(Music plays) >> The first gubernatorial debate.

A compromise on the anti-Semitism bill.

Plus aging candidate qualification list removed.

The television studios at WFYI it is Indiana Week In Review.

The week ending March 15, 2024.

>> This is made possible by the supporters of Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

>> This week, Indiana's six Republican candidates for governor were not shy about attacking each other during the campaign's first formal debate.

US Senator Mike Brown considered the front runner was a frequent target including from the secretary Brad Chambers.

>> I think they are curious why you are A1 term senator running for governor.

If I look back at your 2018 campaign, you said you were opposed to career politicians.

It seems that you're heading down the path of a career politician.

>> Touting his fiscal responsibility he voted for legislation that added trillions to the national debt.

>> When you're one of 100 and have a record being named one of the most effective US senators as freshman Senate office, imagine what you can do when you set the agenda.

>> Suzanne Crouch was a target from several others who seek to tire from the From the last four years.

Over COVID-19 policies.

>> I would've loved to see the Lieutenant Governor out in front of the statehouse during COVID.

Telling everyone that they did not have to get a vaccine.

>> Though she largely stayed on message, she addressed her criticisms.

>> We can go back and change what happened but I have learned from the mistakes of the top executive.

>> Former Attorney General Curtis Hill had the sharpest attacks of the evening positioning himself as the candidate with the most proven conservative record.

>> Lieutenant Governor wants to not talk about the past.

We know why, because she is tied to the past.

The past of a failed administration.

>> Fort Wayne businessmen Eric Doden state abruptly free and stuck to his talking points and not directing anything at a specific candidate.

>> We won't solve the problems of the United States from Washington, DC down, I can assure you of that.

We see that dysfunction.

We will - solve the problems from local leaders in the room up.

>> Early in person voting begins April 9.

>> Did anyone stand out in the first formal GOP editorial primary debate?

This is the first question for our panel.

Democrat Ann DeLaney: Republican Chris Mitchem, Jon Schwantes host of Indiana Lawmakers and Niki Kelly from the Indiana Chronicle.

I am the Bureau chief Brandon Smith.

Ann DeLaney, there were attacks at a lot of different candidates, from a lot of different candidates, were you surprised they were not all directed at my run?

>> No, I wasn't because when you have a primary that large, it is going to be a food fight.

Somebody could win with 21% of the vote.

It is possible.

I know Mike Braun's head at the moment and I am not sure what office he is running for or any of the other ones since all he wants to talk about is the border and all this nonsense that has nothing to do with the office he is currently seeking.

He could be confused because this is the third office he has sought.

He was in the legislator, the U.S. Senate and thinks he wants to be governor.

The interesting thing about this is that the only take away, we didn't have any discussion, reading full programs advance for the fact that third raters can't read or we are losing 25,000 college graduates every year.

Or how do we fund the roads and how do we deal with Medicaid?

None of those discussions, meaningful solutions to those issues were offered.

Instead all we talk about are the things they don't have any control over.

The one thing that they do have control over that we could be assured of his when we have another pandemic and we will have another pandemic, you will have whoever the governor is up there saying don't wear a mask, don't get Basques donated, don't get shut down and we will see whether 24,000 use years obviously dying from COVID was not enough.

>> You only have 60 days now.

>> Yes exactly.

>> Are you surprised they are not directing a lot more attention at Mike Braun?

>> Not really just because I think one of the easiest low hanging fruit is to attack the Crouch administration for how they handled COVID.

It is easy with the masks and things like that.

>> Republican primary, that is going to.

>> To Ann's point with the food fight, if someone criticizes over here you have time for rebuttal and you will criticize someone else.

I think that would be a benefit of a smaller group of people in a primary debate or I think for the first time in my life, I think if the debate went another 30 minutes longer, they started getting more feisty at the end and getting deeper into the issues.

It would've been beneficial.

I was actually kind of most impressed at the end of the night by Brad Chambers.

I think he came out and did it the job of doing the job ask directly attacking people more than most others.

I think he had a good line about the leap district and vigorously defending that and got a really good response from the crowd.

I think he did a good job of not putting himself into the upper echelon but establishing as a top candidate.

>> I want to talk about that, the bread Brad Chambers struck me as well.

They were attacking different candidates for all the same line, attacks on Mike Braun where you didn't do anything for six years in Washington so why are you coming back to run for something?

Why can't you stay there and do the job you were sent there?

The attack was around Suzanne Crouch and the COVID-19 policies.

And a lot of attacks as there have been on Brad Chambers for the IED see, the leap project.

He carried those away better than anyone else.

Which was we are competing with other states, other countries and in a global marketplace and this is the way you have to do that.

And I won't apologize for, this is the way you have to compete for the projects we need to grow as a state.

But is that going to play well enough for the Republican primary?

>> It is the only choice he has, he is not that far detached.

He is not Eric Doden where there is a period of time atop an agency in the run for governor.

He owns it, that was his doing.

I think he believes it as well.

So it would be folly for him to stand up there now and say in the two months since I left, as I have seen the light, so, I think he is making the best of the situation and again, we would hope as a state that the gamble pays off.

That the investment does bring the kinds of jobs and investment that he would hope.

It is interesting that you mentioned, he might've taken this trump approach.

And yet he is the least trump like probably candidate on there.

So interesting that you can maybe borrow the tactics without embracing the message.

>> It could be a good middle line.

>> I should copyright that one.

>> Ultimately because there was the food fight if you want to use the analogy, it only got a little food fight right at the end.

To your point it didn't ramp up until bread Brad Chambers really started it.

But does that ultimately just help Mike Braun even more?

>> I don't know.

Other than, I think if they were trying to go after Mike Braun they definitely missed opportunities.

I think Curtis Hill has the best statement about him which was basically, "We sent him to do a job and is leaving before he has done.

What have you done for us?

$JOIN ."

but Senator Brown has a lot of unpopular votes both in the Senate and when he was a lawmaker.

People talk about gas taxes all the time.

He voted for gas tax increase in Indian history and no one has brought it up.

There are ways to go after him and obviously, qualified immunity has become an issue in the ads.

I think it will probably ramp up in the next one and we have four or five more to debates /forms.

>> There is still a large undecided faction.

I think if the poll numbers we have seen are more settled and the I don't knows or undecideds were 1/3 or more, in fact maybe 40%.

If in fact, Ron had 75% at this point, you would see people betting every arrow, every firearm, rhetorical firearm.

(Multiple Speakers) >> It is an indication that people want to chip away at the perceived leader but... >> They are trying to win voters.

>> They still need to win voters asMaybethere's an opening for other candidates.

>> Lawmakers in the final hours of session almost unanimously approved a bill to define and ban anti-Semitism in state and public institution.

Violet Comber-Wilen reports that the language sought a balance between what each had approved.

>> The amended bill uses the international Holocaust remembrance alliance as definition of enemies separatism.

Leaves out... Carol Auslander is with the Council.

She says the group is happy with the bill and the reference to IHR is indirectly incorporating the definitions examples of anti-Semitism.

Ã>> We feel strongly that since the 11 examples are included within IRA, >> Early versions of the bill ignited controversy with critics saying it completes the state of Israel was anti- Semitism.

The examples are said as important as a combat anti- Semitism.

>> How should whose use feel about the reported compromise in the bill.

>> They should be pleased for the simple fact that when you have such a sensitive issue like this I can't think of a time when at the end of the day when the dust has settled, initially, both sides of the issue, the Jewish community and those opposed were pleased with the bill, they issued statements and said they like the way that was and supported coming into law.

Since then, other voices have come out of the woodwork and expressed concerns.

Regarding how they should feel about the actual bill passed, a lot of credit goes to...

I can count on two hands the number of times it was on life support.

The Senate gutted it and it could have died right there but they continue to work on it and I think in the Conference committee, there were 15 different revisions of them trying to get it to a good spot that could also ultimately be unanimously approved.

Either way you feel about it, I think it is 35 states have something ensuring something similar, resolution or executive order but only five or six have been trying to encode protections for the Jewish community.

I think it is a big deal no matter what the bill says.

I would hope that those that are opposed to it kind of don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

>> Late last Friday after the bill passed, and as the session wrapped up, everybody was like what a great example of legislative compromise.

We had two chambers in the building who felt differently about how to define this issue and they came and found a compromise that had one vote.

>> And then some stuff happen this week.

Todd Rokita came out and called it a toothless mass.

And an organization in the state said they altered or drafted a bill for Chris Jeter who didn't show up much during session to talk about it.

Now they are saying the governor should veto this and the governor yesterday, as we taped this, we don't know if she will sign or veto the bill or let go long without his signature.

He sounded yesterday like he was close to vetoing the bill.

I'm surprised that the turnaround in one week.

>> Yes I am, I agreed that this was an accomplishment.

There is no question that anti-Semitism is real.

There is no question and it seems to me to have a statement encode that says that we don't want that in Indiana is a pretty positive thing.

The idea that we don't have examples in it.

We don't have examples in any legislation.

When you define rape you don't come back and say well if he bought dinner, maybe it's not... You don't do that.

You don't do that in the code so it was an effective compromise.

I think it states a principle worth supporting.

And Todd Rokita, the terminology he used that it appealed to "Jew haters $JOIN .

", why would you use that offensive language?

Who was he trying to appeal to?

I find it offensive and I am not Jewish.

It makes it seem as if all the stereotypes of the original sin of Europe is anti-Semitism in my view.

And plays into all of those.

>> And because, the opposition on the bill wasn't super in favor of anti-Semitism.

It was by using some of these examples, seem to equate criticism with the state of Israel was anti-Semitism and that is what lawmakers were trying to avoid.

That gets into speech issues and things like that.

And even Islamophobia.

I will ask you the same question, are you surprised what happened over the last week?

>> Yes a little bit.

I definitely think when the examples came in, it is kind of like the anti-obscenity stuff.

You know it when you see it.

That is how I feel about anti-Semitism as well.

And trying to define it very structurally and then give examples, anytime you give a bunch of examples, suddenly, so, if I say I disagree with how Israel is handling Palestinians in Gaza.

MRI and anti-Semite?

That was the question coming from the other side which was of course we are against anti-Semitism, we don't want to discriminate against Jewish people but we should be allowed to have opinions on the actions that are being taken by the country of Israel.

>> Exactly and there was language in the bill that explicitly said it wasn't.

And they took it out but they took out the examples that seem to conflate the two.

If the Governor vetoes this, what does the legislature that voted overwhelmingly for the bill, what do they do?

>> Part of it depends on what happens in world affairs and geopolitics.

This bill had been offered last year and didn't make it to one chamber or another.

What happened with Hamas on Second was largely an impetus to move it much further this year and put it in the headlines.

So I think a lot depends on that.

>> To be fair not just what happened in Israel but we have seen since that a sharp spike in anti-Semitic incidents.

Across the country... >> And Islamophobia as well as seams.

There are a lot of ways to measure bills and various groups like to measure bills.

I am not going to talk about good or bad idea, I will say that he is bad but you can't ban stupidity.

You can try but you can't.

Here's the measure, if you look at how much time was spent on the bill and how much rhetoric was expended and how much energy was expended versus the tangible, tangible impact in reality, that has got to be the widest gap.

Almost of any bill.

>> There has been some concern that some of Indiana's higher education institutions were taking these incidents seriously enough.

But the bill without the example sends a clear message to them, "Hey, you need to take it seriously.

$JOIN ."

>> It is a message.

>> There is nothing in the bill that says if you don't this has to happen.

>> If there were some action taken against a professor or student leader or something, that is not the end of it.

That is the start of it.

Welcome to a long, protracted bit of litigation where the examples and whether or not they were included might be germane to that discussion.

>> We don't have legislative history in Indiana.

>> Time from viewer feedback: We post an unscientific poll question.

Did Indiana Lawmakers strike the light right balance on the anti-Semitism bill, yes or no.

He asked who will win the gubernatorial primary input all six up there and 68% said Mike Braun.

17 % said Suzanne Crouch, 7% with Brad Chambers, 4% with Eric Doden, 3% Curtis Hill, and 1% with Jamie Reitenour.

We had a number of responses to last week's question.

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

Language to disqualify candidates for Attorney General if they face certain sanctions to their law license was removed from the bill on the Senate floor and didn't make it back in before lawmakers ended the session.

>> An amendment in the Senate elections committee said candidate for AG is disqualified if the Supreme Court despise them or suspense or law license without automatic reinstatement within a year of the election.

The provision was removed from the bill on the Senate floor without explanation or debate.

Senate president says there is still a need to address a perceived lack in state law but he says not doing so this session came down to timing.

>> It is a difficult or may be an appropriate and to do an election year and will look another time to fill the gap stop they said the original language was not aimed at Todd Rokita who received a public recommend and faces another inquiry from the state disciplinary commission.

When the language was added to the bill Todd Rokita accused him of being deep state players taking away people's power.

>> Niki Kelly, lawmakers said the original language had nothing to do with the current AG and what he is facing.

You can believe that or not.

But did removing it have something to do with Todd Rokita?

>> Quite possibly.

I don't think it is bad for them to put something like this in.

We've had two in a row who have been disciplined and so I don't know what is wrong with an additional qualification for a statewide officeholder to be like luck, you can't have been suspended by the disciplinary commission as an attorney.

If you are our you are not eligible to be Attorney General.

It is a fair discussion to have regardless of who is Attorney General and regardless of whether they have a current case going on or not.

It has happened twice now and the first time we were kind of thrown into this, he was suspended for 30 days and does it create a vacancy?

I don't think it is a bad discussion to have for future reference.

>> There are gaps in law about how to handle it not just for candidates but for currently serving attorneys general.

One of the lawmakers, one of the things I heard was that this was thrown into a billet the last minute.

(Multiple Speakers) >> This was the point I was going to make and they apparently didn't mind throwing things in the last minute to get the gaming commission's power or to gut the public access counselor's power.

Does that explanation hold water either?

>> That is pretty disingenuous, that is the way the legislative process works.

It is a convenient excuse and I get that but this is more than that.

I will say for Todd Rokita it may or may not have dealt with him and we can lead that to others to decide.

It was a good session in two ways, he gets this and he can carry a firearm in the statehouse.

One of the four current rate to do that.

>> It is better than the whole staff and 700 people.

Does, is this a problem that needs to be addressed in state law at some point relatively soon?

I don't think this ultimately was going to affect Todd Rokita this year.

Even if he is disciplined again by the Supreme Court, I don't think they will go straight from public recommend to a years suspension without automatic reinstatement.

Which is pretty much the length of time it gets triggered.

That would be shocking.

>> Even if you stick the finger in the Court's I?

>> I would be stunned.

I don't think it will affect them but do they need to address this at some point?

>> I will say that the last two didn't start the conversation, it didn't come out of nowhere.

I think there is an appetite for it, it is the third straight session using some kind of attempt but they didn't get across the finish line.

There have been efforts by Republican lawmakers to get something done about this.

I think the language they had was an effective compromise per se because whenever you're talking about the disciplinary commission, you are not talking about one person upset was somebody that gets to single-handedly say you get this action and you will be subject to a punishment.

You have to go through the disciplinary commission which is a panel and you can appeal up to the Supreme Court.

It is a process where if you do find to be in violation of a disciplinary complaint, you had way more educated people than me to decide it.

>> Those are the most respected legal minds in the state and has been traditionally.

>> Mike Gaskell was the one who brought it in the committee and he put it out rightfully so, which is on the candidate issue.

You have a situation here where you can have someone who becomes, is nominated at the convention, is a candidate for a party and all of a sudden, they might not be eligible to serve because they might not have their law license or anytime soon.

And now you are left, the party is left with, we can't replace him on the ballot because there is no mechanism for that.

>> It brings up the point that this is not a constitutional office and it ought to be appointed by the governor.

He is the lawyer basically for the state of Indiana but effectively he is also the governor's lawyer and they can't be at odds with each other effectively having been in that position, I know it is bad.

We should take that away from elective office and make it appointed by the governor.

A lot of other states.

>> It will happen it destiny Wells...

When the eternally generals race.

>> Finally retired lawyer and lobbyist Libby Czierniak made Indiana histor and posted on social media about what was called the most disgraceful bull seen Evers page in the legislative halls of the state.

At the end of the session 111 years ago, 30 house members celebrated assignment by invading the Senate chamber and throwing these baskets.

Chris Mitchem - should they bring it back?

>> I can see it in my mind invading, standing on the gallery and using all gravity is forced to pull it down.

I think the most disgraceful thing that seems to be the common sense now is killing bills at the last minute because you don't like certain legislators.

>> That seems to happen from time to time.

Do you think we should bring back the invading the chamber?

>> They are all carrying now and that is the problem.

That might be the solution.

>> You don't think they were carrying then?

>> They probably were then.

>> It took longer to load.

>> Not semiautomatic weapons.

>> Emptying wastebaskets might not have the same cachet it had...

Throwing iPads might do more damage.

>> I love, if you don't follow Libby Czierniak on social media she has tons of gems like that and I love eating her stuff that is entertaining.

That is Indiana Week In Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney, the publican Chris Mitchem, Jon Schwantes of Indiana Lawmakers, and Niki Kelly of the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week In Review podcast and episodes at Indiana Week In Review podcast and episodes@wfyi.org/ IW IR on the PBS app, I am Brandon Smith of Indiana Public Broadcasting.

Join us next time because a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

(Music plays) >> The opinions expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week In Review was a