Music Rokita threatens to sue local governments.

Gubernatorial debates planned for October.

Plus, the AG gets involved in the Indianapolis Soccer stadium mess and more from the television studios at WFYI It's Indiana Week In Review for the week ending June 7th, 2024.

Indiana Week in Review is made possible by the supporters of the Indiana Public Broadcasting Stations This week, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is threatening to sue three cities and a county for what he claims are violations of the state's ban on sanctuary cities.

A 2011 Indiana law bans local governments from restricting cooperation with federal officials over citizenship or immigration information.

The General Assembly followed up this year by authorizing the Attorney General to enforce that law.

Since the state Supreme Court had blocked a group of citizens from suing over a Gary ordinance.

Rokita is using that new authority to threaten Gary, East Chicago, West Lafayette and Monroe County, telling them to repeal current policies, violating Indiana law.

Both Gary and East Chicago have welcoming city ordinances that limit cooperation with federal authorities over immigration enforcement.

No such ordinance seems to exist in West Lafayette, though a 2017 resolution says no city employee should investigate citizenship or immigration status unless ordered by state or federal law, or a court order and a review of Monroe County code and resolutions dating back ten years shows no apparent language related to sanctuary cities.

Is Todd Rokita simply following Indiana law?

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

Democrat Elise Schrock, Republican Chris Mitchem, Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana lawmakers.

And Lindsey Erdody, editor for Axios Local.

I'm Indiana Public Broadcasting's statehouse bureau chief Brandon Smith.

Elise.

There's this new law that will take effect July 1st that authorizes the attorney general's office to enforce the law, since there was clearly an enforcement problem with the with it to begin with, is he simply carrying out his new duty under Indiana along?

Well, it's not a law yet, like you said.

And unfortunately, I think this is just like the next thing on a list of perceived issues that Attorney General Rokita has decided he's going to use as his bully pulpit.

And it's unfortunate because if you look at some of these ordinances that he is perceiving to do, you know, purporting to have these sanctuary city, afforded affording sanctuary cities, and it's not even that clear.

So I think his defense is going to be difficult.

It's also the antithesis of what you've seen come from the state legislature, where you're actually actually seeing broad consensus for where the state does have some jurisdiction for issues like affording undocumented people driving cards.

That helps with economic development issues.

and that's been a bipartisan, proposal that you've seen not only bipartisan, but law enforcement and, the business committee business community come and supportive.

So you've got immigration, which is a federal issue.

You've got local communities addressing local issues as they see fit.

You've got the state trying to the state legislature trying to fit in where they can to do, you know, things that benefit the communities where they fit in.

And then you have Todd Rokita that's just trying to get headlines and trying to, kind of blow this issue up in a way that benefits him and it does harm.

And that's unfortunate.

The law doesn't.

The law authorizing the attorney general to enforce this doesn't take effect until July 1st, as far as I'm aware.

And does he need to be sending these letters ahead of time?

Does he?

Is this just a grab for headlines?

I don't think he needed this in the letter, so there's no reason why he needed to send the letters other than hey, heads up, here's a chance to kind of remedy it before the July 1st law takes into account.

And, you know, we we agree that AG require does a lot of things.

But in this certain stance, I mean, I agree with the law that the legislature passed just because whenever this, the previous court cases about the law were struck down, the Supreme Court simply analyzed standing.

They just said, you have no injury to bring about to try to enforce this law.

So the legislature then in return says that, you know, here's your standing.

AG Rokita you can go and do your job.

So I found it interesting that they said that the plaintiffs didn't have standing.

And it's like, well, I guess you need an injury first.

So you need, you know, one of these potential legal immigrants to commit a crime first before you can then bring a case against it.

I mean, that's basically what the Supreme Court was saying.

And it is certainly not a smart idea to get into any arguments with Supreme Court justice.

And I'm not going to go down that route right now.

If you're an attorney, as you.

Well, yeah.

Not yet, not soon.

but I, I.

Totally, exactly the wrong time.

Correct?

Correct.

So but I do I do understand why the legislature did that of why wait for an injury to happen before you can actually enforce something?

Whenever a city is intentionally saying, you know, you don't need to enforce this particular federal crime, maybe as much as other ones.

As far as like preempting what would happen after the law, I don't think anyone is going to have to guess where Rokita stands on this.

Why he would have to give a heads up like, hey, this is where I'm going to be.

Is part of the problem here seem to be clarity.

I mean, with Gary and East Chicago, there are coordinates and ordinances on the books that he's clearly going after, which has already been the subject of litigation.

But with West Lafayette in Monroe County, you have local officials, including police, who are going, what are you talking about?

Clarity, maybe an issue, but that's no impediment to going into the limelight and trying to get attention on issues that he feels are part of his agenda and part of his core support group's agenda.

I mean, if you go right down the list of favorite topics, it's been parental rights.

You know, boom.

Whether or not it was a front burner issue, or whether there was some, you know, burning issue in Indiana, didn't matter.

That was the guidebook that was put out on on parental rights.

You know, the notion of schools, public schools, sort of, and which ties in, of course, to parental rights.

He also became involved heavily there.

You look at abortion, you look at the enforcement of all of these issues.

Essentially, you take the talking points of the most conservative portions of the Republican Party.

Checking the boxes.

And this is it.

Those are I mean, if you and I mean it seems to work, there's no downside.

It seems to stir up his folks.

And I guess, you know, he I presume he wants to run for office again somewhere, somehow.

Which means.

At the very minimum, he's running for real.

Right?

Which means you're going to be seeking support, not only voters, but of funders.

and I'm sure contributors like to know that your, your guy or gal is is always right there at the ready to, to tackle issues and wrongs that you agree with, whether or not they are necessarily, problematic for the state at a given time.

At this point has Rokita basically put himself in a position where now he has to follow through no matter what.

With lawsuits against these communities, I guess so, I mean, if you're coming out ahead of when the live and takes effect, like you are making it very clear, okay, I'm going to do this.

Would it be the first time a politician has said they were going to do something and that did not do something?

No, no.

but I think he probably will follow through with it and see how it goes.

I mean, because to Jon's point, like he's this is a national conversation around immigration.

It's a huge national talking point in the presidential race right now.

We saw candidates in the primary in the governor's race talking about immigration, which was fascinating because they don't actually control federal immigration policy.

but so it's it's not surprising that he's focused on it.

And I think politically, why would he not sue?

I mean, it's not money out of his pocket, of course.

And even we've talked about this before, it doesn't matter if there's a solution that necessarily ultimately will coincide with his core beliefs or his.

It doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter.

In fact, I've said on a lot of these issues, you can actually gain more with that constituency by fighting what's perceived to be by some, the good fight and then losing to the establishment or, or whatever.

So there is no politically, I don't think there's a downside.

Which is so sad because this is so dehumanizing for an entire population of people and for a party that purports to be a family's first or clings to one certain type of faith practice.

This is not loving your neighbor as yourself.

This is not respecting the human dignity of all people.

And politicizing it in this way is really disappointing.

So there is a lot of irony here.

When you pick and choose which types of communities or which types of lives are more important than others.

Well, it's also enforcing a potential law, of course, and even when you haven't yet said.

Which laws benefit which communities.

But you got to get to choose which laws you get to enforce.

But I would say on the other side.

What to.

Prioritize.

Yes, sure.

Yeah, absolutely.

But you just can't talk about.

That in a different.

Era.

spending too much time in the New Testament.

Let's go back to the old days.

That's a different.

The last thing I'll say on this is, I think Rokita actually has to follow through on this, because the fact that we're talking about it now and it's made state headlines, I think you have a lot of people in Indiana saying we have what, in Indiana?

I didn't I thought those are just, you know, border border, you know, border cities.

The fact that people think we have sanctuary cities in Indiana now, I think that's something he definitely has to know.

Arguably, we really don't.

I mean, compared to like, ordinances and things on the books in other states, which are clearly sanctuary cities, Indiana's are, at best.

Borderline resolutions.

Indiana's three candidates for governor Republican Mike Braun, Democrat Jennifer McCormick and Libertarian Donald Rainwater agreed this week to at least one televised debate this fall.

Another is still being negotiated.

But can the debates matter?

Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics director Mike Wolf, says political science research largely agrees that gubernatorial debates can make a difference.

And that's particularly true in elections where other races, like presidential campaigns, take a lot of attention.

And he says there's evidence of that in Indiana from 2012, when Mike pence went into the debates with double digit polling leads, three debates later, John, to cut that was really, you know, aggressive in those debates and kind of, ended up being a 3.3% point race.

And, pence didn't get a majority.

Wolf says the debates can have a cascading effect for an underdog candidate if their stories that come out about it, if there's some excitement, and some campaign finance, then potentially you can get up on air and you can use the, the what the highlights of those debates were to really, in effect, drive home the narrative that that, you know, that you've been pushing it.

Wolf says it is possible that in Indiana's current political climate, the margin for a Democrat to overcome will be too large, even if the debates have an impact.

Chris Mitchem, can the gubernatorial debates make a difference?

I wish I really do.

I love me a good sparring gubernatorial debate that could actually potentially move some numbers, but I think if you are Jennifer McCormick, the thing you are hoping for is a Richard Mourdock level, foot in the mouth moment from Mike Braun, you know, a 2012 level, mistake.

And even on that one that caused Richard Mourdock to receive a lot of criticism from then presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Senator John McCain disavowed it.

Barack Obama went on a TV show and disavowed it.

It made national headlines.

It really put a lot of pressure on him from external factors.

If Braun were to do something similar, I'm not even sure if that would make a difference, because that Murdock race at the time was as close to 5050 as you could find.

Each polls had him going way, and I think Donnelly ended up winning by 6 or 7 points.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the first poll comes out and you see Braun with eight, nine, ten point advantage.

when it comes to when it comes to that time being unveiled.

But I also think a lot of credit has to go to Mike Braun, his campaign for even agreeing to do the debates.

Unfortunately, I think you're seeing a national trend of if I'm in the lead by a lot, there's no use of me going to a debate when it's only going to hurt myself.

I mean, we even talked about some of the Republican gubernatorial debates here.

The winner of the last one, a lot of people agree was Mike Braun, because he didn't have to get involved with all the tussles and all that kind of stuff.

You know, Mike, well, talked about 2012 when I talked with him about the Senate race, which was the most, you know, notable example in recent memory.

But he, you know, he brought up the gubernatorial race, it having an impact where that ended up being a very close race for Mike Pence and John Gregg and some people at the time, I think, even thought like if the if the election had been like 2 or 3 weeks after later, John Gregg might have picked Mike pence to the to the post.

Is Indiana just in a wildly different place now?

So many things have happened politically since then.

I mean, the Trump effect has come in and that, politically, nationally, the the type of divisiveness that has happened has only, widened, I think, here in our state.

But that doesn't mean that Jennifer McCormick doesn't have a compelling story to tell.

I think, you know, last week we saw her just kind of come out and talk straight to voters, through her social media, which I think, was compelling, where she talked about her previous alignment, where she is now, where she felt like the Republican Party left her.

She didn't feel aligned with them anymore.

What she's been doing since then, she comes with a built in base of educators, and we know that teachers are a well organized base in Indiana.

So I do think that when you have a platform like a debate, you can you can move the needle and she has a compelling story to tell.

She's a proven leader, and I'm excited to see what she does with this.

I want to talk about another aspect of this.

So it looks like there's going to be two debates.

I think the the issue with the other one was just the debate not doing it or not.

and it looks like the Indiana Debate Commission is going to get left out of the process entirely, which is the first time since they started doing gubernatorial debates in 2008 that that would be true for the general election.

Anyway, this follows on the heels of a widely criticized debate.

Commission debate in the Republican gubernatorial primary.

Is the Debate commission's time at an end in Indiana?

That's tough to say, with just one race, one debate not going, not going to them.

Excuse me.

but I don't know.

That debate, yes, was pretty well criticized.

the candidates all fighting back and forth about it, but the interesting thing to me is that debate that we're all referencing didn't include Mike Braun, who will be in the debates in this fall.

So I think it probably is going to depend on candidates in the future who's hosting the debate?

things like that.

I think it could come back and we could see a shift.

And for now, you know, at least we are still getting two debates.

I mean, because to the point, like Mike Braun did not have to agree to these debates.

And so it was a little surprising to me he should.

Oh, absolutely.

Absolutely.

I think he should.

Even in races that may not be super close.

It's great for the public to be able to hear from the candidates directly, even if they're using their talking points.

You know, it's it's their opportunity to hear what they have to say and hear their positions.

And that was really, I think, part of the purpose of the Indiana Debate Commission.

to that, to that point about, you know, Mike talk Mike Wolff talks about the fact that political science research shows us that particularly in gubernatorial races, particularly in a in years where there are other bigger ticket items on the ballot, they can have an impact.

But the way that the debates have gone in terms of it does feel more and more like a talking point.

Talking point, talking point.

Next question, talking point, talking point, talking point.

Are we losing the value that debates can bring?

they they're a great they serve a purpose.

And I'm never going to say we shouldn't try to to engage in this kind of civic, discourse.

they're healthy for democracy, and we should do everything to support them.

Having said that, I don't think at this time in our political climate, and in our political evolution, they have the impact they used to, in part because of the tribalism that has taken root, the lack of accountability.

I mean, you think back this was not a state debate, but poor Gerald Ford largely lost, the presidency over his characterization of Soviet influence in Poland, which was basically just people who spent weeks, you know, parsing what he said and what he meant.

Now, that would be laughed off.

As you know, people can just make out right?

Lies and misstatements and great and grandiose offer grandiose fallacies.

And it seems to be done with impunity.

So the notion of people being held to account and paying a price for misstatements or egregious, statements that are seemingly beyond the pale, I think those days are gone, at least temporarily.

but again, I we should have them.

I mean, more debates the better.

Yeah.

I mean, I got to have something to talk about on the show at the very least.

Time now for viewer feedback.

Each week we post an unscientific online poll question.

And this week's question is, can debates have an impact on the governor's race?

A yes or b no?

Last week, we asked you whether Donald Trump's guilty verdicts affect his chances of winning Indiana.

32% of you say yes, 68% say no.

I'm in the no camp on that one.

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

Well, we don't often talk about seemingly only low local issues, but this one rises to a certain level.

I think the Indianapolis City County Council this week approved a new professional sports development arena in the hopes of area excuse me, in the hopes of luring a major League Soccer team.

And that was over the objections of the local councilor.

And that's even as the Indianapolis Business Journal reports this week that Attorney General Todd Rokita privately weighed in on the controversy.

The city originally approved a PSDA for a different site downtown by developer Keystone Group and the minor league team in the 11, but that site was once the city's first cemetary which has become a sticking point in the plans.

The state budget committee must approve the PSDA and the IBJ reported this week that Attorney General Todd Rokita, responding to a question from a state lawmaker, says the budget committee can approve the first plan regardless of the city's wishes.

The IBJ story reveals that Rokitas private guidance to the lawmaker says state law doesn't require the city to officially submit the proposal once it was approved by the city county council, Rokita says the state budget committee can give its okay, Jon Schwantes, at least on the local level.

This was pretty messy for a little while now.

Is this going to get even messier?

It may.

It seems that it's had a rocky road.

Look, if we look back in the recent past, where the stadium would we have won was a question, you know, if so, where would it be brought up?

High school was was one point discussed as a is the ground zero for such a facility then we've talked about various locations downtown and there seems to be various issues, either governmental or financial.

so I hope it comes to pass.

I mean, it's, this is a fast growing sport, and this is a fast growing league within that sport.

this seems to be the right time because the market is only going to get more saturated with Cincinnati and Columbus and Chicago and etc., etc..

So, but if you look at what, the appetite has been in Indianapolis and Indiana, more broadly for professional soccer, look at the number, the string of sellouts and the and the, the fan support, which really, I think argues a in favor of a stadium and be in favor of the awarding of a franchise for the city.

Lindsey, what do you see happening at the state House over this?

Well, I thought it was interesting that after we saw the news about Attorney general letter, we saw Senator Mishler make some comments to the Indy star.

Basically saying that the 2019 law that, you know, allowed them to create this professional sports development area for a soccer stadium did not specify a location.

And it was the takeaway was kind of like the city can come to the state budget committee with what they want, and the state's kind of looking out for something that's going to make sense financially, because they don't want the city to come back to them and have to ask for more money, potentially down the road.

And the city is pretty adamant that the site right now with Keystone Development is not financially feasible, and that is why they are pursuing this other option and going this other direction.

So you would think that the state Budget Committee would, would be on their side with that.

Do you agree with that?

Yeah.

And I mean, anytime you see the legislature dipping into Marion County issues, it gets interesting because, you know, we've seen this legislature pop up.

And I think over the last decade it has been the like kind of like gotcha, gotcha.

But like the unexpected thing that sucks up a lot of air at some point during session.

the, some type of in 11 related legislature or legislation.

And so you've seen the legislature have to work around that.

We also know that this legislature loves to meddle in Marion County affairs.

So you have that element and, you know, it only takes one lawmaker to decide that they want to do that, to kind of set that into motion.

So I know they have to move quicker than, you know, before the legislative session on this.

But this I think is going to get messy before we see a resolution.

There's those in Otomi or the owner of of the Indy 11 has built relationships at the state House over a long period of time.

and it does feel like he's clearly lost his battle at the state or at the city county level.

Is this does he see an opening for one last hurrah from lawmakers to maybe rescue his project?

I think it would be in the state budget Committee.

And, I the thing about this whole process right now is there's just a lot of question marks, right?

You have people buying land next to where the stadium is supposed to go, and you have all these large consortiums with unknown funders going on.

I think whenever they do go, when they're actually required to go present in front of the state budget committee, a lot of those, you know, kind of fall clouds are going to get removed and we're going to start seeing details of where's the money coming from?

Is this actually financially viable as the statute requires them to analyze?

And if the General Assembly kind of calls foul and every anything, I think the relationships that are so kind of formed there, whether it be behind closed doors or publicly, once the plan starts to come out, he could you could utilize.

And then I think state lawmakers might be a little bit more informed than we might even realize, though, because Mitchell even said that he was hearing from the administration, I think it was back in January about potentially changing the site.

So they've kept state lawmakers, at least somewhat.

Informed along the way.

I think we'd also be remiss not to mention the community outcry over, you know, Green Lawn Cemetery and the fact that for years, other cemeteries have been developed around.

And so for this to be developed on top of, it's definitely a community concern.

We're hearing, a lot about that locally since I know since I live here, you know, that's something I'm hearing often.

And I think that's definitely something that is part of this conversation.

All right.

Finally, Congressman Jim Banks this week sent a letter to the WNBA crying foul, pun intended over what he perceives as targeting of Indiana Fever rookie phenom Caitlin Clark.

Now, at least we've talked a little bit on the show.

And nationally and globally, people have been talking about the excitement and the increase, the tension that women's basketball in particular is receiving.

Is this what we were hoping for?

You know, I think Jamal Hill had a really good article on this in the last week where she basically summed it up as, there are a lot of men without experience in covering the WNBA that are trying to cover the WNBA.

So there's it is exciting.

It is great to have this type of, attention on a well deserved sport.

But you also have an it's it's it's exploded in an infrastructure on the reporting side maybe, and in other ways that's maybe not kept up with that.

So we're seeing that.

But again I'm no I'm not like Sporty Spice is for the Spice Girls.

And I would probably be considered.

So that's about all I can impart on that.

Is this some of like if you've been watching the NBA for a while, which I have, this is not new like this.

I mean, this is a very physical sport.

Is that just what we're seeing?

And notably, Caitlin Clark isn't doing a lot of complaining.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, I think she's handled it great.

I mean, just the fact that a, you know, some of these are non basketball players which some of them have been I mean you know calling somebody a name and shoving them in the back on the inbound play is not a basketball play.

And I think that's what kind of Congressman Banks and some people are like, you know, you have this star, you know, regardless of what she looks like, you have this star that's coming in and generating so much revenue and eyes on your sport the least.

You know, I'm not saying you should create rules that benefit her in particular, but you might want to kind of protect that asset because it's just benefiting everybody.

As a whole.

But, you know, importantly, it's not just her because of like, for instance, if you look at the fever games, their, their games against other teams in the league, that there are still affordable tickets available.

But you try to see the Chicago sky who have Angel Reese, Camila Cardoso, those tickets are out of reach.

And that is Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel is Democrat Elise Schrock, Republican Chris Mitchem, Jon Schwantes of Indiana lawmakers and Lindsey Erdody of Axios Local.

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 opinions expressed are.

Solely those of the panelists.

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