>> John Rust, removed from the ballot, limiting debt protection plus the latest list in the 13th check debate, and more.

From the television studios at WFYI it is Indiana Week in Review for the week ending March 1, 2024.

>> Indiana Week in Review is made possible by the supporters of Indiana Public Broadcasting stations, >> This week southern Indiana egg farmer John Rust was removed from Republican primary ballot for U.S. Senate in a unanimous decision by the Indiana election commission.

The Indiana Supreme Court also ruled against rust the same day reversing the lower Court decision that would've kept him on the ballot.

>> State law requires candidates in a party primary to either have voted in that party's primary in the last two primary elections in which they cast a ballot, or get the permission of the county party leader where they live.

Rust doesn't meet those requirements, and argues it's an unconstitutional requirement to get on the ballot.

Rust's attorney repeated the argument over the call with the Indiana election commission urging to keep rust on the ballot but Karen Celestino-Horseman says the board's hands are tied.

>> Indiana Supreme Court has spoken to us and they've told us to enforce the law as it was originally written.

>> That was all ready true before Tuesday's election commission hearing, the Supreme Court had temporarily halted the lower courts decision that had allowed rust on the ballot, and then minutes after the election commission's decision, the Supreme Court issued a new order saying it had voted against Rust.

The rust campaign is appealing the election commission's decision and continuing its ongoing legal battle.

>> Was this always worthy Rust situation was headed?

That's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Elise Shrock, 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's stay chief Brandon Smith, does this have a they do the two-party row?

>> A little bit, no one could go to the courthouse to seek justice but I also didn't love the election commission, the remedies that were said to be available either.

Or we have an situation where we have one of 92 County chairman can make a challenge on this space as well you could move to another county with a friendlier County chairman that says that seems like a pretty high bar.

>> Is someone on the commission mentioned that also called carpet bagging.

>> Yes, when you run for state office, one this process is designed in most cases to keep people on the ballot, it's 222, two Republicans, two Democrats, in the situations where you try to pull someone off the ballot, except in this case with the requirement the legislature passed not too long ago they had a one primary requirement prior to that which I use as edge County chairman to which I used to keep people that I knew were probably off the ballot, some big deal its 18 month, and who has problems like this where now you are forum shopping for the County chairman to keep you on the ballot-- >> If that's only an option.

>> If you are qualified to run for office at because you didn't have two primaries available to you, like 21 your running in your school board.

>> But if you weren't able to vote your primaries in the case of Rust, they wrote it out, Elise Shrock, he lives in a part of Indiana where he doesn't even have municipal elections to vote for.

So he wasn't available in 2023, that might have made the ballot.

So does this rule need revisiting?

>> Possibly.

I will also remind folks this was passed in a Republican super majority and we are seeing it play out in a Republican primary.

Not that surprising.

Probably, I think this election committee was packed with all types of hearings.

It was wild.

The fact we are paying this much attention to an election commission meeting is kind of unprecedented.

>> Except when Marla Stetson sued Todd Young in 2016.

>> But this one has been a bombastic-- I mean you've got the way the Supreme Court has been involved, the timing has been really wild.

Yeah, and I think yes, maybe we can look back at this I think in the grand scheme of things, is this going to affect the way that the Senate race plays out?

On the Republican side?

Probably not.

>> Even if Rust had made the ballot or somehow-- >> Is he going to run the campaign and keep legal challenges in case one of them hits?

He can't appear on the ballot so at some point he is unappealing, running this campaign, driving my bus around and at some point you gotta print ballots.

>> And that's happening next week.

>> We are in process of certification well before legally start.

>> Weathers Republican Party or Democrat party, these inter partes squabbles that happen, it doesn't necessarily change the outcome of the election but it does tend to spur animosity that you can see last over a longer period of time.

So I am not sure this will change anything in the short term but may have a long-term effect.

>> Watching the whole election commission hearing two, it was a dozen people who were kicked off the ballot for the same reason.

Over and over and over.

>> 14 people were kicked off the ballot, most of them under the two-party rule.

And to be fair to primary rule it was done by Republicans and Democrats.

And for the most part it was to stifle competition for an incumbent.

And you know, I wrote something about this today, I don't have any problem with the one primary rule, I do think parties have a right to make sure that a candidate is, you know, following kind of their principles.

But I think they've moved a little too far.

Because to watch person after person who wants to serve their state, their local community, and just be kicked off because Division I athlete voted in California for a couple of years where she went to college, sorry those votes don't count.

>> I wanted to bring up that example exactly.

And Miriam County it was a challenge to an incumbent Democratic Senator by-- I mean she is the daughter of a Democratic elected official, clearly a Democratic party activist who's been heavily involved in the Democratic Party her entire life basically.

Has voted in Democratic primaries in other states and yet because she doesn't meet at two primary rule she doesn't get-- >> In Indiana.

>> In a state that has a severe civic and problem, what is the purpose of this other than to even further protect incumbents?

>> I think you've just hit on the solution.

Yes it's problematic I think.

For the reasons well articulated.

They are inevitably going to be situations where someone is really not trying to gain the system but is actually just because of life circumstances or any number of things.

I mean I will never be able to run, I never voted-- not that I was to run any web but I never voted in a signal primary, so I guess anyone who is voted worried about-- worried about a future run by me you can rest easy.

>> You probably couldn't pick one ballot or the other.

>> I know journalists tend to go back and forth in election cycles to.

If this had been a place in your, Donald Trump would've been disqualified, arguably because of his votes in Democratic primaries, he was going back and forth.

The problem in trying to get it changed, back to say one primary, is that it does essentially help people who are already there.

There's no incentive for incumbents to change it.

That I can see.

So, it's not exactly a high priority for them, although I think democracy and the notion of participation would cry out for change.

>> Especially for young people, people of color, underrepresented folks it really stifles their ability to participate.

>> Legislation headed to the Governor there this could this week could limit debt protections for Hoosier's, legislation could shorten the amount of time Hoosier Macs have with disputing charges from their banks.

>> Bill would limit the state statue of limitations will your time Hoosier Macs have time to dispute charges from six years to two years.

Supporters of the bill say it is necessary as longer statute of limitations can be used to target financial institutions and cost them money and time in legal cases.

Representative Kyle Miller voted yes for the bill, but says he's hesitant because he also heard cases of the statute of limitations affecting consumers.

>> But I also have talked to multiple financial institutions in my district and beyond that are going through these suits, so either these financial institutions are not sticking to their contract on some mass scale, or we do have lawyers and firms that are going after-- that are targeting these financial institutions.

>> Others testifying against the bill say it would harm consumers with overdraft fees and create other problems with checking and savings accounts.

>> Elise Shrock, we talk all the time on the show about finding the balance in a piece of legislation.

Is this Bill balance?

>> No, it's not.

I think that when we look at the history of this type of legislation, the concession was made in 2021 when it was brought from a 10 year statute of limitations to a six.

Now to go from 622, who was asking for this?

Where did this come from?

Because two years for a working family that's going through a financial cup catastrophe, financial hardship, two years is not enough time, trying to sort through a real financial hardship takes years.

And have the statute of limitations in the last couple of years go from 10 to 2 is really over the top.

>> The banking industry says the 10 to 6 was really just a clarification in law,-- >> It was agreed to be six.

>> It was agreed to be six, some people were trying to say it it was 10, this goes remarkably tend to definitely six to definitely two, is that too short a period of time?

Speaker Mark the way it plays out in real life is a dead grandma with a coin purse, I On three large plaintiff attorney firms, one located in Indianapolis, that are predatory firms going to create these class actions, they have a long run way to do it in six years and they go to the banks which aren't always J.P. Morgan, sometimes they are North Sayl estate bank, a local bank, and they can't handle a multimillion dollar settlement and that's what they go for, they throttle-- threaten you, and then they offer you a coupon for whatever in the mail, you've got those class-action refunds before.

Here's your six dollars.

The vast majority of these cases are not a family with economic hardship in year five has figured out how to get back to the bank because they finally got to the bank.

Its predatory, and they are targeted by financial institutions.

>> But that's still abroad stroke that can affect those families.

>> So that's what it is, like Mike just articulated, the problem we are trying to solve your.

And it is real.

We know there are banks were going through this right now, not the big banks, not the ones-- >> Credit union-- >> Smaller community type banks, credit union banks.

Again, is 62 to the right shift of the pendulum?

>> It does seem to be an abrupt shift especially given the earlier reduction in time.

I looked as best I could on a state-by-state basis with other states do, this, my interpretation and the data may have been a year old, something may have happened in a session somewhere in another state in the past 12 months, but it appears that 2 would make us the shortest statute of limitations in the country.

There are several with three, right now we are pretty much in the middle of the pack.

But right now the shortest if I read correctly is three.

So maybe once we can be number one, may be for all the wrong reasons.

>> I was going to say is this where we want Indiana to lead the nation?

>> Whether you support this or that bill, there are two bills that it moved in the second bill is similar in that you know, banks changed roles or whatever in your agreements, and consumers fought back and they got not one, but two Indiana Supreme Court rulings that said no you cannot change the rules within your account without them agreeing to it.

So what did they do?

There's a second bill that says "As long as you don't."

-- it's basically like "As long as you don't close your account you are accepting it.".

>> Like you need to get a notice within 30 days of that kind of thing.

>> The two combined are clearly on the side of the financial institutions and not consumers.

Speak my time now for your feedback, each week we post an unscientific online poll question, this week's question is should Indiana reduce the time consumers-- or customers, can dispute bank charges from six years to two years?

A, yes, B, no.

Last week we asked whether Indiana needs a law specifically banning anti-Semitism in higher education.

23% of you say yes 77% say no, we will note that there were more responses than usual with that poll last week.

If you would like to take part in the poll go to WFYI.org/IW IR and look for the poll.

Well, tens and thousands of public tensioners in Indiana would not get a one-time increase in their benefits this year after a change in Senate committee this week.

>> The House and Senate have long disagreed over whether to provide retirees with a annual cost-of-living adjustment or 1/13 check, an additional benefit between 150 or $450.

One bill this session will permanently solve that dispute by providing 1/13 check for anyone who retired before July 1, 2025, and the cost of living adjustment for those after 2028.

But any other retirees left with no 13th check or annual cost-of-living adjustment.

Some of the Republik is on the pedal a limited that provision Thursday.

$$TRANSMIT's PEAK if you do 13th check, you're going to prolong permanent fix.

>> Jessica Love, executive Director of retired public employees Association says both short-term support and long-term solution are possible.

>> Money is not an issue.

The budget is not an issue.

But retirees barely able to make ends meet are being totally unable to make ends meet, that's an issue.

>> Mishler says discussions on the issue will continue.

>> Niki Kelly, you know you been around this a little while, the 13th check was almost automatic everything th year.

Are you surprised at how this is playing out?

>> I'm shocked that this is the hill Senate Republicans have said they are going to die on.

And honestly I do think there is some confusion.

Senator Liz Brown, who I think is one of the best legislators there is, made a comment in the committee hearing the other day "Well, we gave them one last year.".

No you didn't, this is two years in the middle of mass inflation where these retirees have got nothing.

No 13th check, no cost-of-living adjustment, and there's no thing said in person or in email that says so long as basically the economy doesn't crater-- >> As the actual assumptions pan out.

>> So I don't get what's holding us back.

>> Ryan Mishler's argument is in order to do the long term fix that they want, and if one seems to agree to in this issue by the way, is that we are going to set a date that says OK, if you retire before the state you are going to get the 13th check because people who receive smaller amounts in their pensions, that 13th check is way more valuable than a 1% COLA which will give them eight dollars in the course of a year.

Basically starting the date they landed on in the bill, July 1, 2025, I think.

If you retire before then you get 13th check it after that is COLA, and COLA is more extensive so in order to keep replenishing the fund, supple mental-- supplemental account you have to charge employers a higher surcharge and when we say that we don't mean big Corporations, we mean schools.

Mostly schools anyway because the government are really at that level.

So his argument is, if we drain 60 million out of it right now to pay the 13th check this year, we've got to build it way higher in order to trigger this long-term fix, and it will push that back and he's tired of doing that.

Is that argument going to hold water with any public pension recipient in the state of Indiana?

>> There's logic when you spend it out like that but for a pensioner trying to make ends meet and counting on that check and received it in the past, I don't think logic is the primary consideration.

It's more of a compassion issue.

More of a fairness issue.

>> Is logic on their part to but it's a different logic.

>> It is logic but this is a synthetic audience, the recipients are, that's why I thought this would be a no- brainer in terms of sure bets in terms of legislation this session, and in all likelihood they may still get their way.

I mean, this is not the end of the road.

By any means.

But keep in mind for some pensioners, when you're thinking about long-term fixes, the runway isn't unlimited for some pensioners.

They may never-- there will be, sadly, no actuary.

But there will be people who if they don't get the 13th check now will never receive another penny from the state.

Simply because well, I think we know how biology works.

They won't be around.

>> Ryan Mishler was very quick on Thursday after this happened when he was talking with myself and another reporter he was quick to say "I am one of 150.

This is how I feel.." and obviously is the chair of appropriation he has more power than 149 others, but he also has a different response ability in that role.

>> It's really nice to go home and say I will get you the 13th check, but I agree with Senator Mishler, if the goal is to have these increases forever this is how we do it, the short-term answer that delays long-term fix is the popular one.

So on the other hand I agree with Bob Cherry, and can we give Bob Sherry a win the last year?

He's been the 13th check guy for 28 years.

>> That's been one of the issues he's led on the chair-- Senator floor.

Ask are you really comfortable public pension recipients not getting any benefit for a two-year cycle?

And he was easy to say that bill is far from over.

Do you think at the end of session we are going to be talking about some of piece of legislation that does both the long-term fix and the 13th check?

>> That's kind of what that sounds like, however you're talking about this earlier, there's not a lot of time.

There's a week left.

So-- >> That's going to feel like a really long time.

>> I know legislative time is like a time warp, you don't know if it's going by really quickly or really slowly sometimes.

But this is something they are going to have to figure out because, you know, there are folks who may not be paying that much attention to what happens in the legislature when they don't get that 13th check they are going to be paying a lot closer attention.

And it is, we're in the middle of a time when it is hard for people to make ends meet, and this is also cumulative to other pieces of legislation.

>> In the conference committee you don't need five days you need five minutes.

Anything can happen, and it has.

>> Anything can happen.

$$TRANSMIT's PEAK the last week of session, it's a jump to the left in the step to the right.

>> I like the reference.

>> Indiana span on gender affirming care is now in effect after federal appeal lifted, after a decision Tuesday did not stop the case which granted class-action certification in January, and a bench trial is set for 25.

The law bans traditional and surgical gender affirming care for trans youth in Indiana and prevents providers aiding and abetting parents seeking treatment outside the state.

With it in effect, transgender youth now no longer have access to puberty blockers, the law originally built in a six-month window for those on hormone replacement therapy, HRT, the cut off in the law was December 21, 2023.

In response to the order, the ACLU of Indiana which - represents transgender youth their parents and gender affirming care providers in the lawsuit called it beyond disappointing.

>> Jon Schwantes, but frankly how scary is the situation?

>> I'm very sure it's quite scary for families dealing with this.

It reminds me away, maybe even the circumstances are more dire and pronounced in the conversation we just had where theory and logic are over here but then you have people trying to live their lives, dealing in that case with less money.

In this case it's families trying to deal with profound lifestyle decisions and emotional and health challenges that you would argue that maybe the more logical thing perhaps, or maybe compassionate thing would be to allow those treatments to continue while the litigation is argued in Court, rather than the reverse.

>> Nikki, this feels somewhat akin to the abortion ban and that it was held up for so long that the impact that we all said hey this is coming, then nobody felt it because the courts held it up.

Now boom it is suddenly here.

>> Yeah, although because there's allowed to be sort of a taper off period, we won't start getting a lot of those stories may be for a few months.

You know, from people impacted.

There are in terms of numbers, it is not a whole host of people in Indiana, but there are clearly concerns about whether this will push some minors toward suicide, you know, so the next couple of months will be interesting to see.

>> I just can't imagine being that one parent, or more parents right now, one is heartbreaking enough, to have a child who is in the middle of their medical care and then something like this comes down, taper or not, to that fear.

And having to figure out and ask questions to figure out how to make these decisions for your child.

Like, this is heartbreaking.

Like you said, it is not theory.

This is a heartbreaking situation and very scary.

>> Those who have the financial wherewithal-- >> We talked about the abortion ban potentially driving people of the state and we don't know if that's going to end up being true or not but this is one we might not have a choice.

If you don't go out of state your kid might not survive.

>> Why would you want to stay?

>> That's Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Elise Shrock, Republican Mike O'Brien, Jon Schwantes of Indiana Lawmakers, and Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week in Review's podcast and episodes@wfyi.org IW IR 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.

>> The opinions expressed are solely those of the panelists.

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