lawyer.

When he didn't think that was a good idea at the time, either.

I mean, it's something that their friends and relationships usually permeate throughout all aspects of.

It is something that's new.

It's not something that was traditionally done.

It was not.

Usually you had full time state chairs and to avoid them.

We I mean, at least the last couple of Republican chairs have been the same thing and they've been okay.

And Randy had is an experienced lawyer, so he can still make a living, you know, as a lawyer in various ways.

So, I mean, I don't necessarily see huge conflicts from that.

You you obviously covered, a Senator Randy Head as I did when he was in the Senate.

what was does he seem like the right fit for this kind of role?

Yeah.

I mean, everyone seems really on board.

I mean, I remember covering him.

He was always easy to talk to.

He had a real grasp on the issue issues and the bills.

I mean, some lawmakers, let's be honest, don't fully understand the bills they're offering.

Randy had clearly did really smart guy.

And and so everyone seems, you know, behind him, the one area he'll have to really prove himself, I think is sort of big long term, large scale fundraising.

so that'll be interesting to see.

Was this important?

I mean, we just talked about how the may have seemed chaotic from the outside, but inside this was just the normal sort of passing of the baton.

it happened incredibly, even from the outside.

This happened very smoothly in terms of had they rallied pretty quickly around.

Randy had unanimous support among the state committee.

It was that important for Republicans to get through that?

Oh, I think so.

And I think all everything that has been said is accurate, smart guy who who honest guy who seems to understand the process and at least understands the viewpoints that he'll have to reconcile.

so I think the hope is that there can be this, this sort of, message discipline or party discipline that has been lacking.

I would say that actually the rules have been reversed.

You had seen more party discipline and more message discipline in the past 2 to 4, five, six years on the Democratic side than the Republicans.

Now that a lot of factors were at play there.

When you're a supermajority and you have so many different factions on talking about legislative, message management as well, but it also extends to the state party and the mayoral offices and so forth.

It's hard to get everybody on the same page.

And being on the ropes when you're a super minority has a way of of focusing the mind and bringing clarity.

So I don't think it's necessarily anybody's fault that you haven't had as much discipline.

when you're on the, on the you're the underdog, you kind of unite more easily.

But the fact of the matter has been that Democrats have been the better, more managed, more predictable party, which you would not have said ten, 20 years ago.

And I will say something else.

I think helping Randy head here in terms of that idea of bridging the gap is he's not from the Indianapolis area originally.

He's from, I think, the Rensselaer area.

So kind of which has been a criticism of the state party organization of late.

So I think that helps too.

All right.

It's been 15 years since Indiana executed someone on death row.

And this week, Governor Eric Holcomb and Attorney General Todd Rokita announced they're looking to end that streak.

The long delay in executions was because the Indiana Department of Correction couldn't obtain any drugs suitable to use in an execution.

Pharmaceutical companies have become more resistant in recent years to their drugs being used that way.

But Holcomb and Rokita announced that the doc has secured a lethal injection drug, and they're asking the state Supreme Court to set an execution date for Joseph Corcoran.

The Fort Wayne man, now 49, was convicted of killing four people in 1998.

He's been on Indiana's death row since.

With all appeals now exhausted.

Niki Kelly, we've talked on this show before, during this long pause.

And because the DOC was having trouble getting these drugs, whether that would sort of restart a debate over whether we still needed the death penalty in Indiana, does this kickstart that debate similarly?

Absolutely.

I think a lot.

I mean, for all intents and purposes, we had a de facto moratorium for more than a decade, and we and we have it on both ends.

We obviously have the eight gentlemen who are on death row, and we couldn't find the drugs to carry out the executions.

We haven't added anyone to death row since 2014, and that's because these cases are so expensive the counties can't afford them.

We have real life without parole now.

Whereas years ago, you know, there were limits.

so a lot of prosecutors are, you know, pleading those out.

They very rarely go to trial.

They vary, rarely go to trial and then end with a dozen or so.

But yeah, I think we'll definitely have some talk about it.

I think for the longest time since we were doing them, they were out of sight, out of mind.

Politically speaking.

Do you see a supermajority Republican legislature ending the death penalty in Indiana.

Ending the death penalty or the moratorium?

no, I, I don't, I think they would be.

It's not in that in their makeup.

I haven't seen any polling on what Hoosiers rank and file.

Hoosiers.

Think about it.

But if it's like the rest of the country, I think, there's a move toward the notion that it's so riddled with errors, it's so unfair in in its application.

And, I mean, statistically, you can prove that in any jurisdiction in the country.

and there are mistakes that have been made and it is costly, etc., etc..

I don't I haven't seen the numbers, but I think there's a move toward, you know, life without parole or some other, some penalty short of capital punishment.

But I don't know that that message has resonated with the super, majority.

It's, it's and I don't think the public actually to to Nikis point, this is, if you had the list of, you know, we stopped ten people on Meridian right now, what concerns you?

The death penalty is not going to be on that list.

Maybe the first 100 people.

It's not going to be on the list.

to to Niki's point, John just kind of brought this up to I don't I agree with you.

I don't think the legislature changes anything anytime soon, but do we now effectively, other than these eight men who are on death row with the way that the law is now being practiced, do we have a de facto end to the death penalty in Indiana?

I wouldn't necessarily say de facto.

I think it's going to be always on a case by case basis.

You may see some proponents and some people who are not.

For this, you may see pro-life from womb to tomb.

That includes from abortion to euthanasia to the death penalty.

So you could see some factions of those rise up and you could see some people protesting.

But overall, I don't think it's going to change the way that prosecutors are prosecuting, the way that judges are sentencing.

and I think that Indiana, following the law that they are supposed to follow, and now that they do have what's necessary to carry out the death penalty to go ahead and say, well, we have these people we're going to do it is right within the law.

Yeah.

That is, one thing I want to ask about.

What she just said was, I agree that I don't think it will change what judges do, but will it now?

I mean, the prosecutors is, to Nikis point, I haven't really been going after this because for some, partly because it's very costly to do so, but also because I imagine you were like, well, we can't do it anyway.

What's the point of seeking this?

Right.

Well, now we can, at least for a while.

They'll be they'll be political pressure on prosecutors to go seek the death penalty with this.

They will and their elected officials, and they've got to be responsive.

But I think like we were talking about the evolution of viewpoints on this, I think that's evolved a fair amount as well.

And when there is really life without parole, there is a viable alternative.

I mean, you don't want that person having the ability to kill again.

but if you're keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives, you've done that.

And I think that's I, you know, I really do think that's sufficient.

and I don't know how many of these drugs companies they have.

The company is saying we're not making them any more.

We're not making the money more.

So this may be a little blip in the screen.

Well, critics would say the inherent unfairness is on display.

If you say, let's deal with the eight who are currently on death row, and then we have a de facto moratorium that I think critics would say illustrates the inherent unfairness and sort of the arbitrary nature of this.

No one could say that the crimes that have been committed since 2014 have been less egregious in some manner than the crimes committed before.

We haven't had the angels come down and say, everybody sprinkle with nice dust.

there is just the crime here is heinous and and is egregious.

So where's the fairness in that?

Because it's not.

There.

I want to ask a little bit about process here to Niki the governor's statement was similar to what Willie just said.

He's following the law.

This is what the law requires.

We now have access to this drug.

But you said in talking to Holcomb yesterday.

Yeah, some reporters talked to him yesterday.

And Casey Smith was there for us.

I mean, he seemed a little bit more strident about it and supportive of, you know, this is the means necessary to do it.

And justice will be served.

there is the the particular man that's in in contemplation for it.

He can seek clemency.

To be fair, three of the last 4 or 5 execution dates have been stopped through clemency, two under Joe Kernen and one under Mitch Daniels.

So that's not out of the realm.

Given the mental illness issues in this case.

Yeah.

All right.

One Indiana University trustee says she was not consulted before the IU board put out a statement earlier this year supporting university President Pamela Whitten.

Trustee Vivian Winston told WFIU she wasn't aware of the statement before it was posted and does not agree with it.

The April statement, purportedly representing the entire board, reaffirmed its commitment to President Witten after an overwhelming no confidence vote against her by faculty.

Winston says the statement doesn't, quote, truly capture a representative sense of the board's perspective.

The statement ignored the seriousness of the vote and disregarded faculty concerns.

Sean Mckinniss, an expert on higher education governance who studies votes of no confidence, says it's not only unusual for a board to put out a statement without consulting its members, but division on backing a leader is a sign of trouble.

It's very rare, Which, if I'm trying to leave leaves here, tells me something.

quite, rancorous or, challenging is going on behind the scenes if they're not all on the same page.

Winston called for the board to seek equal input from all its members before future statements of decisions.

She's one of three trustees elected by IU alumni, the other six are appointed by the governor, John Schwantes Does this take the IU situation from bad to worse?

Longtime viewers will know there is no bigger fan of IU than than I am no bigger apologist oftentimes for IU than I am.

And yes, this is trouble.

This is very problematic, and it's just the latest sign of trouble at my alma mater.

I've been concerned for some time about a lack of transparency even before these issues about, you know, arrests and the clearing out of meadow, which has traditionally been a haven for certainly in my undergraduate days, when the shantytown, an opposition to South Africa had been there on uninterrupted for, I don't know, months, seemed to be a better, handling of it.

But it goes beyond that.

It's about, and and interactions with faculty and the confidence of faculty because it can take decades to build a stellar, globally respected faculty, not that long to tear it apart.

and state institutions like this have to rely on shared governance.

This is not, nobody can rule by fiat.

And so to lose the confidence of, perhaps one of the most highly regarded faculties on the planet, on the planet is problematic and something needs to happen.

So transparency is an issue.

The relationship with faculty is an issue.

the and we didn't even touch on the the board's seemingly wildcat, release of not one but two statements which showed suggested unanimous support, which we now know is not true.

an undercurrent here is that in a few months, the state budget committee will hear from all of the university presidents as we, as the state writes, a new state budget and presumably as they, Pamela Whitten will go before the board and say, here's what IU is doing, here's what we need, and so on.

Is that going to is she going to have the confidence of lawmakers as they sit there and listen to her?

I think she will.

I think, you know, the Republicans in the legislature are pretty supportive of her.

They've been open about it.

I mean, this is clearly an unforced error.

on behalf of the board.

And and interestingly, we haven't talked about it, but recently the board decided to put a chancellor at IU Bloomington for the first time.

And some of that is, is seen to be a way of insulating Pamela Whitten from some of these unpopular decisions, or at least to to give someone else a voice in some of these unpopular decisions.

Another IU alum is the IU brand still okay?

And now I want to shift our perspective.

We are talking about one of the top universities in this state that is currently going through a transition that is outside of trustee and outside of president, the splitting of IUPUI and how that really reshapes the brand, to me, is the undergirding the foundation of a lot of these things, because there are a lot of changes that are happening where I believe faculty and students and us on the outside looking in, we're not understanding the dynamics of this.

So I think that honestly, a lot of what we're seeing and maybe some of the dissension is really just growing pains of a university that's looking to create a new legacy for themselves, not only in Indianapolis, but around the world.

So some respect, if I had.

I don't I don't think it's the reason.

I don't think that's the reason.

I think the way that the administration botched the handling of the dissent and, and met in, in a secret meeting the night before and change the whole tenor of done metal.

That's what's caused the problem.

And her, seeming disrespect for divergent opinions and free speech is what's caused the faculty uproar.

It isn't that it isn't the fact that they're splitting IU made out great under the deal that split IUPUI, and they should be really happy here.

Very briefly, your.

Question about her relationship with lawmakers, Republicans.

Like.

Don't have any problem.

But that underscores the problem with the faculty.

Yeah, that's Indiana we can review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney, Republican WhitleyYates, John Schwantes of Indiana lawmakers and Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week interviews, podcasts and episodes at wfyi.org/eyewear or on the PBS app.

I'm Brandon Smith of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

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

You.

The opinions expressed are solely those of the panelist.

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