Welcome to Politically Speaking.

I'm Elizabeth Bennion, chancellor's professor of political science and director of Community Engagement and the American Democracy Project at Indiana University, South Bend.

I'm January 8th.

The Indiana General Assembly will convene its 2024 legislative session.

Many legislators have promised that this session will be quick and it will be quiet and uncontroversial, something that may be easier said than done in today's political landscape.

Joining us this week to discuss the upcoming legislative session are three people with long term experience reporting on state politics.

They include Brandon Smith, state bureau chief for Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Niki Kelly, editor in chief for the Capital Chronicle.

And Kaitlin Lange, senior investigative reporter for State Affairs, Indiana.

I want to start by asking you about what are the key priorities, ah, that have been laid out by legislative leaders for this upcoming session.

They will start with you, Brandon.

Sure.

Well, we'll get full agendas from the caucus leaders next week, this coming week after the session starts on the eighth.

But what we've heard so far is some a few, as you pointed out, they're trying to make it a quiet, more limited agenda agenda session.

But a few key issues that seemingly all the caucuses and even the governor's office seem to agree on.

One of them is addressing student reading proficiency.

We have thousands of students who do not pass Indiana's third grade reading test and yet are still moving on to fourth grade.

That's troubling lawmakers.

Certainly they're focused on chronic absenteeism in schools.

Those numbers are not good.

Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray has said that in some school districts, particularly in rural areas, you have as many as one out of two kids who are considered chronically absent.

That's that's an extreme number that you cannot wait until the long session of 2025 to start addressing that issue.

And then certainly, at least from the Senate Republican side, they're going to focus on trying to increase access to child care.

But importantly, they will not open the budget this session.

It is the middle of the current budget cycle.

And so absent funding to increase child care options or at least more funding for that, it looks or it sounds like they're going to look at regulation on child care and trying to loosen, relax or even get rid of some regulations around child care, trying to find the balance between not tying people up and red tape, but also keeping kids safe.

Any other key issues that you expect to see this session, Kaitlin?

Yeah, I'm not sure that we would see this on any of the legislative leaders priorities, but I do think the controversial LEAP district will come up this session.

You know, obviously there's been some debate surrounding the plan to potentially pipe water from Lafayette to the county.

So I think that will come up.

Again, I don't think we can expect it on the list of priorities, but just because it's not on lawmaker's, you know, top priority list doesn't mean it will come up.

So definitely expecting something on that.

I think we'll see maybe a little bit on, you know, maybe some tweaking of the apprenticeship language that we saw last year and House Bill 1002 minor tweaks on some health care bill, cost language.

But aside from that, I mean, even Speaker Houston has said that he's not going to have ten agenda bills from his caucus.

So I really don't expect a ton more big things.

Aside from what Brandon already mentioned.

Is this the same things, the same thing that you're hearing, Niki?

Yeah, I mean, really what people are most talking about are the things we're not going to do this session.

I mean, that seems so far to be the theme.

You know, we're not going to look at taxes in a broad term.

We're in the middle of a two year study of that.

We're not going to look at road funding also in another two year study of that.

I mean, they say we're not going to do, you know, sort of massive programs for housing or health care because we've already got some of those going and they want to see some implementation happen before we start adding to it.

So I think a lot of people are almost overlooking the 24 hour session and preparing for 25 for some larger items.

We also have a big governor's race going on, so that gets a lot of attention and take up some some air from the legislature this year.

All right.

Well, let's talk more about all of these things that you've mentioned.

So obviously, education is a big priority.

Brandon mentioned several of the issues that the legislature has said that they will be dealing with.

Can a state legislature really do much to address an issue like truancy?

And what specific measures might be on the table for this session?

Brandon?

Well, it's interesting to me because there are already laws on the books for truancy or chronic absenteeism, and some of the discussions we've heard so far from lawmakers, particularly Republican lawmakers so far leading that discussion, have been just better enforcement of the existing laws that are on the books, you know, encouraging prosecutors to make it a priority in their communities, that sort of thing.

So some of it might not necessarily need or require a legislative a legislative response.

But it's also important to note that there is no like single answer to why a child might be chronically absent across school districts, even in the same school, but importantly across grade level.

You know, I think one of the legislative leaders talked about the fact that if an eight year old is chronically absent, it's not the eight year old's fault.

It's you're looking at what's going on at home, what's going on with the family, the parent, the parents, etc..

If a 16 year old is chronically absent, maybe that does start to fall on the student themselves.

I think there's going to be a for see kind of the biggest debate this session potentially being a debate over the carrot versus stick approach, like how are we going to address this?

Is it going to be by encouraging kids or helping kids or helping families who are experiencing truancy or chronic absenteeism or are we going to try and punish parents or families or kids whose students are chronically absent?

And I think that'll be the thing I'm watching out for more than anything else.

Nikki, what do you expect the legislature to do, take a more carrot Rogers stick approach to this issue, or is it really just about saying, you know, hey, we care about this issue, we know it's a problem, Let's try to find some things to tell local folks to do.

Yeah, I mean, I think we're really waiting.

The fact is we haven't seen any of these important bills and the actual mechanics of what they want to do.

I know in our reporting, we've talked to some school districts who have had, I guess, success improving their chronic absenteeism rate, have had basically attendance officers that they assigned solely to contacting the parents every single day, talking through them.

Some of them are transportation issues.

A lot of school districts, especially in rural Indiana, have had issues with bus drivers.

And so if you call off a bus route, some parents just can't get their kids there.

You know, that's the way it is.

So we've got to look at sort of a number of things.

So, one, would they be willing to focus more on, you know, attendance officers?

But then that goes against something you hear all the time from Republicans, which is we're not getting enough money in the classroom because that would be considered an administrative expense.

Right.

But it has helped some districts.

So we've got sort of a whole range of things to look at in terms of, you know, transportation, child care.

You know, what's causing the kids to stay home in the first place.

Kaitlin, when can hearings on bills of this type help in ensuring and sharing best practices across the state?

Is that one of the reasons that the legislature gets involved?

I mean, it could help, but I think what we'll probably see from lawmakers is what we see a lot of times in the short sessions is they'll study the issue.

They'll probably try to collect more data.

That's kind of what I expect to see on this issue, since we haven't heard any more specifics on it, which, again, you know, we'll get those details later, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a desire to collect more data on the causes of what's driving it, because most of what we know right now is anecdotal about it.

And although solutions that Niki mentioned, most of them won't cost money.

And lawmakers just, I don't think are going to be willing to spend money on anything this year regardless of what it is especially, you know, there was a surprise million dollar jump in Medicaid costs that lawmakers found out about earlier this hour last month.

So I just think that it being a short session, not a budget year, there's already a hole in the Medicaid spending.

You know, I don't think lawmakers are going to want to spend money on any of the solutions that Nikki had mentioned.

Just to point out real quick, that was and Kaitlin knows this, it's actually $1 billion more in the current budget cycle, not just.

Yes, thank you branded.

I get my M's and my B is my stuff.

Yeah.

Lawmakers wish there was only $1 million.

It was a heck of a lot more than that.

Brandon, would you concur that it's very unlikely they're going to open up a budget in this sort of short such a non budget year to actually put money behind these things?

absolutely.

I mean, if it was unlikely before, you know, an extra billion dollars needed in the current budget for for Medicaid spending certainly made it basically impossible.

I will note, though, that there is one small budget item related budget related item, which is help for public pensioners.

They didn't lawmakers didn't include any extra help for public pensioners in the budget that they passed in 2023, either an extra month of benefits called the 13th check or a cost of living adjustment, saying, we're going to study a long term solution to that.

But in the meantime, in the short term, nobody's getting any help that they were counting on.

There is money sitting in a pot that can only be used for help with public pensions.

That is just going unspent at the moment.

I did ask fiscal leaders at that at that event last month when they found out that they have a billion more dollars they need to spend on Medicaid if helping public pensioners in the short term with the money in that in that account would be considered reopening the budget.

And they said no.

So that is something that is on the table if they want to do it in this short session.

Now, you mentioned the rather striking and troubling numbers regarding fundamental reading skills assessed at the third grade level.

Do you expect any actual changes to the testing or retention policies regarding third graders in this legislative session?

I think they're looking at a couple things.

They are concerned about the growing number of sort of waivers or exemptions from the third grade reading test.

When the data was released for Joey, though, I think the more interesting issue, the number of waivers has sort of stayed kind of static, not not huge changes, but the number of kids who don't have a waiver and still get pushed through to fourth grade is the larger pot that I think they're going to have to focus some on.

And the problem is, is that Indiana's law is not incredibly specific and leaves a lot to individual school districts.

And so sometimes they can move them on to fourth grade but keep them in a third grade reading, you know, thing like that.

And so also, to be fair, the the attendance issue, we were just talking about vastly impacts.

The reading you're in, you're going to be behind in reading if you're not there at school.

So in terms of the reading, I think we might look at, you know, are the waivers too wide or are they being used too much?

And secondly, if you don't meet the rule for a waiver, why are you still getting put forward.

With one out of five in the.

And a third grader is falling below that foundational level?

It sounds like something that the lawmakers really will be taking a close look at.

I know that one thing that Democrats have argued for is fully funded pre-K programs.

It sounds like that is just a nonstarter, at least in this short year.

Absolutely.

Yeah, that's probably not going to happen, nor lowering the compulsory attendance age to five.

Indiana has one of the latest ages.

There is.

And obviously the earlier you start the kids, the more time they have to get proficient at reading.

By the time they take the third grade test, there's a lot of very conflicting data out there on whether holding back a student, you know, helps or hurts them on one hand.

Yes, holding them back does indeed help them read, But if they're more likely to drop out, does that even matter?

You know, yes.

You got to look at sort of the balancing act of, yes, we're we're getting them to read, but we're impacting them negatively to where they don't even want to continue going to school.

And Kaitlin, as the lawmakers addressed this sort of complicated data and these big social issues, where do you expect them to turn for advice?

How is this process going to work?

I mean, I'm sure obviously you will have, you know, teachers, union superintendent groups weigh in on what they think is best.

I don't.

Lawmakers won't necessarily always listen to them 100% of the time.

But you would think that they would take some of that expertise.

And then obviously, throughout session, lawmakers will take testimony on all these bills that they're considering.

So anyone in the public can go and testify on their experiences with, you know, their students who maybe failed the third grade reading test, where they held back, where they are and sort of what impact that has had.

And besides that, obviously, the Indiana Department of Education has quite a bit of data that they just released.

A large chunk of these numbers, again, sharing how many students are held back.

So I assume they're looking to them a lot for guidance.

And Governor Holcomb has said that he does expect this to be on his agenda that we see next week released.

So lots of places that lawmakers can get information on this.

Brandon, do expect the Indiana State Teachers Association to remain very active this year.

It sounds like there are a lot of issues that they'd be extremely interested in this session of.

They're always active.

The question is how influential they can be.

I mean, historically, I wouldn't say the Republican supermajorities at the state House, they're very much with the Indiana State Teachers Association has to say.

But they have tried to work together on on teacher pay issues in the last few years.

So there has been some work working together that's that's been going on.

But, yeah, I mean, the teachers unions will always be active.

It's just a matter of how influential they can be.

And the politics of Indiana kind of hamper that.

Well, speaking of the politics of Indiana, and debates over divisive social issues have often occupied a lot of time in the legislature and also grabbed a lot of headlines.

Do you expect this to be the case in 2024, or do you expect this, in fact, to be a relatively quiet and uncontroversial field session?

I mean.

Yeah, I mean, every year we hear lawmakers, even legislative leaders, say, we're not going to focus on that stuff.

We're focused on these other issues that are affecting people's lives.

And there are always social issues, culture, war issues that come up.

Like, even if they don't end up getting passed, which in some years they haven't necessarily.

Not all of them have.

They still come up.

So, you know, I expect there to be a slate of anti LGBTQ legislation filed.

I don't know how much of it will move, but there's been talk about extending the ban on gender affirming care for trans youth further into adulthood.

Now past the age of 18.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see something like that move, although the current ban is largely being held up in the courts at the moment as they are across the country.

I would expect another discussion and you can debate whether this is a culture war issue or not, but it's certainly controversial.

I would expect another debate over making school board races in Indiana partizan.

Having people declare a political party when they're running for school board.

Indiana, like most states in the country, does not have people do that.

And a lot of folks on both parties want it to stay that way.

But there has been a growing movement at the state House to make those races partisan.

It got a little further last year and that it made it all the way to the House floor but couldn't basically make it onto the third reading or wasn't called down for passage on the House floor by the deadline.

It might get that far even further this time.

It's one of those issues that just might take a few years to reach the finish line, but I would look out for that debate once again.

Niki and Kaitlin, anything that you'd be looking for in that area of more perhaps controversial issues?

I mean, I'd be shocked if you didn't see things such as drag show bans and stuff like that.

I've seen a few bills already while they dealt with sort of harmful material for children in libraries last year.

You can see that some lawmakers want to crack down further on libraries by taking their taxing authority away.

Who knows if that would go anywhere.

That's a pretty new concept.

So probably not in a in an initial session, but it could be discussed.

So, I mean, those are examples of things that might still pop up.

I think the abortion laws pretty well settled.

I'm not sure we'll we'll see any more on that side.

I think also if I was reading the bills on a quick scan, it looked like lawmakers would try to target, you know, adult sites like Pornhub, that sort of thing.

So that might be another thing that could move this year.

But yeah, you just you never know what social issues are going to pop up.

So be interesting to see.

Well, speaking of political controversies in 2023, the state house, Indiana's unanimously passed HB 1037, which addressed antisemitism on college campus, is that is a bill that is expected to be considered again in the House with more time spent on it in the Senate as well.

Given the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, that controversies involving anti-Semitism at Ivy League institutions and there presidents being pressured to step down in some cases, and even Indiana's own U.S. Representative, Jim Banks, and also current Senate candidate, of course, writing a letter to IU's president, Pamela Whitten, threatening perhaps withdrawal of federal funding if the university doesn't do more to crack down on anti-Semitism.

What given all that context, would you expect to see at the State level this year?

I think it starts with, as you just mentioned, the House will bring back that bill that they passed last year that I believe passed in a unanimously.

I think it was unanimous.

In fact, the Senate just didn't didn't want anything to do with it.

For whatever reason, I didn't feel like it was necessary.

Obviously, the conversation has changed dramatically, although even when we asked Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray about it around organization day in November and the fact that the House was pledging to to bring the bill back, he was fairly noncommittal.

It was basically well, I'm sure the House will send us something again and we'll take a look at it.

And I would expect them to do something.

But the trick is, especially for someone like Rodric Bray, who is an attorney, is how do you write a piece of legislation that cracks down on hate speech without running afoul of the First Amendment?

And the reality is we have an incredibly broad First Amendment law.

And, you know, in this country's constitution, unlike many other countries around the world, and that makes cracking down on hate speech a little more challenging.

So it'll be interesting to see what that final version, if they do pass something, looks like.

It's interesting.

Certainly, we've heard from Senate Minority Leader Greg Taylor concerns about the fact that the proposed legislation wouldn't really address hate speech against black Muslim LGBTQIA students.

And so it seems, as you mention, you know, First Amendment concerns come into play, but also how to protect all of the students as well.

You know, making it clear that anti-Semitism is of particular concern to many legislators at this moment, that all of that may be more more tricky than it first seems, despite passing unanimously.

So, Kaitlin and also, Niki, do you expect that bill to move through the House?

And yeah, I think.

They'll be able to move something like now, whether it's has any impact, I mean, sometimes we pass bills, but we say, look, we dealt with that, but they don't have a lot of impact.

Obviously, they can't, you know, single out one race or one faith or whatever to protect without the others.

So I do think any bill would, you know, impact you know, all races or all faiths or, you know, those kinds of things.

And so and obviously, we already have a discrimination law in the state.

So we have a sort of template for that if they wanted to use it.

It does get tricky, though, because if you think back to a lot of the same arguments, we see that this bill or probably the ones that we saw when the hate crimes, bias crimes bills were working their way through and we saw how long it took to get a bill across the finish line, how nobody seemed happy with the final product.

So I think you're going to have the same problems with this legislation.

Are people trying to work?

And yeah, different groups.

I find it hard to believe that everyone is going to agree on which groups should be in this bill, just like nobody seemed to agree on the hate crimes legislation.

A couple of years ago.

And more than that, if they're really trying to tackle anti-Semitism, how exactly are they choosing to define anti-Semitism?

Because on the one hand, it seems easy to define, but increasingly, you know, is support for the people of Palestine, not Hamas, not a terrorist organization, but the people of Palestine, the citizens, the innocent citizens of Palestine is support for Palestine antisemitism.

I don't I think a lot of people would have a problem with that definition.

But increasingly, you see folks like Jim Banks equating the two and so it'll be interesting to see what moves through.

Again, the General Assembly has a template that they can work off of, which is a bill that already passed the House.

We'll see if that same thing gets through the Senate this time, which obviously didn't last time.

Or at least seven GOP legislators have announced that they will run for reelection in 2024.

Is this notable?

Is it part of a trend?

I what do you make of that?

Brandon It's not particularly notable.

I just brought up a story.

It's now we've reached eight people who said they aren't running for reelection either because they're simply retiring or because they're running for another office.

We saw one, the first Democrat today, Ryan Hatfield, in the House, saying he's going to run for circuit court judge.

We've had other retirements, all from Republicans.

Otherwise, I've looked at the last ten years, that's six election cycles dating back to 2012.

And the average number of lawmakers who don't run again either because they're retiring or because they're running for another office is around 13.

So we're actually below that number.

But the deadline to file is February 9th.

I expect we'll see maybe a few more folks decide not to run again.

It's not particularly unusual that it's, you know, most of the folks who are stepping away have been here for, you know, close to a decade, if not more.

So we will wait and see what the final tally is and how these issues move through this legislative session, because that's all the time we have for this week's politically Speaking.

I want to thank today's guests, Brandon Smith of Indiana Public Broadcasting, Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capital Chronicle, and Kaitlin Lane of State Affairs, Indiana, for joining us today.

I'm Elizabeth Bennion and reminding you that it takes all of us to make democracy work.

This WNIT local production has been made possible in part by viewers like you.

Thank you.