>> Lawmakers trying to kill a lawsuit against gun makers.

Major changes to anti-Semitism bill and plus Attorney General candidate qualifications and more, from the television studios at WFYI, it's Indiana Week in Review, the week ending Fairbury 23rd 2024.-- February 23, 2024.

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

>> This week, Indiana will be banned from suing gun makers, after a bill I sent it Republicans want to kill a lawsuit by the city of Gary by gun makers and shops.

Gary mayor, Eddie Melton says the lawsuit which goes back 1/4 of a century alleges gun makers and sellers contributed to the cities gun violence epidemic.

>> I'm here asking you not to strip Gary and every other political subdivision in our state from the right to seek justice.

>> Under the bill only state Attorney General could bring suit against gun manufacturers and sellers, Corinne Youngs Attorney General Todd Rokita says that's where that power should lie.

>> Rather than a slew of municipalities filing various lawsuits, on what they perceive based on their own ideological and legal preference.

>> But in an interview with a gun show Rokita said he would never bring a lawsuit against gun makers and sellers.

>> Certainly as long as I am Attorney General, and I imagine just like my predecessors, my successors will be the same way.

>> The bill would be on the Senate floor next week.

>> Does the bill give gun manufacturers and sellers blanket immunity?

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

Democrat Ann DeLaney, Republican Mike O'Brien, Whitney Downard, Senior reporter for the Indiana Capital Chronicle, and Nikki Kelly, editor-in-chief of the Indiana Chronicle.

I'm Brandon Smith, Mike O'Brien, we talked a little bit about this issue of lawmakers inserting themselves into pending litigation which especially on the Senate side they don't like to do very often.

Are you surprised there interfering this directly?

>> No, that is true.

It is true especially in the Senate, they hesitated for a long time.

So it has to be extraordinary.

And this is.

It's extra Neri in two ways.

One, it's been going on for 25 years.

The legislators tried to insert themselves in this 10 years ago and similarly the merit the time showed up in committee and said we are going to push this, we are going to push this to resolution.

That was 10 years ago, and some of the committees members remember that because it-- I was on at that time.

>> Another reaction to this is equally extraordinary, and it seems to exempt gun makers from ever being sued, even for unlawful action.

So I think the hesitation even from Republicans right now is OK, this is an extraordinary set of circumstances, we've been dealing with this for decades, here is our resolution to this?

Did we go too far?

And I think there is some recognition right now which is why the community vote is as close as it was, controlled by publicans, even shareholders and not complete the sold on a. I think the collective is that it gone too far in providing immunity to gun manufacturers, forget gun manufacturers, I'm not for a law that provides blanket immunity for any company for unlawful action.

>> So regular person could sue gun manufacturers or sellers but it stops all cities and towns from doing it and gives the power to the state.

And as we heard under this Attorney General and one would imagine many attorneys general elected by the state of Indiana, no lawsuit will ever be brought, right?

>> No, and it does give blanket immunity for illegal action.

It says an individual could ring a suit but who has the resources to bring a suit?

You've got to be able to bring the background investigation, you've got a look at the pattern to establish that its unlawful conduct, and that's why you hear the legislature badmouth Gary saying there is too much violent crime, it's terrible, terrible.

Want to do something about it and what happens?

They step on it.

It's ridiculous, if the lawsuit is pending as long as it is that's up to the courts.

And I will bet you that it's the gun manufacturers dragging their heels waiting for the Indiana General assembly to charge the rescue at the behest of the National Rifle Association.

So it's a bad bill, any blanket immunity from unlawful conduct is not a good idea.

>> Do you get a sense from the people who are backing this bill, what is the reasoning behind it?

Other than we just want to kill this lawsuit.

But they are doing and in such a way that not only are they going to kill this lawsuit, but it forestalls any lawsuits from cities and towns for the rest of time.

>> I don't think we can discount that these are staunchly Second Amendment Republicans.

So part of it is they are annoyed at this particular lawsuit, but part of it is there general philosophy on the Second Amendment.

I do think a lot is made of the 24 or five years that it's been pending, but there have been several of what they call interlock at Torrey appeals in the case that it gone out, so years go by while you're getting Court of Appeals and Supreme Court to rule on it then we start again, so there's probably room to blame on all sides.

Could be Court calendar issues, could be movement to delay things on the gun manufactrers side, could be movement on the Gary side as withholding stuff.

>> And again that legislation has been passed before.

>> My big thing is if I am Gary, they should at least be reimbursed for all the money they spent on this if the state is going to step in and change the rules of the last-minute.

>> I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

>> Was this Senate committee, the folks who are against this bill, was this there less-- last best chance to stop this bill in the general assembly?

>> I think that's how they see a. I think they see the general assembly is the one who is going to stop this from progressing again.

This has likely said, been going on for two decades, longer than some people have been alive.

So, it's time for, they feel that the courts are dragging their feet or Gary is dragging their feet, maybe gun manufacturers, it doesn't matter what it feels like it is time for us to step in, take over and take control and this is just so unprecedented I don't see them frequently waiting into Court battles like this.

>> Especially to protect unlawful action.

>> That committee is interesting, because this is the Senate corrections of criminal law committee which normally would have nine members but one of the Republican manners, Senator Mike Young doesn't show to committee anymore.

So you basically had eight members, two Democrats and six Republicans, two of those Republicans, Sue Glick and Liz Brown, Sue Glick voted against the bill and Liz Brown regularly throughout the committee here was questioning the proponents of the bill pretty harshly, as she does.

And expressed severe problems with the bill.

And still voted for it even though she then said I'm probably going to vote for, I'm almost certainly going to vote against it on the floor.

Are you particularly surprised Liz Brown would do something?

We see this from time to time-- >> Yeah it's not the first time.

>> You will see this time to time with committee saying I don't like this but I'm moving it along to get it to the floor.

Liz Brown doesn't strike me as one of those people who normally does that sort of thing, did that surprise you from her?

>> I don't know, I don't want to may present and guess what that motivation might've been but I think the proponents of the bill aren't even being that on unreasonable, when we believe unlawful activity is taking place, period, we get politics frivolous lawsuits and firing at these gun manufacturers, that's part of the reason for supporting this kind of measurement, at least don't make it airtight, right?

>> We will see what happens on the Senate floor.

Meanwhile another Senate committee passed a bill on Wednesday that would ban anti-Semitism and state public institutions, Indiana public institutions Violet Comber-Wilen takes out a part of the definition of anti-Semitism which initially drew controversy.

>> The amended bill uses language from the international Holocaust remembrance Association, and its bill in direction to anti-Semitism, the direction itself initially drew controversy as some said that the examples in the definition too closely conflated criticism with the state of Israel with anti-Semitism, and Rabbi Hal Schevitz disagrees.

>> IHRA in that version of the bill still allow for criticism of Israel in the same way we've criticized any government for policies in which we disagree including our own.

>> He adds pre-amended version of the bill was necessary to define in combat anti-Semitism.

Proponents of the amended bill say removing these examples from the definition prevents re-speech from being limited, while still combating anti-Semitism.

>> Ann DeLaney, does the change to the bill make it better or worse?

>> You know, it solves one problem.

Indiana doesn't pass legislation with examples, OK?

I mean you don't have somebody giving you a blow-by-blow example of date rape in the rape statute and that was problematic in the beginning but the definition that's left, it's start with the premise that is fact, anti-Semitism is real, as is discrimination against Muslims to.

Or Blacks, and it is real.

We ought to repudiate it, but the definition that they have left with in that statute, you know, I read it and I'm just kind of shaking my head saying I'm not entirely sure what that means.

You know?

>> And you're a lawyer!

>> And I'm a lawyer!

Which means courts are going to be lining up deciding why we pass a resolution that says anti- Semitism, not defined of course as criticism of the state of Israel or Netanyahu who I would love to criticize, but anti-Semitism is something that Hoosier's don't want in their educational institutions are in their state, what's the matter with that?

>> The original bill did specifically say anti-Semitism does not include criticism of Israel, similar to the way you would criticize any other country.

The problem was that the definition that they were citing in the bill originally included these examples that included criticism of Israel that didn't seem to be particularly aimed at Jews, but at the state of Israel.

And that was what a lot of people had problems was.

As the bill reads now, what is the point of it?

>> The original point was clarity and guidance to education leaders, because anti-Semitism is real and also that is true, it is harder to see them than ever before.

Painting a swastika on the side of the temple is a no-brainer, but criticizing the state of Israel, I think what was said in the leader, also not anti-Semitism, that is a no different than criticizing any government for actions taken.

So why they made it more collocated rather than 26 states have passed a resolution, why they decided to do their own bill and now these Republicans are in a place for all these Jewish organizations are opposing and they are like oh no, now what do we do?

What do we do?

>> Go back and just adopt the definition other states have.

>> So this is the issue, the Senate wrestled with this a while before it even came up in committee, clearly.

And now we will see if they change it again on the floor.

But we clearly see that the Senate is uncomfortable with what came out of the house and the house really likes with the house passed because it's done it two years in a row now.

Is this one of the issues that we have, what they are targeting, two weeks left in the session?

Is this one of the issues that might hold things up to the end?

>> Think it will either gum up the works or be something that the Senate tries to quietly kill and that the public would I assume not let die so quietly.

I think this is something Senators are really wishing hadn't been handed off to them, that they could've quietly let it die like you did last year, but I think that with the current conflict-- >> It's House Bill 1002.

>> It's a priority bill.

Senate kills one of its own gravity bills why can't they kill one of these?

>> I asked the House Speaker wouldn't it be palatable if they added some kind of anti- Muslim, and he said that would have to be a separate bill which means it wouldn't of been a priority.

So I think that a lot of it to come the house is saying we're only going to focus on the one group and not recognizing that it's already-- we already protect religious persecution and disk termination in statute.

>> Nikki, how do you see this one playing out in the last couple of weeks?

>> I think this one will be decided on the last day or two.

I will say I was a little surprised by some of the comments from Jewish groups after the change was made, and that they were saying that they don't have any protection.

I do just want to remind people, our current law already says you can't discriminate based on creed, which is religion, we have a hate crimes law.

>> Or national origin.

>> We do have protection in this bill I think wanted to clarify and be more explicit but it doesn't mean the state is just throwing up their hands and not caring about discrimination or persecution against Jewish people.

We have existing laws that are still there if they can't figure out a way out of this one.

>> Time now for viewer feedback, each week we post an unscientific online poll question, this week's question is does Indiana need a law specifically banning anti- Semitism in higher education?

A, he asked, B, no.

Last week's question is is Higher Education unwelcome to conservative views?

40% of UCS and 60% of you say no.

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

Candidates for Indiana Attorney General would be disqualified for running if they face certain sanctions from the state Supreme Court under language added to a bill this week in the Senate.

Legislators insist the provision is not aimed at current Attorney General talk Todd Rokita.

Under current law, the only qualifications of Attorney General are living in Indiana for two years before election and having an Indiana law lessons license for five years before taking to office.

Candidate for AG is disqualified if the Supreme Court just bars them, or suspends their law license without automatic reinstatement within a year of the election.

Committee chair Mike Gaskill says that issue wasn't clear in state law.

>> If we didn't provide some clarity for that particular situation, then we would be leaving it up to the courts.

>> Republican representative Tim Lesko,-- Tim Wesco, says they need to add clarity where there is doubt and provide this when it goes the bill goes back to the house.

>> Niki Kelly, I couldn't go back to the start of the video package that this is a related Todd Rokita.

>> Not counting Todd Rokita, going back to disciplinary issues, having suspension or public reprimand is making lawmakers think whether we want someone being able to run for a statewide elected office if they have misconduct issues.

So while I don't think it was technically meant to block specifically Todd Rokita, which it doesn't, it wouldn't apply to him right now and less he got a new suspension or a suspension without automatic reinstatement, but I think having this happen two times in a row has brought up questions of whether that person should be allowed.

>> And I will go out on a limb, I don't expect-- I honestly don't expect any more reprimands or any kind of discipline-- disciplinary action before the election on Todd Rokita.

I definitely don't expect him to go from public reprimand, generally if there's a suspension without automatic reinstatement that suspension is at least a year long of their license, I don't expect that if there's any discipline against Todd Rokita for anything in the next several months.

So I agree, I don't think it is literally aimed at trying to keep Todd Rokita off the ballot but rapid-- representative Tim Wesco wrote a bill that went way farther said you can't run if you've been suspended for more than 30 days back around the Curtis Hill incident a few years ago, so is it fair then to say this is something that's been in the work for a long time?

>> I think lawmakers are definitely thinking we've had to back to back bombastic personalities who are very much into making headlines.

And, you know, willing to say rather controversial, conservative viewpoints.

Maybe they are pausing and thinking is this a role that we want to have that sort of publicity or is this a role that should just be the Attorney General for the state of Indiana who is defending state agencies in Court, or rep resenting other state interests and consumer protection, you know?

Not so much this big political figure.

I think that's definitely something that lawmakers are trying to consider.

>> We've talked before and I think it is a bipartisan position that some people think the Attorney General should be appointed by the Governor.

You see something like this happening, does that forestall any of that conversation in your mind?

>> It seems to have accelerated it, I don't know how, like is it saying Todd Rokita and they are like Rob Tokyo, never heard of them.

So we've got this fire burning in the amendment and the committee there it's hard to make that argument.

But it's arguably necessary, and also arguably the right policy decision.

And we've had so many issues now with the Attorney General, defending the action of legislation they don't support or the declaration by Todd Rokita couple years ago that no, he in fact is the most powerful elected office in the state, not the legislation and the Governor suing each other, they may just need to look at the whole thing, given all the circumstances, whether it was misconduct or this lack of clarity on who is in charge in these situations.

And look at the whole statute issue.

>> And I think Senator Bray did point out that is a weird situation in Indiana that is not a constitutional office and Senator Gaskell's point I talked to him after the committee when he came in and put that language, it came out of nowhere which is part of what surprising a lot of people this wasn't a stand-alone bill they were debating, it was dropped into various election manners kind of bill.

But he pointed out the law-- the statute is not clear what happens if someone gets a license suspended Speaker Mike and based on the terrible candidates the public and support for the last two times-- >> We've had great candidates, but just haven't been nominated.

>> Exactly.

It's time to appointed, I remember with Evan Byers administration with lowly peers, and it wasn't taken a stick Attorney General looking to run against the person he was supposed to recommend, was supposed to be serving in his context of the representative of the state of Indiana, it was an untenable position.

That's why so many states have gotten to the notion of appointing it rather than having it independently elected and a threat.

Todd Rokita, he's out in Colorado, talking about the border, he's doing everything but representing the people of the state of Indiana in a way that people want.

And it's time we got rid of him.

>> And here you have obviously on Attorney General and Governor, the last two Attorney General.

And Governor of the same party, but not on the same page, of so many issues.

>> Attorney General should have the ability to appoint an attorney.

>> The Indiana Chronicle said it would cost $70 million to send members of the Indiana National Guard as part of an ongoing showdown with the state of Texas over the flow of migrants into the country.

In a statement announcing the deployment of 15 National Guard members, Governor Eric Holcomb accused the federal government of negligence.

He says the constant supply of killer dogs over an open US border will harm Hoosier's and the states Struggle with substance use disorder.

A spokespersons for the guard said the Capital Chronicle the price tag for deployment which is set to last 10 months includes pay and allowances, accommodations, transportation, supplies and maintenance.

This is not the first time the Indiana National Guard has been deployed to the region, more than 300 served on the southern border over the last three years, but they were part of federal missions.

Whitney Downard, does this cost seem high?

>> Yes.

So, as part of our, we have sister outlets and I look to the part of their stories and it seems like they all had 1 million, maybe 2 million.

I couldn't find another state in their quick search granted, that had $7 million cost.

For a 10 month deployment.

And it's still not entirely clear what they're going to be doing down there, if they're going to be doing humanitarian aid, helping refugees, those seeking asylum, or if they are going to be standing at the border looking menacing, which is what we were just discussing.

So I think it does seem like a really high cost for something we don't have all the details for yet.

>> There's obviously already been criticism of this move from the Governor about, I mean, you seemingly have the state of Texas-- not seemingly, you have the state of Texas defying the US a report and now sending armed personnel to Texas as part of the device.

Is already criticism of the Attorney General for that, with this add fuel to the fire?

>> I think it does, when you think of the 10 months, the pay, of the soldiers, housing people for 10 months, feeding people for 10 months, supplies, transportation, it deftly builds up but yeah, this is an easy I think thing to focus on.

People were surprise Governor Holcomb went down there in the first place.

They were secondly surprised that he announced deployment, and is now adding on top of that an expensive price tag at a time when we can't open the budget, they will always talk about we are cutting Medicaid, but we apparently have this $7 million.

>> I'm guessing you aren't supportive of this act?

>> It's a little stunned.

It's a political stunt.

The border is a federal issue and if he's concerned about it he ought to tell Mike Braun to get on the stick and vote for the immigration bill that would help the President deal with the border crisis.

That he's not doing that.

Instead he's making a show of this, sending our people down there, you know, is Texas going to direct them?

Usually when the National Guard is deployed, it is done either in the state itself, or at the direction of the federal government, not at the direction of the state of Texas.

You know, maybe we ought to look at whether we can seed Texas to Mexico to come that's one approach I've actually thought about that.

>> Is it clear to you what these folks are actually going to be doing?

>> No, this is entirely AJ LINK:This is a mess.

A bipartisan mass, it's been a mess for 20 years since George W Bush first tried a rational immigration policy with the border on purpose, and now I don't blame states for trying to proactively go and do something, I mean when you look at the sheer volume that's increased over the last 24 months, you have 70,000 border crossings to Decembers ago and 305 this past December.

And now for political reasons and other, they are being sent all over the country, it's affected a lot of states.

I don't blame states for doing this but it is a federal function, and I don't know-- >> And I will note obviously the attention is on Texas for good reason because they are defined as the Supreme Court, and there's a conflict between them and the Supreme Court, and Arizona sent National Guard troops to their border to-- >> If you send them internally to the border that's one thing, if you are asking other states to do it, your defying the federal system.

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

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney, Republican Mike O'Brien, Whitney Downard of the Indiana Capital Chronicle, and Niki Kelly of the Capital Chronicle, you can find Indiana Week in Review's podcast in-depth of episodes at WFYI died were slashed-- WFYI.org/IWIR, I'm Brandon Smith, on behalf of the Indiana Public Broadcasting, - join us next time because a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

>> Opinions expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is a WFYI production in