The final gubernatorial debate of 2024.

Judicial retention races getting attention.

Plus an ethics reform proposal and more from the television studios at FYI.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending October 25th, 2024.

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

This week, fellow Hoosiers, Indiana's three candidates for governor, met on a debate stage for the final time this election cycle, highlighting their different visions for the state.

Republican Mike Braun, Democrat Jennifer McCormick and Libertarian Donald Rainwater addressed many of the same issues they've discussed before, including property taxes, cannabis and abortion.

But they also tread new ground on issues such as labor unions, cutting government jobs and gun regulations.

On that last topic, McCormick highlighted a frequent target Braun's running mate, Micah Beckwith, whom McCormick says is too extreme for Indiana.

He also said he wants his guns untraceable and unregistered.

And that is just as scary.

Braun pushed back, arguing.

He has called for strengthening Indiana's red flag law.

That law allows law enforcement to temporarily take away someone's firearms if they're a danger to themselves or others.

Well, she constantly defaults to something other than what we're talking about.

Who's going to be leading the state and my record on all these issues are clear.

Rainwater sought to stand apart from both his opponents and on the gun question that meant opposing red flag laws because we're that close.

To our government.

Telling us that because we go to this church or.

Remember that organization.

That we have a mental defect and therefore they need to take.

Our guns.

Election day is November 5th.

Who had the best performance in the final debate?

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

Democrat Ann DeLaney, Republican Chris Mitchem.

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.

Chris Mitchem, who had the best performance last night?

Yeah, I pride myself on being an equal opportunity appraiser and criticize her.

So I will sit here and say, I thought Jennifer McCormick had a really good night.

I thought she looked really, composed compared to the other debates.

She had a really good balance between policy and attacks and kind of looping her policy in with different attacks.

And I certainly was, I would say, more of a two on one against Braun this time compared to the other ones.

And I think you could probably expect that with the amount of, kind of ads that have been going towards rainwater from the Republican Party.

But, credit to Braun, though, I think with a two on one, he did stay aboveboard a lot of the time, despite a lot of attacks, I think, trying to drag him down.

The only times he did was when the other two were kind of gaining up on him.

So I think that was a good sign of him trying to stay above board, kind of focusing on the kitchen table issues that has gotten his campaign to where it is today that I think, a lot of fellow Hoosiers, relate with.

So now you say nice things about my from, It's kind of hard.

You have the best performances.

Obviously, Jennifer McCormick had the best performance.

Mike Braun was going through the motions.

That's all he was doing.

You know, he bought himself a Senate seat.

He wants to buy himself a governor seat.

And, you know, it's really interesting to me is he wants to keep all this distance between him and Beckwith.

He's going to be the oldest elected governor we have had.

And we have been unfortunate enough to lose Frank O'Bannon while in the governor's office.

So Jennifer McCormick is right.

Mike Beckwith is a heartbeat away.

And on top of that, Mike Braun has shown her a a predilection or at least a tendency not to serve out.

I mean, he left his legislative position in the middle of his term and he served only one term as senator.

So, you know, you've got this.

I think what really expressed it best in this is you've got a contrast here between somebody who's, you know, and I don't I know the common sense term was a little overused, but it is common sense versus the extreme.

I thought the ad that Jennifer McCormick has on with the Republicans sitting on the back of his pickup truck, saying, 20 years of this extremism is enough.

I'm voting as a proud Republican, and I'm voting for Jennifer McCormick, because when you listen to this stuff, I mean, we have the most restrictive abortion law in the country.

Okay, Mike, Mike Braun says it was a very good project where they actually went out and talked to voters.

Nonsense.

They didn't talk to any of us about that law.

And Beckwith would make a ten year old who's the victim of incest carry that child to term.

I mean, they're extreme, the most extreme ticket in the country.

And that's the choice.

Obviously, Brown is the front runner here, but there have been some questions about maybe a lack of enthusiasm for Republicans in the state surrounding his campaign.

Did he do anything to change that last night?

I think what's what's happened is for the longest time, he was so clearly the front runner that no one really kind of was thinking about the race.

Like, you know, it wasn't top of mind because everyone just assumed that he had it in the bag.

And as we got closer, you know, it appears through actions and polling and things that it's much closer than people have thought.

So, you know, I don't think he did anything to hurt himself.

I think he and Jennifer gave similar, you know, performances.

I think Donald Rainwater was probably the weakest of the three.

I felt like he was a little off his game.

maybe, you know, because of the attacks he's been undergoing.

I want to ask a little bit about, you know, and just brought it out.

But one of the highlights, one of the things that Jennifer McCormick tried to highlight was Michael Beckwith.

Sure.

I mean, she she started referring to it as the Beckwith Braun ticket as opposed to the other way around, because she believes that Beckwith is sort of leading the charge on so many of these things.

And Braun takes a back seat, do you think?

And I asked her this last night in the post, you know, debate avail, but do you think that voters will be going to the polls on November 5th or in the days leading up to it, thinking about the running mates in this race?

Traditionally that is not the case, but this is not a traditional race or traditional ballot because in the past, at least in recent past, since we're the time frame, we're talking about the eventual nominee had a great say over who his or her running mate was going to be.

not the case this time.

It was sort of thrust upon him.

So that's an interesting dynamic right there.

So you can't necessarily use history as a guide.

And also you've never had such a concerted effort on the part of a challenger to make it part of the public discussion and part of the public conversation and consciousness.

So it is I mean, this is a person who clearly has said Indiana is not conservative enough, who has, said that red flag laws talked about that being unconstitutional and other sorts of, Being a Christian nationalist.

Suggestions that that maybe are outside the the range of, of what we would consider, middle of the road Hoosier Dome even in 2024, where arguably it is more conservative.

So, the 20 year thing is interesting because if you look back at history and again, I've sort of throwing history out because it doesn't seem to work anymore.

But Hoosiers do roll out their welcome mat for about 20 years, generally in terms of who controls the governor's office and then whips it away and says, I'm.

More than 20 in a room.

Right.

And so go back.

I mean, it looks now things are different.

You only had governors who served, you know, before 1971 terms.

Right?

Instead of two terms.

There's so many different things.

You know, Democrats were all south of I-70.

Things are different.

But Hoosiers do get weary and, and weary, both of people after about two decades, at least, historically speaking.

All right.

More than half of the Indiana Supreme Court is on the ballot this fall, as voters will decide whether to keep them on the bench.

Indiana's system of choosing Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges has been around since 1970.

While the governor ultimately selects them, the voters have a chance to weigh in once they're appointed.

Those judges and justices are on the ballot for retention.

After two full years of being appointed, and again every ten years after that, Chief Justice Loretta Rush is one of the justices up for retention this year.

She says it's important that voters consider the actual role of a judge when making their decision.

People are saying, well, we want judges to X, Y and Z.

You really got to look and see.

Is that part of our.

Constitutional.

Role?

Is that part of where we are on.

interpreting the law and in.

Our, constitutional democracy.

And you've got to really protect that.

No Indiana appellate judge or justice has ever lost a retention vote in Arizona and Illinois for the first time, maybe ever since the system has been in place since 1970, there is a somewhat organized effort opposing retention of Chief Justice Roberts and then Justices Mark Massa and Derek Molter.

Are you surprised by that?

No, I'm not surprised.

I think people in general are very upset about the abortion ban.

And I think, it I think not just Hoosiers, but across the country, people have lost faith in the judiciary, starting with the Supreme Court, after all of them testifying in their confirmation hearing that, you know, that precedent controlled throwing out Roe v Wade like that.

And I think people are upset about that.

And so it's going to spoil it's going to go over, on to the Supreme Court who didn't undo the terrible thing the legislature did.

And also, there's some there's some disappointment, too, that the Supreme Court did not, prevent vouchers.

You know, the Indiana Constitution says you don't give state money to parochial, schools, okay.

And that you have to have a uniform system of common schools, which we don't have any longer.

But they let that go by, too.

So I think there's some real disappointment with the decisions.

And in the, with the two justices, not Justice Rush.

I mean, the discipline, for example, of Rokita was unanimous, but Justice Rush, and one other justice who's not on the ballot, all both said that that that punishment did not fit the absolutely outrageous conduct of the attorney general, engaged in.

So I think it just bubbling up, having said all that, we have had attacks on appellate court judges before and they've never been successful.

And this one won't be either.

Yeah.

To that end, would you expect that these three will for the most part, cost to keeping their their places on the bench?

Yeah, absolutely.

And I would say this topic kind of gets me personally fired up a little more just because, I mean, I've said it for a long time, if you want to pick one public servant in the state of Indiana that both sides of the aisle tend to maybe not agree with, but like respect from a professional and judiciary level, its Chief justice, Loretta Rush I mean, she even on the, the annual state of the judiciary, that she gives to the General Assembly, you know, I would assume a lot of other judges may use that as a political bully pulpit to talk about social issues or things like that.

She spends that time to highlight improvements of technology in the courts.

young mental health, how to decrease recidivism with different services that different judiciaries around the state of Indiana could use.

she is truly a, you know, a professional in every sense of the word.

And then even on the I mean, on the abortion opinion that was actually authored by justice, Justice Muller, there was not one, you know, Indiana is a pro-life state to defend.

Like there was very little, if any, you know, political pandering, I guess you could say in that opinion.

And it was very much, hey, we looked at the words and this is how it works, which is how all justices should be.

She's also done a very good job on trying to to, take care of the desert out there for legal advice and trying innovative, innovative ways to do that.

So, yes, she's very professional.

I just think that part of the, the, the upset that people feel about this opinion is boiling over when it should really be directed at the legislature.

We've seen now other states, the Supreme Court justices directly.

We saw that and perhaps most notably in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in recent years.

But other states do it like Indiana does it, and it's become more politicized in other places.

Are you surprised it hasn't become more sharply like we're seeing a little bit bubble up this time, but nothing that I think threatens.

I think we agree that really threatens.

There are places on the bench.

Are you surprised by that?

It's a credit to the system we have here.

anybody who thinks this isn't a good system, look at some of the other states.

when you have public meetings where candidates can go and answer questions in front of a front of any and everyone watching the question process, the interview, essentially the job interview process, and then a commission which again meets in public, forwards three names to the governor and the governor appoint someone.

And then there's the retention system I think actually is it's not apolitical.

Let's not be foolish here, but it is less political.

And there are more checks and balances or guardrails, as we like to say in the vernacular, these days, than would be in other states where you see sort of this rash, you know, let's go shift this way, let's shift that way.

And it really makes sort of a, a bumpy ride for me.

I would say that, this may be the first time there's some concerted effort from the outside, but hardly the first.

The highest profile retention battle.

Don't forget that the most the highest profile retention battle or attempt to topple someone who is up for retention came from within the court with two members, sitting members of the Supreme Court going after a third.

Now, I won't bore you with the history, but it is an interesting read.

So go back a long time ago.

Well, what 98?

Late 80s, early 90s?

That's a long time.

But it was it was front page of back when there were newspapers, front page.

do you expect this to be the beginning of more and more attacks on retention, or is this just a, of the moment reflecting on the abortion ban kind of burst?

Yeah, I think it probably is.

It's not the first attack I've seen.

I mean, I remember when Justice Stephen David penned a very controversial opinion on your rights to your own home and whether police could come in.

And there was a rally at the statehouse against him.

There were hundreds of people.

So, I mean, we've definitely seen something like this before.

I think people are just frustrated and and they think I will note this from several Republicans who pointed it out to me.

You know, this is what my mom would be say, be careful what you wish for.

Because if, governor if Mike Braun wins governor, which, you know, from the polling looks possible, very possible, you know, with Beckwith as his.

Yeah, lieutenant governor, he's going to appoint much more conservative justices than those three.

So, you know, sort.

Of they still have to, though, go through the nominating commission.

And I guess I'd have to.

Right.

But then he.

Has appointments, but not all of them would be.

It would be, unusual amount of attention focused on that process.

That's true.

And it would also basically hold the court for months because to fill three at once.

I mean, yeah, it would take several months to do that.

All right.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post an unscientific online poll question.

And this week's question is, will any of Indiana Supreme Court justices lose their retention vote a yes or B no?

Last week we asked you who will win the race for Indiana Attorney General.

20% of you say Republican Todd Rokita, 80% say Democrat Destiny Wells.

I can confidently predict those will not be the final margins after November 5th.

If you'd like to take part in the poll, go to Reorganize Wire and look for the poll.

Well, one of Indiana's newest lawmakers is proposing government ethics reform legislation in the wake of a scandal involving former county sheriff and Republican leader Jamie Knoll.

Noel was recently sentenced to 12 years in prison after pleading guilty to 27 felonies, including theft, tax evasion and money laundering from when he served as Clark County sheriff and head of New Chapel Emergency Services.

Democrat Wendy Dant Chesser says taxpayers were frustrated to learn public dollars were so misused by Noel.

She's proposing legislation that would codify some transparency measures the new sheriff installed, including releasing detailed expenditure reports and changing purchasing fund procedures to prevent future abuses.

Chester's proposals also include ethics training for local officials and added oversight of some local spending.

You, Kelly?

We see, lawmakers respond to recent things in the headlines and in the legislative session all the time.

Will we see legislation move that addresses this situation?

Yeah, I don't know, really.

I mean, the fact is we we have built in some checks and balances when someone wants to break the law.

They're going to figure out how they want to break the law.

Right.

You know, I think we already have some trained criminals.

Break the law.

Why?

They're criminals.

Transparency and accountability does not hurt.

But, you know, I think the biggest thing they could do is maybe make sure the state Board of Accounts is properly staffed and can can do these important audits.

I think there every two years for a local municipality, but even that is catching things in a year.

So you know, yeah, I.

Mean, you get to a certain point, it's hard to catch this stuff while it's happening.

It's harder to catch the stuff all the time.

But it's it's all about transparency.

You have Republicans, regardless of where they are in the spectrum, saying, you know, on any number of issues, transparency is what saves the day always, whether it's campaign finance reform, etc.. And this is a twofer for this, this lawmaker, incidentally, because her opponent in that race took money.

It took money which according to the state police, was part of, some dollars that came from, well, questionable at the very at the very least, and didn't give it back.

So there's a twofer.

There's a both a campaign issue in the short term and then a legislative stand in the long term.

Yeah.

I mean, on the one hand, this isn't, a story about the election like the first two have been, but it's a little bit of a story about the election because this is a tight race, down in, on the Ohio River.

And she's trying to to highlight what she would do as a lawmaker while also reminding people about what John just talked about.

But is something like this a little more transparency at the local level, maybe required?

Yeah, yeah.

And I think that actually the more details that come out about this particular case, I mean, you're seeing some oversight at the local level as well.

I think they had like an internal contract that required an annual review of these different disbursements that didn't happen and things like that.

So I do think it's really is a local level, but I think credit to her, she was actually asked a very similar question to that is like, hey, is this just a campaign move?

You're in a tight race down there.

And she was like, last time I checked, I'm a state representative.

She was caucused in.

She's doing her job.

She's kind of serving the people down there.

So I think this is a good move by her.

yeah.

It will help the campaign.

Absolutely.

But I do think she's also filling her role as a public servant.

It is, you know, it feels like we've started to talk about this on a bunch of different legislative issues where it's not necessarily needing changes in the law, but making sure that everybody's doing the things that are already required by law.

Is that maybe a little what needs to happen here?

Well, there's no question about that part of it.

But but when you when you understand that this went on for years.

So even if you have an audit by the state over a two year period, it didn't catch this.

And we're talking about millions and millions of dollars.

And the idea that this went on unchecked and that nobody knew that he had a garage with, what, 27 cars.

And they're all valuable.

I think people.

Knew.

so.

I think, well, maybe not working, maybe not.

Maybe not the people that should have been talking about it.

And maybe that's another question to be asking who knew and who didn't?

When and when did he know?

Well, I don't also, I think it's important in this situation to remember that.

Yeah, a lot of times when we talk about the money, oh, he's spending it on cars.

What does that really matter?

You know, at the, at the, at the sentencing, you had people who said my loved one needed an ambulance and it didn't show up because this, this, this EMS didn't have the resources.

And this.

Is only for real.

World.

Yeah.

The real world consequence.

It doesn't go to police and fire.

Yeah.

So all right, the nonpartisan Indiana Debate Commission will host a debate in Indiana's U.S. Senate race next week.

Even as one of the candidates won't participate tonight on the southern Gaza City of Communist, the 38 day.

Also today, only Democrat Valerie McCray and Libertarian Andrew Horning will take part in the debate on October 29th.

Republican Jim Banks declined the commission's invitation.

The Senate race is an open one, as incumbent Republican Mike Braun opted to run for governor this fall.

The questions will come from Hoosiers as the debate commission invited people to submit what they wanted to know from the candidates.

The questions will still be vetted by the commission.

Jim Banks is considered, I think it's fair to say, the heavy favorite in this race.

Why not just participate?

I can answer two ways.

Do you want my citizen hat, my good government hat, or my political strategist has clearly the reason he's not doing it.

Are you a political strategist?

No, I but I read a book written by one politics for dummies.

Written for me?

By you?

clearly, you know, this is.

No, I'm not a strategist, but it.

I lost my train of thought here.

You're going.

To do.

Good.

No.

I'm not.

Well, that is the thing.

But it's.

People should participate in debates.

I mean, this is a democracy.

good for the debate commission, for having this debate.

It's a thankless task.

And I applaud candidates for taking part and for enduring the questioning of the public and media afterwards.

We should just to go back to an earlier one.

We had Mike Braun, who did not meet with reporters after the earlier debate, which is sort of built into that framework or that system.

So you you avoid two challenges.

You avoid the debate itself and therefore deprive your opponents of sort of the spotlight that you as the frontrunner and clearly the person with the highest name it would bring to those individuals by being on the same stage and you're not submitting, opening up yourself to any kind of questioning after that with the reporters and the Fourth Estate.

I mean, I definitely agree with that.

But my thing here is Mike Braun arguably has way more to lose it is a tighter race.

We can all agree on that, that we don't know how tight will be, but definitely tighter than the Senate race has way more to lose by participating in debates.

He did three of them, and I don't think there was any hesitation if it wasn't like they were having to fight with him.

It was just about getting the dates.

Jim Banks has very little to lose by, by showing up and talking about what he wants to do as the United States Senator, why not just do that?

Because he doesn't have to.

Because he is in such control of this race.

Doesn't matter.

And it's a shame because let's be honest, he'd probably win that debate easily.

He's a polished, knowledgeable, you know, congressman who could handle that.

No problem.

But you know, he doesn't need to.

So and he doesn't feel like he should have to I guess, you know, answer citizen questions.

I mean, I interviewed all three Senate candidates, Jim.

I mean, it was an excellent interview.

He we talked about he would not call us back.

Well, he talked a lot about policy, which I appreciated.

Is this debate now setting up to be an opportunity for Valerie McBain and Horning to just jump up and down on Jim Banks for half an hour or so.

And they should.

They should.

I mean, the arrogance of not participating is kind of overwhelming.

Okay.

And maybe he doesn't want to explain that Donald Trump actually lost the 2020 election, and that the January 6th wasn't a nice meeting of tourists touring the Capitol, which is the nonsense he spouted.

So maybe he doesn't want to resurrect that, I don't know, but it is extremely arrogant that that he thinks that he's once he's got the nomination, that he's entitled to the office and doesn't have to answer to voters.

Is it disappointing for even his supporters to not be able to see him in this form?

It's disappointing for everybody.

And I mean, not only seeing this on the Republican side up in the House, Congressional District number one, Frank Vance refusing to do a debate up there when a much tighter race with a lot more money in it.

So it's Carson also refused to do so.

It's not just an AR thing.

It's it's overall.

And and you don't end you see candidate questionnaires.

You used to have these filled out all the time by going to voters and any number of other organizations.

Nobody does that anymore.

Well, that's because you get a candidate will get 100 of them.

Well, he would do nothing else.

All right.

Finally, ESPN College GameDay will make its first ever visit to Bloomington, Indiana this weekend in recognition of the IU football team's best start to a season in decades.

Seven zero.

One of the few undefeated teams left in the country, Chris Mitcham desire to have a real chance of making the College Football Playoff.

It's a 12 team playoff.

So absolutely.

And here's the here's the formula okay.

You got to beat Michigan.

And then you cannot lose to Ohio State by more than double digits.

If that happens and they win the rest of their games there in market.

Oh I think they're going to make it I think they're going to go nine zero.

I'm not willing to predict the Ohio State yet.

Can't lose by double digits.

I mean, were you expecting anything like the excitement around IU this season?

I don't I don't think even the most hardened IU people would, would have expected an undefeated season at this point.

I think they knew, except for maybe beat it.

I obviously we knew the coach was exciting.

He was going to bring a breath of fresh air and.

A bunch of new players.

Political predictions, maybe lackluster, have in recent years, I will say.

But who?

When you ask the question before the season opener, which Indiana team is most likely to make the playoffs?

And you did say, I.

Think that's true.

So that's true.

I that's that's Indiana we can review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney, Republican Chris Mitchem, Jon Schwantes, Host of Indiana Lawmakers and Niki Kelly, Editor-In-Chief of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week in Review, 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 panelist.

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