♪ FEARS OF AUTISM THERAPY CUTS.

INDIANA LOSING WETLANDS.

PLUS, THE STATE'S TWO PRIMARY RULE FOR PARTISAN CANDIDATES STANDS AND MORE.

FROM THE TELEVISION STUDIOS AT WFYI, IT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING SEPTEMBER 1, 2023.

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

THIS WEEK, PARENTS OF CHILDREN WITH AUTISM WANT THE GOVERNOR TO STOP A PROPOSAL THEY SAY WILL REDUCE ACCESS TO A COMMON BEHAVIORAL TREATMENT FOR CHILDREN WITH AUTISM.

INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING'S ABIGAIL RUHMAN REPORTS THE INDIANA FAMILY AND SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED A NEW MEDICAID RATE IN RECENT WEEKS.

>> THE PROPOSAL SETS A RATE OF% AROUND 55 DOLLARS AN HOUR FOR APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS THERAPY WITH A REGISTERED BEHAVIORAL TECHNICIAN.

PARENTS AND ADVOCATES SAY THAT ISN'T ENOUGH TO PROVIDE QUALITY CARE TO CHILDREN.

JILL NORTON IS WITH ADAPT FOR LIFE, AN A-B-A THERAPY CENTER, AND THE PARENT OF TWO CHILDREN WITH AUTISM.

SHE SAYS THE RATES AREN'T SUSTAINABLE FOR THESE CENTERS, BUT FAMILIES STILL NEED THE SERVICES.

>> JILL NORTON: I WOULD LOVE FOR SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING THESE DECISIONS TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT'S GOING ON IN CENTERS.

>> LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUZANNE CROUCH REQUESTED A DELAY IN FINALIZING THESE RATES IN A LETTER TO THE FSSA SECRETARY.

PRIOR TO CROUCH'S LETTER, GOVERNOR ERIC HOLCOMB SAID THE STATE IS OVERDUE FOR A SET STANDARD AND THAT SLOWING DOWN THIS PROCESS WOULD "NOT BE FAIR TO ANYONE."

>> IS INDIANA UNFAIRLY RISKING ACCESS TO THERAPY FOR AUTISM?

IT'S THE FIRST QUESTION FOR OUR INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW PANEL DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY REPUBLICAN MIKE O'BRIEN JON SCHWANTES, HOST OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS AND NIKI KELLY, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE I'M INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATEHOUSE BUREAU CHIEF BRANDON SMITH ANN DELANEY, DOES THE STATE NEED TO SLOW DOWN THIS PROCESS?

>> OH, ABSOLUTELY.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT COSTS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE TO PROVIDE THIS SERVICE THAN THE MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT.

AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE SERVICES ARE NOT GOING TO BE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE AVAILABLE.

AND OBVIOUSLY, THESE CHILDREN NEED IT.

THEY OBVIOUSLY NEED IT.

AND IT'S A GOOD PROGRAM AND IT WORKS.

AND, YOU KNOW, I GET SO TIRED WHEN REPUBLICANS ALWAYS WANT TO TALK ABOUT RIGHT TO LIFE AND MAINTAIN ITS RIGHT TO BIRTH, BUT AFTER THAT YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN.

THEY DON'T WANT TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES.

THEY DON'T WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THESE CHILDREN NEED IT.

IT NEEDS TO BE AT A REASONABLE RATE TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO PROVIDE IT.

AND WE'RE NOT THERE.

>> I THINK THE GOVERNOR FAIRLY POINTS OUT WE NEEDED TO LOOK AT THE MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT RATE FOR A LONG TIME, SO SLOWING DOWN THE PROCESS FURTHER WOULD POTENTIALLY HURT A LOT OF OTHER FOLKS.

BUT I DON'T THINK THE NUMBER OF AUTISTIC KIDS IS GOING TO REDUCE ANY TIME SOON.

THIS IS A GROWING DIAGNOSIS, AS WE UNDERSTAND AUTISM BETTER AND BETTER.

SO, IS RISKING ACCESS TO THIS KIND OF THERAPY WORTH SLOWING THINGS DOWN A LITTLE BIT?

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE THAT ABRUPT AND CUT OFF.

I THINK THERE'S THREE SIDES ON THIS AND THEY'RE ALL WRONG.

THE STATE SET THIS PROPOSED RATE AND IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIALLY MORE.

THE COST ISN'T SUBSTANTIALLY MORE.

>> IT IS MORE.

>> BUT IT'S THE STATE OWN NUMBER.

IT WASN'T INDEPENDENT.

>> NO, NO, NO.

>> THERE'S NO THIRD PARTY INDEPENDENT NUMBER.

COST 65, WE'LL GIVE YOU 55.

WHAT A DEAL.

YOU KNOW, WE DO, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PRIVATE PAYEE SIDE OF AUTISM THERAPY, INDIANA FOR A LONG TIME HAS HAD THE NUMBER ONE MOST GENEROUS AUTISM COVERAGE IN THE COUNTRY.

IT SOUNDS GREAT.

THAT'S WHY YOU VOTE FOR IT 20 YEARS AGO.

BUT WHAT IT HAS ALSO DONE IS MADE IT VERY ATTRACTIVE FOR BAD PROVIDERS.

THAT'S AN ISSUE.

THAT'S WRONG.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF BLAME TO GO AROUND HERE, BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE ACCESS ISSUE IS GOING TO BE THAT ABRUPT IF THAT RATE WOULD TAKE EFFECT BECAUSE OF THE PRIVATE PAY SIDE OF THE PAYER MIX THAT THESE PAYERS HAVE.

IT'S A GENEROUS BENEFIT.

IT IS 100% MANDATE THAT IT BE COVERED, WHICH IS FINE.

BUT THERE ARE DOWNSIDES TO THAT THAT HAPPEN IN THE HEALTHCARE MARKET WHEN YOU HAVE THESE TYPES OF DYNAMICS.

>> ALL OF THIS IS AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF A LARGER CONVERSATION IN INDIANA RIGHT NOW ABOUT THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.

WE'VE SEEN LAWMAKERS WORRIED ABOUT HOW MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE IT'S GETTING FOR THE STATE TO PAY FOR, BUT WE ALSO HAVE THIS MEDICAID OVERSIGHT TASK FORCE THAT IS LOOKING AT THESE SORTS OF ISSUES, BUT NOT JUST THIS ONE.

MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT BROADLY BECAUSE WE'VE HAD OTHER GROUPS.

>> DENTISTS.

>> YEAH, DENTISTS WHO HAVE BEEN REALLY CONCERNED.

SO, TO MIKE'S POINT, IF THERE ISN'T THAT SORT OF SHARP SHOCK INITIALLY, IS THIS PART OF THE LARGER CONVERSATION THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN OVER ARGUABLY THE NEXT TWO YEARS?

>> WELL, IT'S HAPPENING IN THIS STATEHOUSE AND IN 49 OTHERS.

IN FACT, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THESE REIMBURSEMENT POLICIES, I BELIEVE ONLY, ONLY QUOTE, UNQUOTE 42 STATES EVEN OFFER IT.

IT'S JUST NOT AVAILABLE.

WE'VE SEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEALING WITH THIS THROUGH TRICARE THAT PROVIDES INSURANCE TO MILITARY MEMBERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.

AND THEY HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A LOT OF CRITICISM FROM THE COMMUNITY, THE AUTISM COMMUNITY, SAYING THAT THEIR RATES AREN'T SUFFICIENT.

THE NUMBERS SEEM TO BE FAIRLY DATED.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD ASKED A COUPLE OF GROUPS TO PUT TOGETHER DETAILED ANALYSES, BUT THEY'RE A FEW YEARS OLD, AND WE KNOW THAT A FEW YEARS OLD MEANS FORGET IT BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY MENTIONED THE INCREDIBLE INCREASE WE'VE SEEN ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS JUST IN INDIANA.

SO, THIS IS AN OUTLIER.

MOST STATES ARE NOT DOING WHAT INDIANA IS DOING.

BUT I DO THINK PART OF THE REASON WE'RE SEEING THIS REACTION NOW IS SOME MIGHT SAY IT'S A HARBINGER AND IF INDIANA DOES THIS, THEN OTHER STATES MAY DO IT.

BECAUSE THE TREND HAS BEEN INCREASED.

LOUISIANA, I SAW, JUST LAST YEAR, THEY HAD A MUCH BALLYHOOED INCREASE FROM 30 UP TO 50.

INDIANA IS AHEAD OF LOUISIANA.

NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD PUT ON A BILLBOARD, I SUPPOSE.

>> AS PART OF THAT LARGER CONVERSATION, TOO, IT'S NOT APPLES TO APPLES, BUT IT'S SIMILAR TO A CONVERSATION THE HOSPITAL HAS BEEN TRYING TO HAVE.

YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO INCREASE MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR DOCTORS, WHICH IS GREAT BECAUSE THEY NEEDED IT, BUT HOSPITALS AND FACILITIES FEEL LIKE THEY'RE BEING LEFT OUT OF THE CONVERSATION.

>> EVERY SEGMENT OF HEALTHCARE HAS THE SAME ISSUE, LET'S BE HONEST.

BUT IN THIS ONE, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT A FEW THINGS.

FIRST OF ALL, WHEN THE STATE FIRST STARTED OFFERING THIS, THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO CHARGE.

THEY JUST SAID WE'RE GOING TO PAY YOU A FLAT PERCENTAGE OF WHATEVER YOU BILL US.

THAT'S CLEARLY NOT SUSTAINABLE.

HOWEVER,.

>> BUT IT WAS 20%.

>> YEAH.

HOWEVER, THE AVERAGE OF THAT IS $92.

AND THEY CHOSE $55.

JUST TODAY, 42 REPS AND SENATORS SENT A LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR AND IT WAS LED BY REPRESENTATIVE ROB GREEN WHOSE SON RECEIVED ABA THERAPY AND HE EXPLAINED TO THE GOVERNOR HOW THAT HELPED HIS CHILD.

AND MOST OF THESE ARE 30 REPUBLICANS ON THIS LETTER.

THEY'RE MOSTLY ASKING FOR CAN WE SLOW DOWN AND CONSIDER THE RAMIFICATIONS AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS GOING TO BREAK THE BANK HONESTLY.

>> DIDN'T THEY JUST RAISE REIMBURSEMENT RATES ACROSS TE BOARD IN THE LAST BUDGET FOR PROVIDERS.

>> RIGHT, RIGHT.

AND TO THAT POINT, ROB GREEN HAS A GREAT CASE TO MAKE BECAUSE HE HAS THE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

IT'S NOT HARD TO FIND PEOPLE WITH PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WHY THIS WORKS.

>> IT'S VALUABLE.

IT'S VALUABLE.

>> IT IS.

>> AND THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD USE IT.

>> IT'S VALUABLE AND IT'S WORKING.

>> THE DATA ARE VALUABLE.

YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE STATE DID WHEN IT WAS GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

IT LOOKED AT A SAMPLE OF SEVEN STATES, AND GUESS WHAT?

INDIANA HAD THE HIGHEST EXPENSES AMONG THE SEVEN.

THE QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY CHOSE THE SEVEN FRANKLY.

IT BEGS THE QUESTION WHY NOT THE OTHER 42 STATES.

DID YOU PICK AND CHOOSE?

I'M NOT SAYING THEY DID.

BUT MORE DATA NEEDS TO BE COLLECTED.

>> WE TALKED ABOUT POTENTIALLY LOSING ACCESS TO ABA THERAPY.

INDIANA HAS LOST MORE THAN 260 ACRES OF WETLANDS SINCE LAWMAKERS REMOVED PROTECTIONS FOR MOST OF THEM IN 2021.

THAT'S ACCORDING TO STATE DATA COMPILED BY WETLAND ADVOCATES.

INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING'S REBECCA THIELE REPORTS THAT MEANS FEWER ACRES THAT PROTECT WILDLIFE, REDUCE FLOODING, FILTER WATER AND STORE CARBON EMISSIONS.

>> SINCE THE LAW TOOK EFFECT, THE STATE HAS ISSUED PERMITS TO BUILD ON NEARLY 350 ACRES OF WETLANDS IN THE STATE - AND ONLY A QUARTER OF THOSE WILL HAVE TO BE REBUILT ELSEWHERE.

THOSE LOST WETLANDS COULD STORE UP TO ABOUT 390 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER - WHICH MEANS THOSE AREAS WILL NOW BE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO FLOODING.

INDRA FRANK IS WITH THE HOOSIER ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, WHICH HELPED COMPILE THE REPORT.

>> INDRA FRANK: SO OUR FLOOD RESPONSE TEAMS, OUR HAZARD MITIGATION TEAMS.

THE STORMWATER MANAGERS IN OUR CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE ALL GOING TO HAVE TO PICK UP THE LOSS OF THAT WATER STORAGE.

>> AND THAT COULD LEAD TO HIGHER WATER BILLS FOR RESIDENTS.

THIS WEEK THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REMOVED SIGNIFICANT FEDERAL PROTCTIONS FOR WETLANDS AS THE RESULT OF A U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING.

WITHOUT STATE PROTECTIONS TO FILL IN THE GAP, IT'S LIKELY INDIANA WILL LOSE EVEN MORE WETLANDS IN THE FUTURE.

>> MIKE O'BRIEN, WE TALK ABOUT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WITH LEGISLATION.

BUT WAS THIS THE INTENDED CONSEQUENCE?

>> YEAH, THE INTENT OF THAT EFFORT THREE YEARS AGO WAS TO DIAL BACK WHAT WAS VIEWED AS A GROSS OVERREACH BY THE EPA AND IDEM.

INDIANA IS ONE OF ONLY EIGHT STATES THAT REGULATES IT AT THE STATE LEVEL.

EVERYBODY ELSE JUST KICKS IT TO WHATEVER THE EPA STANDARD IS.

>> AND NOW THAT'S BEEN GUTTED.

>> AND THE PREDICTION THEN WAS WE WERE GOING TO LOSE 400,000 ACRES OF WETLANDS OUT OF THE MILLION ACRES THAT WE HAVE.

SO, 260 SOUNDS LIKE A LOT.

IT'S NOT.

BUT AGAIN, THIS EFFORT WAS WE HAD NO DEFINITION OF A CLASS ONE WETLAND BEFORE 2021.

IT WAS WHATEVER THE REGULATORS SAID IT WAS.

IN THE OBAMA ERA, WHAT THAT MEANT IS FARMERS WERE GETTING HUGE FINES, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A DAY FOR DOING DITCH MAINTENANCE.

THAT'S WHAT CROWDS THIS ISSUE AND MAKES IT SO LOUD IS BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND STATE GOVERNMENT WERE OVERREACHING AND DEFINING A CLASS ONE WETLAND AS WHATEVER THEY WANTED IT TO BE WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO A DEFINITION OR THE SCIENCE INVOLVED.

THAT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATURE CAME IN AND DID THREE YEARS AGO.

IT WASN'T TO ELIMINATE WETLANDS.

IT WAS TO DEFINE WHAT IS IT.

>> 260 ACRES SOUNDS LIKE A LOT.

IS IT A DROP IN THE BUCKET, NO PUN INTENDED.

>> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE INTENDED CONSEQUENCES, IT'S NOT TO STOP THE OVERREACH, IT'S TO ALLOW BUILDERS TO BUILD WHEREVER.

>> WHICH THEY COULD DO BEFORE.

>> A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, A THIRD OF THE STATE WERE WETLANDS.

WE USED TO FILL IN THE GAPS ON THE SMALLER AMOUNTS OF WETLANDS.

NOW THE LARGER ONES ARE UP FOR GRABS.

IT IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

AND IF IT NEEDS TO BE DEFINED, THAT'S FINE, LET'S DEFINE IT.

BUT LET'S STOP THE BUILDING THAT DESTROYS THESE WETLANDS AND ARGUABLY NOT ONLY RAISES WATER COSTS, BUT COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT FLOODING FOR A NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS.

>> YEAH, I THINK IT'S OFTEN EASY TO DISMISS IN THIS CONVERSATION.

OH, PROTECTING WETLANDS.

THAT SOUNDS FINE.

BUT IS THAT JUST ANOTHER SAVE SOME RANDOM ANIMAL THAT LIVES IN THE WETLAND.

THIS IS ABOUT THAT.

BUT THIS IS ALSO ABOUT PEOPLE AND FLOODING AND THE COST OF WATER RATES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> YEAH, I THINK A LOT OF HOOSIERS DON'T GENERALLY UNDERSTAND HOW WETLANDS ARE AN ADVANTAGE.

I'VE HAD TO EDUCATE MYSELF ON THIS RECENTLY.

YOU KNOW, IT IS ONE THING TO SAY IT PROTECTS WILDLIFE.

YOU KNOW, LEARNING MORE ABOUT THE FLOODING PROTECTION, I THINK, IS DEFINITELY A GOOD CONVERSATION TO HAVE.

AND I ALSO DO THINK, THOUGH, TO MIKE'S POINT, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE FAIR IS THAT THERE WAS A PERIOD LIKE THE PICTURES YOU SHOW ON THAT PACKAGE ARE BIG, OBVIOUS WETLANDS.

BUT THAT IS NOT ALL OF WHAT THEY WERE REGULATING.

THEY WERE REGULATING SMALL LITTLE PATCHES OF WATER IN A FIELD, YOU KNOW?

SO, THERE WAS NEED FOR SOME ADJUSTMENT.

NOW WHETHER YOU MOVE THE PENDULUM TOO FAR I THINK IS A FAIR DISCUSSION TO HAVE.

>> TO THAT POINT, THE IDEA DID THE PENDULUM SWING TOO FAR IN ONE DIRECTION WAS BUILT ON THAT IDEA THAT THE FEDS TAKE CARE OF SOME THIS AND NOW IT LOOKS LIKE THE FEDS CAN'T.

WILL THE STATE REALISTICALLY WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM THIS GENERAL ASSEMBLY?

>> I THINK WE'RE AHEAD OF IT.

>> IN A SENSE.

BUT IF THERE'S NOW A GAP THAT ARGUABLY NEEDS TO BE FILLED IN ORDER TO TRY TO BALANCE THIS ISSUE OUT, DO WE EXPECT THE LEGISLATURE TO STEP IN AND PROVIDE THAT SORT OF BALANCE?

>> NO, THEY MAY SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO EVEN FURTHER IS PROBABLY THE MORE ACCURATE SCENARIO TO ME.

BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.

BACK IN MAY, THE SUPREME COURT SAID IN A 5-4 DECISION, ALITO-WRITTEN DECISION, THAT UNLESS THIS WATER WAY WAS SOMEHOW CONNECTED TO A FEDERAL WATERWAY AND INDISTINGUISHABLE TO A FEDERAL WATERWAY, WHICH MEANS THE PUDDLE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AIN'T QUALIFIED.

>> A LOT MORE THAN PUDDLES.

>> IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CLEAN WATER ACT PROTECTION.

80% OF INDIANA'S WETLANDS WERE PROTECTED BY THE FEDERAL STANDARD BEFORE.

NOW IT WILL GO DOWN TO ABOUT 20%.

THE 260 ACRES YOU STARTED OFF THIS SEGMENT WITH, THAT'S NOT GOING TO GET ANYBODY BENT OUT OF SHAPE.

THERE ARE ACTIVISTS CRYING FOUL.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING.

IF TOSE AREAS START TO GROW AND WE SEE INCREASES IN FLOODING.

AND IF THE GROUND WATER IS NOT THERE, THEORETICALLY IT'S GOT TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE WITH A COST, THEN WE WOULD SEE MORE.

BUT IN THE SHORT-TERM, TO YOUR QUESTION, I SEE ACTUALLY THE SUPREME COURT DECISION BEING MORE OF AN AN TRAY TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SAYING GO FURTHER.

>> OKAY.

TIME NOW FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK.

EACH WEEK WE POSE AN UNSCIENTIFIC, ONLINE POLL QUESTION.

THIS WEEK'S QUESTION: SHOULD LAWMAKERS RECONSIDER THEIR POLICY AFTER THE STATE LOST 260+ ACRES OF WETLANDS SINCE THE LEGISLATURE ROLLED BACK PROTECTIONS IN 2021?

A.

YES B.

NO LAST WEEK'S QUESTION: SHOULD INDIANA ELIMINATE ITS INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX?

34% SAY YES.

66% SAY NO.

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

A STATE LAW THAT GOVERNS HOW A PERSON BECOMES A CANDIDATE IN A PARTISAN PRIMARY ELECTION WILL REMAIN IN PLACE AFTER THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT TOOK A PASS ON A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE STATUTE.

THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THAT LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL REMAINS UNANSWERED.

>> IN ORDER FOR A CANDIDATE TO AFFILIATE WITH THE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN AN INDIANA PRIMARY, THEY HAVE TO FULFILL ONE OF TWO REQUIREMENTS.

THEY MUST HAVE VOTED IN THAT PARTY'S PRIMARY IN THE LAST TWO PRIMAR ELECTIONS IN WHICH THEY CAST A BALLOT; OR, THEY HAVE TO GET THE PERMISSION OF THE COUNTY PARTY LEADER WHERE THEY LIVE.

CHARLES BOOKWALTER TRIED TO GET ON THE BALLOT FOR THE 4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT REPUBLICAN PRIMARY LAST YEAR.

BUT HE DIDN'T MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

BOOKWALTER SUED.

BOTH A TRIAL COURT AND THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS AGREED THAT HIS LAWSUIT CAME TOO LATE - THE ELECTION WAS OVER.

BOOKWALTER TRIED TO GET THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT TO TAKE HIS CASE, BUT THE JUSTICES UNANIMOUSLY DECLINED, LEAVING IN PLACE THE APPEALS COURT RULING.

THAT RULING SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T ADDRESS WHETHER THE VOTING RECORD RULE ITSELF IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

>> JON SCHWANTES, IS THIS LAW GOING TO COME UNDER MORE SCRUTINY?

>> I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY THAT EVERY ASPECT OF ELECTION LAW IN THIS STATE AND ELSEWHERE IS GOING TO COME UNDER INCREASING SCRUTINY.

THAT'S A GIVEN.

FOR ONCE I'M GOING TO BE RIGHT WITH ONE OF MY PREDICTIONS, I THINK.

CLEARLY.

AND THIS IS THAT ONGOING BATTLE BETWEEN THE CLOUT THAT IS WIELDED BY THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM IN OUR STATE, WHICH IS IF YOU WANT TO RUN FOR OFFICE IN THIS STATE, THAT'S ABOUT THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT.

WE SAW A FEDERAL COURT HAND DOWN A DECISION RECENTLY THAT SAID THAT THE STATE WAS WITHIN ITS PREROGATIVE TO IN FACT MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE GREEN PARTY OR THE LIBERTARIANS.

>> I THINK THE RULING KIND OF ACKNOWLEDGED, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS FAIR BUT I AM BOUND BY -— .

>> IT WAS THIS QUAINT NOTION OF STARE DECISIS AND THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO RECOGNIZE PRECEDENT, WHICH IS SUCH AN IDYLLIC PASS.

IT REMINDS HOOSIERS THAT IN ORDER TO GAIN ACCESS YOU NEED TO PLAY BY THE RULES AS THEY ARE NOW.

MAKE SURE YOU VOTED TWICE.

>> THE TWO PRIMARY RULE IS RELATIVELY NEW.

>> THAT'S CAUSING MORE OF THE PROBLEMS.

I THINK WE SAW IT LAST YEAR, OBVIOUSLY, IN THAT CASE.

I REMEMBER SITTING THROUGH THAT ELECTION COMMISSION MEETING AND THEY JUST KICKED PERSON AFTER PERSON AFTER PERSON OFF.

I THINK WHEN THE LAWMAKERS CHANGED IT FROM ONE PRIMARY TO TWO, IT'S DEFINITELY BECOME MORE DIFFICULT FOR CANDIDATES TO DO.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS A REPUBLICAN PRIMARY OR A DEMOCRAT PRIMARY.

>> RIGHT.

>> THERE IS AN ARGUMENT TO BE HAD THAT THEY GET TO CONTROL WHO RUNS IN THEIR PRIMARY SYSTEM.

THERE IS A CHECK OFF.

IF YOU CAN GET A STATE, A COUNTY CHAIRMAN TO AGREE.

BUT IT DOES ADD AN ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATION TO RUN FOR OFFICE.

SO, AT SOME POINT THERE IS GOING TO BE A LARGER CHALLENGE.

I'M JUST WAITING FOR WHEN.

>> THERE PROBABLY WILL BE A CHALLENGE, BUT I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.

I THINK THE PARTIES HAVE A RIGHT.

WHETHER IT'S TWO PRIMARIES OR ONE PRIMARY, OR WHATEVER THEY'VE DONE.

BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE STANDARD BEARER FOR A PARTY, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DETERMINE THAT YOU ARE, IN FACT, A MEMBER OF THAT PARTY AND WE DON'T REGISTER BY PARTY IN THIS STATE.

AND PEOPLE ARE FREE TO CHANGE.

AND THEY OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO BE FREE TO CHANGE BUT IT NEEDS TO BE GIVEN CONSIDERATION.

>> BUT ISN'T THAT THE PROBLEM THAT WE DON'T REGISTER BY PARTY IN THIS STATE AND YOU CAN SWITCH BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN ONE PRIMARY BALLOT AND ANOTHER.

THERE ARE PLENTY OF CASES WHERE THERE IS NOBODY ON.

MAYBE I'M A REPUBLICAN AND I LOOK AT THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY BALLOT AND THERE'S NO NOTHING THERE.

MAYBE THERE ARE INTERESTING ONES ON THE OTHER SIDE.

>> THAT'S WHAT IT'S DESIGNED TO AVOID.

PEOPLE DO OCCASIONALLY ENDEAVOR.

IT NEVER REALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE BUT THEY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE REALLY COOL AND DETERMINE.

>> WHAT YOU HAVE IS SOMEBODY GOES TO COLLEGE AND DOES THE CIVIC THING AND VOTES IN THAT JURISDICTION AND THEN WANTS TO RUN AS FRESH, ENERGETIC PEOPLE DO AND CAN'T.

LET'S POINT OUT DONALD TRUMP.

HE HAD NOT VOTED IN TWO REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES IN HIS HOME STATE PRIOR TO RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

>> I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT THAT PARTIES SHOULD GET TO DECIDE WHO IS A REPUBLICAN AND WHO IS A DEMOCRAT.

IS THAT TWO PRIMARY RULE TAKING IT TOO FAR?

>> I WAS A COUNTY CHAIRMAN AND I USED THIS TOOL TWO TIMES.

I WAS IN HENDERSON COUNTY.

NOBODY IS RUNNING AS A DEMOCRAT.

EXCEPT FOR DEMOCRATS RUNNING AS REPUBLICANS BECAUSE THAT'S THEY'RE ONLY SHOT OF GETTING INTO ELECTED OFFICE AT THE TIME.

YOU HAVE TO POLICE IT AT THAT LEVEL.

BUT THERE IS A BALANCE BETWEEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TWO-PARTY SYSTEM WHERE THE BAR FOR BALLOT ACCESS IS REALLY HIGH.

NOW YOU'VE GOT THIS ADDED BLOCK AT THE PRIMARY LEVEL.

BUT I AGREE.

I'M AN OLD PARTY GUY, TOO.

I AGREE WITH NIKI.

>> ONE PRIMARY IS ENOUGH.

I ALSO WONDER ABOUT THE COUNTY CHAIR, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO COUNTY CHAIRS.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT.

[LAUGHTER] THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS YOU WOULDN'T DO THAT.

SOMEONE MAY HAVE APPROACHED ME AND SAID HEY, I'VE NEVER VOTED IN A PRIMARY BUT I'M A REPUBLICAN.

>> THAT'S A BIG ISSUE.

>> OR I ONLY VOTED IN ONE.

I MOVED HERE FIVE YEARS AGO AND VOTED IN ONE PRIMARY.

>> ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS REALLY CLOSER IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM TO BEING AN ELK'S CLUB THAN AN ARM OF GOVERNMENT THAT CONTROLS ACCESS TO THE BALLOT.

>> THIS IS A QUESTION, NOT A STATEMENT.

BUT FORMER CONGRESSMAN VOTED IN TWO CONSECUTIVE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES BEFORE BEING ELECTED TO CONGRESS.

>> NO, BUT HE GOT A PARTY CHAIR TO SIGN OFF.

>> THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

>> THAT'S THE PROBLEM IS IF YOU'RE TRYING TO, IN THIS CASE -— .

>> BECAUSE YOUR BUDDY IS THE INCUMBENT.

>> THAT'S WHERE YOU RUN INTO MORE PROBLEMS.

SPEAKING OF PARTY POLITICS, THE INDIANA REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS A NEW CHAIR - AND SHE'S MAKING HISTORY IN THE JOB.

THE PARTY'S CENTRAL COMMITTEE THIS WEEK UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED ANNE HATHAWAY TO REPLACE OUTGOING CHAIR KYLE HUPFER.

HATHAWAY BECOMES THE FIRST WOMAN TO LEAD THE INDIANA REPUBLICAN PARTY AND ONLY THE SECOND WOMAN TO LEAD A MAJOR PARTY ORGANIZATION IN STATE HISTORY.

SHE HAS WORKED IN POLITICS FOR DECADES, INCLUDING RUNNING HER OWN PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMPANY IN INDIANA.

SHE CURRENTLY SERVES AS THE STATE'S NATIONAL COMMITTEEWOMAN ON THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.

AND HATHAWAY ALSO HELPS LEAD THE LUGAR SERIES, A PROGRAM THAT HAS HELPED PREPARE HUNDREDS OF WOMEN TO WORK IN PUBLIC SERVICE AND POLITICS.

IN A STATEMENT, OUTGOING CHAIR KYLE HUPFER CALLED HATHAWAY ONE OF THE BEST POLITICAL MINDS IN THE COUNTRY.

HUPFER IS LEAVING HIS ROLE AT THE STATE PARTY AFTER MORE THAN SIX YEARS, REPORTEDLY TO HELP BRAD CHAMBERS RUN FOR GOVERNOR.

NIKI KELLY, WHAT DOES HATHAWAY -— BESIDES PEOPLE BEING CONFUSED THAT AN OSCAR-WINNING ACTRESS IS RUNNING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WHAT DOES HATHAWAY BRING TO THE TABLE?

>> I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN ARGUE WITH THE SUCCESS OF HUPFER'S TIME, SO I THINK SHE'LL BRING A LITTLE CONTINUITY AS WELL AS FRESH IDEAS.

I HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH CRITICISM AT ALL.

SO, I THINK SHE'LL DO A GOOD JOB.

ANNE HATHAWAY, OR ANN DELANEY, YOU WOULD HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WHAT IT'S LIKE BEING THE FIRST WOMAN TO RUN A STATE PARTY IN INDIANA.

>> YEAH, 30 YEARS AGO.

WHERE WERE THE REPUBLICANS FOR THE LAST THREE DECADES?- >> THE DEMOCRATS HAVEN'T!

>> I REMEMBER WHEN THOSE WERE FULL-TIME JOBS.

IT CONCERNS ME A BIT AS THEY DID WITH HER PREDECESSOR.

THE LAW SAYS THEY CAN'T BE REGISTERED LOBBYISTS.

THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR CLIENTS WITHOUT HAVING TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST.

ARE WE GOING TO GET A LIST, OF COURSE WE DIDN'T WITH KYLE'S EITHER.

OF ALL HIS CLIENTS.

I'M SURE IT WILL ENRICH BOTH OF THEM.

>> TO THE POINT OF CONTINUITY, WE SAID PERHAPS THIS IS A BIT OF A CARETAKER POSITION, BECAUSE IF AL NEW GOVERNOR COMES IN AND SAYS IF I WANT A NEW PERSON, IT'S PROBABLY WHO IT'S GOING TO BE THE RIGHT PLACE.

IS HATHAWAY THE RIGHT CHOICE?

>> YES.

SHE'S ALSO RUNNING THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION IN MILWAUKEE.

>> NOT JUST CONTINUITY, BUT SANITY.

>> THERE IS THAT.

>> FINALLY, COLLEGE FOOTBALL GETS UNDERWAY IN EARNEST THIS WEEKEND.

MIKE O'BRIEN, WHO WILL FINISH WITH A BETTER RECORD THIS YEAR, IU OR PURDUE?

>> YUCK.

I'LL SAY IU.

THEY'RE NOT GETTING OFF TO A GREAT STATE TOMORROW AGAINST OHIO STATE.

>> I THINK IU, ACTUALLY.

I THINK PURDUE IS GOING TO HAVE A BAD YEAR.

>> I'M JUST IN MOURNING.

>> IU, THEY WILL BE THE SPREAD.

28 WEEKS THIS WEEKEND.

THEY MAY EVEN WIN.

HOW'S THAT FOR CRAZY?

>> YIKES.

>> I WAS GOING TO PULL A JOHN AND SAY YOU'RE ALL WRONG.

THE ANSWER IS NOTRE DAME.

THAT IS INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THIS WEEK.

OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY 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 AT WFYI.ORG/IWIR 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 WAS A WFYI PRODUCTION IN ASSOCIATION WITH INDIANA'S PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS.