What do Heisman winner Fernando Mendoza and Indiana's four legislative caucus leaders have in common?

Well, all of them are card carrying Hoosiers, home grown or adopted, who burst into the national spotlight through their involvement in high profile showdowns in 2025.

Hi, I'm Jon Schwantes, and on this week's show, we'll ask those legislative leaders how their recent fight over redistricting might shape the General Assembly's 2026 session and their debates over more traditional issues such as education, public safety and the rising cost of energy, childcare and health care.

It's Indiana lawmakers from the state House to your house.

Indiana Lawmakers is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations, with additional support provided by ParrRichey Mention the use of chairs and whips to maintain order, and you may well evoke thoughts of old school lion tamers.

The state house, of course, isn't a circus, but when it comes to that multi ring spectacle known as the Indiana General Assembly, the animal handler imagery is not without metaphorical value.

After all, the General Assembly is made up of a 150 strong willed characters, each with a distinct agenda, persona and constituency without a clearly defined leadership structure.

Chaos would almost certainly reign in the House of Representatives.

The undisputed ringmaster is the speaker every two years after Indiana's legislative elections.

House members choose one of their own to occupy this all important post.

Besides serving as the de facto leader of the Majority caucus, the speaker is the presiding officer of the House, meaning they manage the chambers formal proceedings.

The speaker also decides the makeup of legislative committees, appoints the chairs of those committees, and determines which committees will consider which bills on the other side of the statehouse rotunda.

The Senate doesn't have a speaker per se, but it does have a largely equivalent leadership position.

President Pro tem technically, the lieutenant governor is the president or presiding officer of the Senate, but because they aren't an elected member of the chamber, the lieutenant governor votes only to break ties, and the president pro tem presides when the lieutenant governor is away.

Pro tem, of course, is a Latin phrase meaning for the time being.

But make no mistake.

In every sense, that matters.

The Senate's president pro tem calls the shots the signing bills, appointing committees and setting the chamber's overall agenda.

While the majority caucuses are electing their leaders, their Partizan counterparts are doing likewise.

Enter the House and Senate minority leaders.

Although they lack the broad administrative powers wielded by the Speaker and president pro tem, the minority leaders provide opposition to the majority party's policies.

Oh yeah, let's not forget the majority and minority whips along with their assistant whips.

And generally speaking, the whips are enforcers.

They pressure their caucus members to toe the party line.

The term derives from British foxhunting, where a so-called whipper in is responsible for keeping the hounds from wandering away from the pack.

See, there's just no getting around that animal handler imagery.

I am pleased to welcome to our first round table of the 2026 session.

House Speaker Todd Huston, a Fisher's Republican.

House Minority Leader Phil GiaQuinta , a Fort Wayne Democrat.

Senate President Pro Tem Roderic Bray, a Martinsville Republican.

And Senate Minority Leader Shelli Yoder, a Bloomington Democrat.

Thank you all for being here.

We got to start with redistricting.

I mean, you all became global sensations.

I mean, that's everybody watched that unfold.

we talk about repercussions, and fallout from that.

So I do want to start there.

We're not going to relitigate that vote.

But it was the Senate, your chamber, Rod Bray, that in fact voted it down with 21 out of 40 Republicans siding with all ten Democrats.

What is the fallout?

Is there a fallout for either personal, professional, political, or from a policy standpoint, for the state of Indiana?

You know, I guess the first thing I'll say is, at the end of the day, this was just one other issue that we debate, right?

There's lots of lots of issues that we debate.

Sometimes we come on different sides of conclusions on that.

And, and that's kind of where this is.

So will it be fallout out of Washington DC?

I don't really think so.

We watched just recently where there was, we got, $207 million for rural health care.

That was a little more than we expected to get.

So I think that's evidence that that's not going to be the case.

And, so we're going to move on now as we start a new legislative session to talk about lots of other issues that are important to Hoosiers, and there'll be some differences of opinion there between the House and the Senate, even the Republican caucuses and the governor's office.

That's just how policymaking works.

So, I think we don't want to make too much of that.

Now, I do think, you know, to the question of, are there some political consequences?

You know, it's going to be an issue for some people.

But, we expect to have primaries every May.

When people run, we expect to have challenges in November.

And you've got to go out, make your case.

And, so that's exactly what my numbers just not every primary, though the president of the United States, from your own party and the governor from your own party, say we're going to recruit and fund people to to run against the.

Now, you don't you're not up and this time around.

So no worry about filing deadlines.

Which in Indiana is for this upcoming election, February 6th.

Your take on this, will there be repercussions politically?

I couldn't agree more with my friend Senator Bray.

You know, the change, I'd say, is we're just continuing the legislative session, not starting it.

That would be the only.

That'd be the only thing I would say about, no.

Move forward and you're going to support them in two years?

Well, it's a great friend.

Great friend you're going to support.

I mean, look, I mean, the the, you know, we've worked together on a lot of things, and I think we have a great track record in the state of Indiana.

Tons of success.

That's been done cooperatively.

And, we'll continue to do that this session.

I can't leave the Democrats out of this, fight, even though you probably could sit back and sort of enjoy the spectacle that unfolded.

But let's talk about the Senate.

Shelli Yoder, all ten members of your caucus, again, 21 members, Republicans.

What does it mean for Indiana?

I think for now in going forward.

Right.

It was it was a historical thing that happened.

And I think our role, the Senate Dems started right away when we heard that the president was sending the vice president to discuss this possibility in early August, and we got to work really quickly in educating Hoosiers, letting the letting them know what was at stake, what was really going on.

And we did not give up and were relentless until the very end.

So our work started early, and we never let our foot off the gas and worried about repercussions long term.

And not so much from a political standpoint for your party, but dollars coming flowing from the federal government or, you know, the decision to put federal facilities here, you know, there's always a contest for those sort of coveted high, high job and high profile types of installations.

Yeah.

No, I know I don't worry about that at all.

Actually, I would say that unfortunately, you know, having to spend the last four months, almost four months really of dealing with this issue, we could have been we're full time where we work, we have other jobs and so when our attention gets diverted to these type of things, unfortunately, when we could be focusing, I think, on more important issues that affect Hoosiers.

You know, I would hate to see that.

I will say this.

So it was nice to see the public engage one way or another.

And the, to bring this issue to the forefront.

I was really, pretty pleased with the way the public was involved, whether they attended town halls, rallies and those sorts of things.

And then, of course, I was very happy with our own members, did a wonderful job on the House floor, and I think maybe persuaded a few of the House Republicans to come our way, even though it was we weren't successful.

So we'll just have to.

But now, look that behind us and we'll just move on to the real issue.

It didn't get as many headlines as, say, Curt Cignetti and and, Fernando Mendoza.

But front page of the New York Times isn't anything to sneeze at.

I'm going to leave this topic with one more question, though.

Rod Bray, there were members of your caucus, Jean Leising vocally said the first thing the governor needs to do with the upcoming session is apologize to you.

Has he apologized?

And do you want him to apologize?

I don't need an apology from the governor.

We got to find ways to work together.

I sat down with him just to the last couple of days and, explained that we can find things for we agree on there are a number of them that we're going to work on those things and, create some good stories and good outcomes for Hoosiers.

So, that's that's how you feel.

That's that is behind.

Yeah.

We got we got more work to do.

All right.

Let's let's get to what you want to talk about, which is what you want to see happen in this short session.

Which one?

Real world.

Repercussion of this session.

Is it shorter because you spent two weeks in December on the redistricting debate.

So now you've committed to being done by the end of February.

We got, you know, mad dash seven, eight weeks here.

I just want to go down the line.

What is what do you want to see, accomplish.

Yeah.

So start first.

First of all, we use that time in December wisely.

I mean, our members were meeting with other folks who were working on legislation, and there were bills that were there, but there wasn't.

You know, I mean, you know, Jon, you've been around a long, slow process.

I mean, the first couple weeks are not exactly, you know, run straight out of the gate.

So, you know, we've taken advantage of that.

We've worked in partnership with our Senate colleagues and our colleagues across the aisle, to, to begin that work.

So and now we come back and we get to work on things, on and continue to work on those things like, you know, housing and, and utility rates, will be know, agenda items for us.

And then, you know, we want to make sure we continue to do deregulation around education and, and, and streamlining government.

So those will be high priorities for us.

You're going to hear more about that, or the next few weeks.

And I but we're excited.

You know, we have a lot to build on, a lot of great things to build on Indiana.

We're going to continue to do that.

And of course, there, I'm guessing will be a call.

We've already heard some rumblings about opening up the budget.

The budget forecast was rosier, I think, than a lot of people expected.

Not going to happen.

Not going to happen.

All right.

Straight answer there.

Well, look at the sad faces.

Look at them.

Let's just keep going around Shelli Yoder what do you want to see come out of this?

And I should point out Democrats I thought were really coordinated in their messaging this week.

You both did news conferences immediately following the Monday reopening.

Every member of your caucus had news releases.

Are you do you see this as a messaging opportunity, even though it's a very short session?

Well, it's always an opportunity to improve the lives of Hoosiers.

And that's what the Senate Dems have been focused on.

And we've been laser focused on issues of affordability because that's what we've been hearing about.

In addition to redistricting, it was affordability.

Indiana has simply been, state that traditionally has been a great place to raise a family.

But more and more families are feeling the pinch of not being able to make their bills at the end of every month.

So we've focus on four pillars, and that would be childcare, health care, utilities and housing.

And our members have filed bills in each of these four pillars addressing issues of affordability.

And I want to just say something about, coming back to finding a way to be very focused and disciplined when it comes to reopening the budget.

There is an important thing of being principled.

We did set a budget for two years.

But what is principle amidst suffering?

And when we have heard, especially around the issues of childcare, I think we have to weigh how we can address these issues of childcare so people aren't leaving the workforce.

And that is going to have ramifications for Indiana for generations to come.

So I think we could come into this conversation about looking at ways that we could address childcare in a in a very principled, disciplined way that would address the suffering that's happening in Indiana.

We have had, what, more than two dozen facilities closed just since the last session because of some of the fiscal constraints and the cutbacks, both in terms of the voucher and the amounts and the elimination of some folks on the waiting list.

Phil GiaQuinta you joked this week at that news conference that if you feel a sense of déja vu, you're not crazy.

These are the same bills essentially are the same priorities you had last session.

The working, working Hoosier agenda.

Elaborate.

Exactly.

I mean, we talked I mentioned several of these things in my opening speech last year.

Coming off the election and what we are hearing from folks.

And so things really haven't changed, haven't improved much.

And so, you mentioned childcare.

I had the opportunity to tour, local facility up in Fort Wayne in October and then, in December, just a couple of weeks ago, you got to notice that they're going to be closing.

And, so I was very disappointed with that.

So, you know, eliminating the weight loss would be one way, to do it for the childcare vouchers, if there's all kinds of things that we can do with regards to these issues with housing.

I mean, what what I saw the average age now is getting up to almost 40 years old before these young folks are able to afford to buy a home.

There's things that we can do to create, you know, a savings account, these sorts of things, where, folks are going to be able to go get low interest loans and to be able to afford, to buy their own home.

So, I think that we should be laser focused on the affordability issue.

We try we were last session as well.

We're going to continue to do that this session.

Well, rod, I started this sort of questioning about priorities with your Republican colleague in the House.

Your turn.

What do you want to see?

First of all?

Thank you.

Let me let me attach on to what the speaker said real quickly about the session.

You know what we are going to end early, going to end before March begins.

But it's not going to be a shorter session because we did two weeks in in December.

And I think it's relevant to make the point that, when our work in December wasn't a special session, it was just the start of this 2026 session.

And there as a result of that, there's no additional cost that it was incurred for to do that.

Plus, we got a lot of work done.

I know the House did the Senate as well.

Did when you saw us begin on Monday?

The January the 5th, there were a lot of there are a number of bills already on second reading because they had come out of committee and been fully vetted, which never happened.

So we made the most of the time possibility and most, most years.

That's exactly right.

So, so, so we made the most of the time we feel like we've been productive.

So we've hit the ground running now here in January, what you'll see us work on are a couple of things.

We talked maybe a little bit about Senate Bill one, which is, kind of bringing, Indiana into compliance with some of the big, beautiful bill provisions, but also making sure that we're executing with as much integrity and fidelity as we can, some of our food stamps and Medicaid costs, because we need to make sure that that is preserved for the people that need it.

And, and that, the people that have other options are going to use those because we need to make sure we keep that money and that program running smoothly, for the people that need it and not spending it, those dollars on things that could otherwise go to public education and things like that.

Are you worry, though, that I mean, virtually everyone else here on the on the couch has talked about affordability in some way, shape or form.

And when you're talking about realignment or tightening down some of the requirements to align with federal policy, that might mean more work requirements, for Medicaid and certain, certain benefits, food and infant care benefits and so forth.

Does that how do you reconcile?

Yes, it's saving dollars, but are you not putting people in harm's way financially?

You know, I don't think there are many people that are going to object with work requirements if you have the ability to do so.

And if you don't have there are these statutes are these laws aren't going to require you to work if you don't have any ability to.

But That that is a requirement that we're going to, we're going to ask for.

And I think it's I think it's, again, part of keeping the integrity and the fidelity of the programs out there.

Because if you look at if you look at Medicaid, for example, it has when I first took office in 2012, it was 12% of the budget.

And 21, I believe it was about 16% of the budget is now in the next two budgets, has grown to almost 23% of the budget.

Where does that come from?

Half of our educator, half of our dollars that Indiana spends are on, education dollars.

You've seen that decrease as Medicaid increases.

So we got to make sure that, that we keep that program for the people that need it, but that it's not going to to, be used for people who really don't need it but would like to have it.

And, it from 1965, when Medicaid began to 2021, that grew from $0 to $5 billion from 1921 to 1920, 2021 to 2025, it went from $5 billion to $10 billion.

That is wildly unsustainable.

So we've got to make sure that we're, keeping that program in check with Indiana's Medicaid rolls did grow significantly during Covid when federal dollars came in, and now those federal dollars have been withdrawn and which I guess adds to the difficulty with sustainability.

Well, Jon, but I think, you know what I think the Senate is appropriately addressing is making sure that the benefits get to those who need them, who actually qualify for them.

So you don't see any, any contradiction between that and affordability.

Because I think about health affordability, affordability, the getting to making sure the people that need these benefits receive these benefits and all these benefits.

I just say it, we are all concerned about affordability.

I mean, our agenda will touch on obviously, affordability.

The fundamental difference of just opinion is, is, look, will the affordability issue was created by government.

It was created by government when we we threw $7 trillion into the system in 2021.

And it was created by the fact on child care that the government has put so many regulations in that we've constrained supplies on housing, the government has put so many regulations in that we've driven up costs.

So I think, you know, where there's a fundamental disagreement of opinion is that we're we're we would say is like we need to deregulate these systems that allow more housing opportunities.

Is, is, Clinton noted, is should be very alarming to all of us of the first time homebuyer in America is 40 years old.

That's where we, most of us begin to build equity in our lives.

I think the fundamental, you know, difference of opinion is appropriate difference of opinions.

Whether you think government solves that by taking your own, actions that I think of, frankly, caused the affordability crisis, or whether you try to do things to get the government out of the way.

So the the you know, we can we can get back on utility rates is is without a doubt a product of basically saying we're going to shift the types of, of energy uses are going to lead into our utility rates.

Jon, I'd like to comment on that.

Let me just say I am impressed that you agree, though.

There's an affordability crisis because your president says it's it's propaganda made up fake news.

Well, I don't think you can talk to people.

I mean, look, we all should have concerns about utility rates.

We should all have concerns about.

Again, the first time homebuyers is being for years.

And you acknowledge there I mean it's the affordability is a real.

But I think how you solve it is really the come.

All right.

Now I didn't mean to interrupt my concerns.

I mean, one just dropped yesterday.

So trying to absorb it and see what it means and having that be the priority.

I think the concern here is SB1 is saying that program integrity is the same thing as cutting eligible Hoosiers off of these programs, that they are, as I said, eligible for.

And, you know, that is simply not the case.

And so what we're doing is we are, having more and more sort of fraud rhetoric, and the mechanics of that trick in some know the mechanics, the real issue.

But we're talking about Indiana and the mechanics of that is going to be using a cutting eligible Hoosiers off, as well as increasing churn and those kind of a point in SB1.

I think it would be beneficial for Hoosiers to read it and to look, we certainly we certainly want to make sure that there isn't fraud, but to call something fraud is only going to have a chilling effect.

It's only going to cut cost at the end of the day, possibly Hoosiers more money when it comes to health care and access to nutritious food.

But I think that is, the the issue here with SB1 is saying that a program's integrity, relies on cutting people off of access to care and food fealty, according to your this working Hoosier, agenda, which you alluded to.

There's there's some specific ideas in there, you know, capping health insurance premiums and, limiting.

I'm forget which Bill would say no more than 6% of the household income can go to utility costs.

And, you know, capping this and capping that.

How realistic is is that you're talking about, you know, things that our society, not just in Indiana, is wrestled with.

You know, what kind of profit can a utility company make?

Can you charge, can you cap health insurance premiums just arbitrarily?

I mean, sounds good, but I mean, how confident are you that that actually can ever happen?

Well, we give tax breaks all the time.

Seems like lately, lately, it's been for corporations, businesses, for example, data centers get to they get they don't pay the sales tax.

How about giving that same 7%, sales tax break to, citizens, Hoosiers?

I mean, there's things that we can do, honestly, if we really want to put our focus on helping consumers now, you know, look, if we don't want folks to, have to rely on, the government to help them, then let's make sure that we're that we're doing everything we can by creating high wage jobs, but, making sure that, folks have the necessary, means to get started, get off their, to right footing and so that they're productive citizens and going to make and, make money, earn great wages so that we don't have to, though they don't have to rely on government.

So there's a lot of things that I think we really, frankly, we're getting a little off topic.

I know, on some of these things, but we, we, we, we tend to, we don't deal with the problem from the beginning.

We tend to kind of try to solve it at the, at the back end and I and to my in my opinion, that's the wrong way to go.

But that's every legislative body in America that deals with things when they become great.

I mean, that's probably the nature of the beast.

We we've cut taxes for Hoosiers, the state income tax, every year in the last six years.

We'll continue to do that.

I mean, you know, look, we we've been totally committed to trying to make sure you're not suggesting you're going to open the budget and give new.

Oh, no, there already are already certain kinds of fees.

And we you know, we have new tax cuts cut, utility receipts tax.

We've done you know, I think, you know, we have been, very conscientious to, to make sure that we're supporting keeping as much, of Hoosiers well earned income in their own pockets.

And I think that's the right public policy.

I think it's why when you look at the revenue forecast, you mentioned earlier that, you know, we are a beacon in the Midwest, like we are outperforming everyone around us economically.

And I think it's because we have, we've set those policies in place.

And I think you can go across most of 92 counties and see really, really positive things happening.

We share again, I think to we're going to those are the exact things we all share.

We want to see, higher Hoosier wages.

We want to see more people employed.

You know, we have, the best unemployment rate.

When you look at both the, the, the number of people in the, what the, the percentage of people that don't have jobs, but we also have the highest, the highest participation rate in the Midwest.

So, you know, I mean, there's a lot of really good things going on.

We have to continue to build on those.

I think the best thing that we can do is, is to get the heck out of the Hoosiers way and let them be successful.

Rod Bray, on this notion of affordability and what can is practical and can feasible.

This session, I'll paraphrase Ronald Reagan when the new when the the laws passed this session take effect unless there emergency on July 1st when he bills tend to take effect.

Well Hoosiers be able to say, am I better off now than I was before?

Yeah, absolutely they will be.

And on the on the issue of affordability.

So certainly I agree that affordability is an issue.

It's something we need to be a lot of put a lot of thought into.

But as the speaker referenced already, you know, in ten years we've cut taxes 20 times.

The income tax went down on January 1st is going to go down again, January 1st of 2027 to 2.9%, one of the couple of lowest in the nation of states that still have an income tax.

And so, that really matters.

Plus, and in 2020, 20, 25, we watched about, about $39 billion in 2024, $39 billion of new investment come into the state of Indiana.

You heard Governor Braun, or over the summertime announced that the jobs that were coming in in 2025 were $40 and the almost $40.50 an hour on average.

That is a far larger than the average for the state, as far as wages go.

And it's about 17% higher than the average wage, across the country in Indiana's low cost of living state compared to the other states.

So, all those things kind of show the policies that we've been working on and are continuing to work on are, trying to make things more affordable for Hoosiers and also put more money in those pockets.

I'm afraid you know what I'm going to say next?

We're going to run out of time.

We could go on and on.

But we'll just have to watch you do that very thing once.

This the session continues between now and the end of February.

Thank you very much for being here again.

My guests have been house Speaker Todd Huston, a Fishers Republican, House Minority leader.

Phil GiaQuinta, a Fort Wayne Democrat, Senate President pro Tem Roderic Bray, a Martinsville Republican, and Senate Minority leader.

Shelli Yoder, a Bloomington Democrat.

Time now for our weekly conversation with Indiana lawmakers.

Longtime analyst Ed Feigenbaum, publisher of the newsletter Indiana Legislative Insight, part of Hanna News Service.

And as much as I want to talk to you about Indiana football even more, the socks commemorating, the season.

Let's talk about the session.

Your reaction to the first week of 2026 session and the just completed roundtable?

I think everybody was worried about tension coming into both the December, version of our session and 2026.

But as you saw through the panel, you know, all four leaders are Indiana University alums.

They're all on the same page on on at least, the football season here.

And I think that they're all looking to, to, get along well for the session.

I don't think there's going to be any kind of underlying tension for the session.

I think if you look at what they're going to be doing, they're also trying to do no damage going forward here because you've got a real short turnaround to some very competitive primaries coming up in May.

The filing deadline started this week and ends in about a month, and you're going to have a lot of people out there that are going to be challenged because of some of the things that happened in the December redistricting part of the session and led to, the leaders want to protect their members.

Does a short do no harm session, do no damage session equate to a lackluster session in terms of policy outcome?

Well, it can, I just think that they really want to do a very kind of brief and compact agenda.

One of the big things you heard a lot from the Democrats on affordability and a little bit of pushback from the Republicans on the panel on that.

But I think one thing that they will agree on is doing something about utility rates, but we're not quite sure what that might take the form of.

And I think that may be one of the more complicated issues when we get into the conference committee end of the session, which will be basically about two days worth of of timing.

All right, Ed, as always, appreciate your insight.

Thank you Jon.

Next week, Governor Mike Braun delivers his second state of the state address to a joint session of the General Assembly.

And then he sits down with us on the next Indiana lawmakers.

Well, that concludes another edition of Indiana Lawmakers.

Before we go, though, we want to acknowledge the unexpected passing last week of a beloved colleague, video editor Jerry Prince, a kind, generous and talented professional who invariably lived up to his last name.

Our thoughts are with his family.

Indiana Lawmakers is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting Stations, with additional support provided by ParrRichey.