The IEDC is selling off land.

Todd Rokita threatens to sue Notre Dame, plus a lawsuit over student I.D.s at polling places and more.

From the television studios at Wfyi.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending May 16th, 2025.

Indian Weekend Review is produced by Wfyi in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.

This week, the Indiana Capital Chronicle reported that the Indiana Economic Development Corporation has put two properties in Boone County up for sale.

Properties.

It purchased two years ago as part of its controversial LEAP development district.

The properties are listed for significantly less than what the IEDC using taxpayer dollars purchase them for.

The Economic Development Agency has spent more than $400 million so far buying up land for the LEAP district.

In a statement to the Capital Chronicle, IEDC spokesperson Aaron Schweitzer said the state decided it no longer needed the properties to support current and future investments.

A group long opposed to the LEAP district, the Boone County Preservation Group, celebrated the move, saying it indicates the state may be shifting its strategy.

Is this the start of a shift in IEDC strategy towards the LEAP district?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel Democrat Ann DeLaney Republican Whitley Yates Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers and Leslie Bonilla Muñiz, reporter for the Indiana Capital Chronicle I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting Statehouse Bureau Chief Brandon Smith Whitley, is the state changing its mind or its mood about LEAP?

I think that smart growth means strategic shifts.

And after over 18 billion in private investment, it would be smart for them to sell the unused land.

And so looking at who's there already.

What was needed and what they're offloading, I think it's a very smart move specifically for the governor who's championing himself as a conservative steward.

I'll float what you don't need and focus on economic outcomes.

This always felt inevitable when you're buying up that much land that there was going to be.

Wherever these private companies decided to locate, you would probably have little bits that you bought that you don't need anymore.

So is it really that much of a shift, or is this just always what was going to happen?

I think it's more an admission that it's, at least in part, failed.

I mean, when you when you have, you have a governor here who wants to separate himself from this project.

That's clear.

I mean, we not only have a law firm looking at a forensic analysis of the IEDC, now they're hiring outside people at a very substantial cost.

He must think that there are irregular charities in there that are going to cause political problems later on, and he doesn't want to have any part of that.

And you really can't blame them for it.

It's not as if he owes that anything to the either the prior administration or the people who ran.

It was ill conceived in the sense that this is the first time Indiana has ever taken a project like this.

Okay.

And overridden all local rules on zoning and everything else.

Not using eminent domain to pay fair market value and pay, instead paying exorbitant prices for some of this land with little or no supervision.

That is a recipe for, if not corruption.

Certainly, certainly.

not being fiscally responsible.

And I think the governor is right to look at this very carefully.

I, you know, thank heaven Lily is located there.

I mean, a local employer and expanding.

That's good.

What else is coming there, if anything?

Maybe I don't know.

Yeah, maybe.

So how long has that been talked about?

Without any progress on that?

So, you know, we'll see.

I hope it develops.

But you know, they still don't have the water situation clear what they're going to do with that.

So it was ill conceived, ill thought out and not transparent.

And obviously the governor thinks there are some substantial problems.

The funds have gone into that.

The governor has ordered that IEDC is is primarily looking at the money that was going to elevate ventures.

but it is a sort of total forensic audit of the quasi public agency.

Is this part of an ongoing sort of signal from Mike Braun that business as usual at the IEDC is definitely changing.

So LDA ventures is one of five entities of interest identified in the analysis.

the IEDC, the Its foundation and a couple of other groups, as well as whatever entities they identified during the investigation.

But, yeah, they are looking at tracking inflows, outflows, etc.. Who received you know, public dollars.

and they're going to be looking for traces of wrongdoing.

What was the question again?

Well, I mean, is it is is this combined with this now selling back some landed at the LEAP district.

And just generally the way Mike Braun has talked about economic development as he's come into office.

Is this a signal that the way business has been done at the IEDC for the last several years is just not going to be the way it's done going forward?

I mean, I think definitely, you know, the governor has been signaling that he wants to change things up since, you know, he was a candidate for this office.

so I do think that messaging has been pretty consistent.

and he's also said that he wants, you know, IEDC to focus more on raising homegrown businesses over bringing in big capital development expenditures, etc., from out of state.

So, I do think that this kind of on brand for what he said he wants to do.

At the same time.

It occurs to me that these sorts of land sales, assuming they go through at roughly the prices that they're trying to sell them for, which is less than what they paid for them.

Doesn't that sort of signal that they can't abandon this LEAP district strategy entirely?

Because that would be a lot of land to sell back at way less than you paid for it.

So you're kind of in that sense, not committed to to getting as much out of it as you can.

Right.

Oh, I think yeah, this is problematic if you were willing to part with it for less than the amount that you shelled out just to buy it for a few, you know, within two years.

That's that's problematic.

to your question about a change in philosophy or a change in approach.

Absolutely.

I mean, that's that's a given.

The more nuanced question, it seems to me is, is this the result of something that was arrived at by IEDC?

In other words, were they looking at the 20 year data and trends and putting all this in the in the algorithms and saying, I think we need to change our philosophy?

Or was there the proverbial gun pointed at their head?

And it's I think it's the latter.

you're looking at an economy that's uncertain.

You're looking at whether it's tariffs, I think is what's whatever the reason, there's a great deal of concern on the part of consumers and there's a great deal of uncertainty.

that is the kind of thing that you don't want if you are a manufacturer opening up a large facility that requires hundreds of millions of dollars in investment.

You want to know what the playing field is going to look like five years out, ten years out.

So this is not the time for them to this is not the glory days for LEAP.

I don't think because of what's happening globally and nationally.

so it's a change, but because of what the governor's philosophy has been, because of budget cuts, because of a restructuring in the oversight of IEDC, because of a desire to make sure that the bounty is spread across the state and not just, you know, consolidated in certain areas.

That all fits together.

There's a change in approach.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is threatening to sue the University of Notre Dame if it doesn't stop its diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

WVPEs Jeff Parrott reports.

Rokita sent a letter to the school this week demanding an answer.

Ten questions related to what he says are DEI based initiatives.

Rokita letter references the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling that colleges can't use race as a factor in admissions.

Rokita called it a watershed moment for civil rights because he says, racial diversity goals amount to racial discrimination.

But Rokita writes, quote, it seems the University of Notre Dame may have met that moment in the court's decision with evasion, circumvention and obstruction rather than a good faith desire to respect the civil rights of students and faculty and, quote.

A Notre Dame spokesman declined to interview request.

The university issued a statement saying, quote, Notre Dame is a premier Catholic research university and as such seeks to serve and reflect the broader Catholic Church, which is the world's most global, multicultural and multilingual institution.

Ann DeLaney is working to increase the number of underrepresented students and faculty.

One of the things that Todd Rokita identified as is problematic, worthy of these threats.

That is one of the tenets of the Catholic faith.

I mean, we are a church that tries to be universal and tries to welcome everyone.

Okay, so what they're doing is they're practicing their faith at Notre Dame.

All right.

But once the felon in chief came up with his enemies list and targeted those 50 universities, the only one of which in Indiana was Notre Dame.

The little Trump lookalike, Todd Rokita wrote in and decided he was going to threaten them.

And that's what he's doing in the story of that letter is a it is, a site to the, code section which could revoke their corporate identity.

And if you revoke the corporate identity, you revoke Biden.

that along with that, the not for profit status.

Right.

And so that's what he's threatening to do.

And it's a premier institution.

It's been a credit to Indiana for the last almost 200 years that that institution is here.

The idea that he would threaten it when two to, blocks away from his, from his office is in the exhibit at the Indiana Historic Society about resistance and talks about how the fighting Irish repelled the Klan in, in South Bend 100 years ago.

And that's what we're talking about here.

They've changed the name to Christian Nationalist, but it is the same kind of tenant.

It's their way or the highway, and they don't want to say they're anti-Black or anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, but that's not that's not cool anymore.

So they change the enemies.

But it is the Klan's operative, and it's just under a different name, and he's leading the charge for it.

I mean, the U.S. Supreme Court made pretty clear a couple of years ago that race based admissions, are not allowed.

But the sort of things that Todd Rokita seems to be talking about, I mean, multicultural graduation ceremonies that he says are, you know, segregate.

But anybody, anybody can attend them.

So what what is what does Todd Rokita His problem with Notre Dame seem to really be?

I mean, accountability is an attack if you're following the letter of the law.

And so to make sure or to ensure that Notre Dame is following what the Supreme Court stated, he's asking them to produce and to show that.

And you're right.

Having separate multicultural graduations isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when other students can go but can't participate, it can feel separatist.

Or if specific student groups want to have their own graduation but aren't allowed to, then you come into problems.

The truth is that equality should be equal for all and ensuring that, based upon what the Supreme Court said shouldn't be looked at as an attack.

I think we should be able to practice their faith the way they want.

John does it.

Does it get into Dicier territory?

I mean, it's one thing to talk about a public institution doing this because the rules are very different for public institutions, regardless of whether it's education or anything else.

But this is a private Catholic university.

How much can Todd Rokita do here?

Well defined.

What is he trying to do?

I don't think he stands much of a chance of changing anything but a lot of what Todd Rokita has done throughout his time is fire shot.

It gets a lot of attention.

It gets his supporters worked up.

It reminds them that he's out there fighting this fight.

It doesn't matter if it there's a conclusion that actually yields tangible results.

He's in fact, I've argued sometimes better off for him if it doesn't get the results he wants because it shows confirms this belief that, you know.

The other, the underdog.

He's the underdog.

I'm fighting that quixotic fight that, and I'm not going to take no for an answer.

but it does tread.

yes, we know what the Supreme Court said about admissions.

But when you're talking about a religious institution, which the court this court has been very much sympathetic to, religions and denominations in terms of their insurance policies and coverage of insurance and their employment policies and, how their workdays are structured, I think, I mean, I wonder sometimes if you put portions of the New Testament if Notre Dame had just said, you know, be nice, treat everybody the same, and, and maybe even, you know, reach out a little extra to those who are downtrodden and sort of those.

Probably be suspect too.

Well, I'm I'm being somewhat facetious, but maybe not.

I wonder if you use the new English translation.

That might not.

yeah.

Notice that is a biblical passage.

I don't know.

To the point that John makes is the fact that Todd Rokita sent this letter, is that essentially victory enough for him?

Almost regardless of what happens next?

I think so that's kind of his brand, is to draw attention to the causes that he cares about.

it's worked with people have written about it.

People are interested in it or talking about it right now.

And so I do think that, sometimes regardless of the results, but, it really is about, you know, oh, oh, press is good press.

Yeah.

I think I think he doesn't want to revoke the corporate charter, because that would bring the wrath of everybody down on him.

But I think he wants them to bend the knee and say, I'm going to do what you say, or they're going to do what you say.

And if they do, they better not call themselves the Fighting Irish anymore.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post an unscientific online poll question, and this week's question is is Attorney General Todd Rokita right to threaten Notre Dame over its purported diversity, equity and inclusion policies?

A yes or no.

Last week, we asked you whether Indiana lawmakers have done enough to help address high health care costs.

Just 4% of you say yes, 96% say no.

I think a lot of lawmakers would agree with that.

They want to keep going.

If you would like to take part in the poll go to WFYI.org/IWIR and look for the poll.

Well, two voter and civic advocacy groups and an Indiana University student are suing the state over a new law that bans the use of student IDs for voting.

The suit alleges the measure, signed into law last month, severely burdens young people's ability to vote without any justification.

Student IDs from Indiana public colleges and universities been used at polling places for two decades.

Republicans this year banned their use as voter IDs because they said they want to ensure only people living in Indiana vote in Indiana elections.

Even though that's not the function of IDs used to vote.

Count us in.

And women for change, Indiana, along with IU student Josh Montag, say that law violates the U.S. Constitution.

Montag testified this session on the legislation, telling lawmakers it's a form of voter suppression.

If you want a better future in Indiana, college students are the way to do it.

Restricting the rights and their ability to vote will only drive them away.

And frankly, Indiana can't take that hit.

In a statement, Secretary of State Diego Morales says the new law ensures that every ID used at the polls is secure.

Leslie, the IDs used at polling places are meant to prove you are who you say you are.

So there's me in the polling book.

Here's me on my ID.

Here's my face.

I am who I say I am.

They're not meant to prove your residency.

That's the point of the registration process.

Did Republicans explain you covered this bill in the legislative session?

Did Republicans explanations for this bill ever sort of speak to why, exactly student IDs are a problem?

So, I looked at our coverage of this bill, and honestly, the I would say there's two categories of explanations given for why it was needed.

First was the residency element, wanting to make sure that only residents can vote.

But as you said, that's not the purpose.

And that's not how the state's voter I.D.

law was designed.

and furthermore, you can, as we discussed earlier, like you can establish residency by registering to vote.

the other thing that we've really heard a lot about was arguments that student IDs are lesser in some way.

They're not as secure, they're not as reliable.

The something about the process is not as uniform across the state, which we did not hear, you know, wasn't necessarily substantiated.

But that was definitely the the talking point given.

yeah.

Throughout the session.

Yeah.

It was, student IDs are never were never meant to be used off campus was a line.

I think we heard from a few folks in the legislature who were backing this bill, but they've been used for 20 years.

What is the problem we are trying to solve, John?

I think the real problem, if you cut away all the rhetoric, is you're worried that students, college age students in some of these, larger institutions may be more likely to vote in a manner that isn't, in line with with the Republican supermajorities in the House and Senate and the legislature.

I think that's about the only reason you could come up with, this it, if the notion I mean, one of the things if the notion is that people are voting, on their college at their college address and then back home, I would say if that was the concern, then a lot of the Republicans, secretaries of state and other election officials across the country should not have dismantled the Eric system, I believe, is the acronym, the system that was meant specifically and designed a bipartisan or nonpartisan effort, that was gaining a lot of momentum until somebody decided it was not the right thing to do, and its evil doers were behind it.

There was questions about whether or not Eric, the organization would start dictating to states how they had to spend certain pots of money.

And I think that was that was some states balked at that idea, which is fair.

Well, but if the white House dictates how states spend their money on elections, I guess that's a different matter, that now there's more willingness to accommodate those opinions.

I yes, I get the rhetoric, but I think when you get down to it, if you had, concentrations of seniors, older citizens that moved across state lines for some, you know, if we had our version of the villages or something, you know, nobody's worried about their IDs.

You know, if if we had the Indiana version of The Villages with, you know, 55 and up, you know, going to the polls in great numbers.

This is about younger people being perceived, rightly or wrongly.

I'm not sure that the stereotypes even apply, but being perceived as more liberal than the average voter.

Yeah, yeah.

Can I add something?

I mean, also during the discussi it seems kind of like this is also part of sort of a reaction against, colleges and universities, which we just talked about in the last topic.

lawmakers said that that it's not necessarily fair that, that that many people are going to college.

And so why do people who go to college or university, like, get this extra, you know, way of voting?

And so there's that was also, you know.

There's lots of other forms of voter ID, many of which don't don't have the same sort of, you know, the, the, the expiration dates that don't prove where you live, a U.S. passport, which I can use as a voter ID, doesn't say where I live.

What is the problem that we are solving with this?

Yeah.

So let's just say the quiet part out loud is that students in universities are not necessarily legal citizens.

And so being able to utilize a school ID and go to the polls does not guarantee that you're legally able to vote in Indiana.

And you would have to prove your residence.

That's.

Already illegal.

Yeah, you're supposed to have to prove that.

Oh, you're saying the clerks aren't doing their job?

I'm not saying the clerks aren't doing that.

Well, then somebody is checking.

What I'm saying is we have a system that is antiquated.

We have voter rolls that don't always get passed, and we have things that slip through the cracks.

So making sure that our elections are safe and secure is important.

Nonsense.

That is nonsense.

That's the typical Republican argument.

For all the restrictions that Indiana has put in place over the last 20 years, and that is why our turnout is abysmal.

We're either 49th or 50th or sometimes 51st in the states in turnout.

And it's precisely because of that problem that they're solving that doesn't exist.

They're making it more difficult for students to vote because they don't like the way they vote, or they don't think they like the way they vote.

And that's all it is, plain and simple.

It hasn't been affecting Republicans thus far with super majorities at the.

Well, then why are they so afraid of it then?

I don't think that's what they're.

Well, they're not protecting against voter fraud because we don't have any voter fraud in Indiana.

Well, we don't have widespread we don't have to vote.

We don't have.

Voice.

To vote.

In the last prosecution we had in Indiana for voter.

Fraud, and it was the last decade.

And it was it was a voter fraud.

It was.

Registration and.

Registration clerk.

We have never had a.

President for.

Voter fraud.

So surveys, signatures on.

Signatures.

On registration petitions.

All right.

More than 100,000 retired public employees in Indiana will receive an additional benefit this year, known as the 13th check.

But lawmakers reduced the amount of that extra benefit by about 5%.

The amount of the 13th check public retirees will receive is between 143 and $428, based on their years of service in past years, and even in legislation as it originally advanced this session, that amount was between 150 and $450.

Democratic Representative Matt Pierce says cutting that amount makes no sense, because the money used to pay for it isn't affected by state tax revenue and the budget that pension money has.

Already come in.

Out of the paychecks of.

These retirees when they were working.

With some match from the state or from their local units.

The retired Indiana Public Employees Association, which advocates for public retirees, applauded the bill, calling it a big win in this economy.

John Swan is what explanation is there for cutting benefits from a dedicated fund not affected by the state?

The state tax revenue?

I don't know this.

I'll tell you what this issue mystifies me, and it has for I get it and I understand the political potency of it.

When you're talking about a population that has worked hard and has earned these benefits.

But we're talking again about relatively small amounts.

I thought this had been dealt with in some way that was supposed to never see light of day again.

You know, it was it was created or.

That's been pushed out to 2029.

Right.

So I guess we got to put up with it a few more years.

and it's great.

Lawmakers like to tout this, as you know, a lot of them.

Yeah, we did a few things, but this is something we can really take pride in.

And in the scheme of things, I yes, I love our retirees.

They should get what's coming to them.

And I guess they should get the full amount.

Then I to answer your question, I don't know, but but why?

This becomes an issue year after year.

It seems like there should be a better way to.

It does feel like it does feel like we're finally getting close to the solution, which is switching to a Cola, a cost of living adjustment, an annual cost of living adjustment beginning in 2029.

Let's hope it it sticks this time, because they've been toying around with that date for a little while.

But on this one, this is one that lawmakers will hear about though, because the folks who get these benefits let lawmakers know, don't they?

They do indeed.

And also, for what it's worth, the the sort of automated system that you're referring to seems like they kind of want to wait until they've paid off that, you know, the pre 96 teacher's fund and that liability.

But, yeah, the author of this bill told me that, the goal, the intent of that 5% cut was to slow the money leaving these dedicated funds.

But he also wasn't necessarily in support of that change.

It was more of an internal chamber fight where the Senate did not want this at all.

The House definitely did want it.

And so this was my guess.

All right, finally, the WNBA season begins this week.

The Indiana Fever undoubtedly got better this offseason.

They have a new head coach, Stephanie White.

They acquired all stars to one a banner.

Natasha Howard added Sophie Cunningham from the University of Missouri to go along with returning stars Kelsey Mitchell, Leah Boston and oh yeah, a sophomore guard named Caitlin Clark and Delaney.

Can the fever make a serious run at a title this season?

I don't think there's any doubt about it.

There's an awful lot of talent there.

And by the way, when you're pitching Missouri, Stephanie White's from Purdue.

That's true.

As well.

Is a Purdue is a Purdue grad.

So all right.

They're on their winning team.

Fever versus my Chicago Sky tomorrow.

That is Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Ann DeLaney Republican Whitley Yates Jon Schwantes of Indiana Lawmakers and Leslie Bonilla Muñiz of the Indiana Capital Chronicle You can find Indiana Week In Reviews 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 views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by the Indy Chamber, working to unite business and community to maintain a strong economy and quality of life.