♪♪ >> TODD ROKITA INSERTS HIMSELF >> TODD ROKITA INSERTS HIMSELF INTO A CULTURE WAR.

INTO A CULTURE WAR.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT STRIKES A THE U.S. SUPREME COURT STRIKES A BLOW TO THE NCAA.

BLOW TO THE NCAA.

PLUS, A VOTE BY MAIL LAWSUIT IS PLUS, A VOTE BY MAIL LAWSUIT IS DEAD AND MORE ON INDIANA WEEK IN DEAD AND MORE ON INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING JUNE REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING JUNE 25TH, 2021.

25TH, 2021.

>> INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS >> INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS, AND BY ICE MILLER, A STATIONS, AND BY ICE MILLER, A FULL SERVICE LAW FIRM COMMITTED FULL SERVICE LAW FIRM COMMITTED TO HELPING CLIENTS BUILD, GROW, TO HELPING CLIENTS BUILD, GROW, AND PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS.

AND PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS.

MORE AT ICEMILLER.COM.

MORE AT ICEMILLER.COM.

>> >> THIS WEEK, INDIANA ATTORNEY THIS WEEK, INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD ROKITA RELEASED A GENERAL TODD ROKITA RELEASED A DOCUMENT CALLED THE "PARENT BILL DOCUMENT CALLED THE "PARENT BILL OF RIGHTS" THAT, IN PART, OF RIGHTS" THAT, IN PART, CONDEMNS TEACHING ABOUT RACE IN CONDEMNS TEACHING ABOUT RACE IN SCHOOLS.

INDIANA PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING'S JEANIE LINDSAY BROADCASTING'S JEANIE LINDSAY REPORTS.

REPORTS.

>> >> ROKITA'S "PARENT BILL OF RIGHTS" ROKITA'S "PARENT BILL OF RIGHTS" INCLUDES WAYS FOR PARENTS TO INCLUDES WAYS FOR PARENTS TO INTERACT WITH SCHOOL BOARDS, AND INTERACT WITH SCHOOL BOARDS, AND REVIEW CURRICULUM AND STATE REVIEW CURRICULUM AND STATE STANDARDS.

BUT IT ALSO FRAMES STANDARDS.

BUT IT ALSO FRAMES TEACHING ABOUT ISSUES LIKE TEACHING ABOUT ISSUES LIKE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION AS A WAY DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION AS A WAY TO SNEAK LESSONS ON RACE INTO TO SNEAK LESSONS ON RACE INTO CLASSROOMS.

BUT RACHEL BURKE, CLASSROOMS.

BUT RACHEL BURKE, PRESIDENT OF THE INDIANA PARENT PRESIDENT OF THE INDIANA PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION, SAYS SHE TEACHER ASSOCIATION, SAYS SHE SEES THE DOCUMENT AS A POLITICAL SEES THE DOCUMENT AS A POLITICAL PLAY, NOT SOMETHING TO TRULY PLAY, NOT SOMETHING TO TRULY SERVE PARENTS.

SERVE PARENTS.

>> RACHEL BURKE: I THINK A >> RACHEL BURKE: I THINK A PARENT SHOULD ABSOLUTELY KNOW PARENT SHOULD ABSOLUTELY KNOW WHAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE REGARDING WHAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE REGARDING THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN, THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN, I THINK THAT THOSE RIGHTS NEED I THINK THAT THOSE RIGHTS NEED TO COME WITHOUT A POLITICAL TO COME WITHOUT A POLITICAL AGENDA BEHIND THEM.

AGENDA BEHIND THEM.

>> THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF >> THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SAYS IT WAS NOT EDUCATION SAYS IT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CREATING THE INVOLVED IN CREATING THE DOCUMENT.

DOCUMENT.

>> >> IS ROKITA'S PARENT BILL OF IS ROKITA'S PARENT BILL OF RIGHTS NECESSARY?

RIGHTS NECESSARY?

IT'S THE FIRST QUESTION FOR OUR IT'S THE FIRST QUESTION FOR OUR INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW PANEL INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW PANEL DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY.

DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY.

REPUBLICAN MIKE O'BRIEN.

REPUBLICAN MIKE O'BRIEN.

JON SCHWANTES, HOST OF INDIANA JON SCHWANTES, HOST OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS.

LAWMAKERS.

AND NIKI KELLY, STATEHOUSE AND NIKI KELLY, STATEHOUSE REPORTER FOR THE FORT WAYNE REPORTER FOR THE FORT WAYNE JOURNAL GAZETTE.

JOURNAL GAZETTE.

I'M INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING I'M INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATEHOUSE REPORTER BRANDON STATEHOUSE REPORTER BRANDON SMITH.

SMITH.

MIKE O'BRIEN, WHAT'S THE POINT MIKE O'BRIEN, WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS?

OF THIS?

>> I THINK IN PART IT'S A >> I THINK IN PART IT'S A REACTION TO -- THE EVENTUAL REACTION TO -- THE EVENTUAL QUESTION IS IS THIS NECESSARY, A QUESTION IS IS THIS NECESSARY, A LOT OF AMERICANS, HOOSIERS THINK LOT OF AMERICANS, HOOSIERS THINK IT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF REAL IT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF REAL OR PERCEIVED EFFORTS TO AMEND OR OR PERCEIVED EFFORTS TO AMEND OR CHANGE CURRICULUM THEY VIEW AS CHANGE CURRICULUM THEY VIEW AS EXTREME.

THIS GOES BACK TO THE EXTREME.

THIS GOES BACK TO THE SAME PEOPLE THAT MAY WONDER HOW SAME PEOPLE THAT MAY WONDER HOW DONALD TRUMP GOT ELECTED, BUT DONALD TRUMP GOT ELECTED, BUT LARGE SWATHS OF AMERICANS WHO LARGE SWATHS OF AMERICANS WHO THINK THAT OUR HISTORY IS BEING THINK THAT OUR HISTORY IS BEING REWRITTEN, MARGINALIZED, BELIEF REWRITTEN, MARGINALIZED, BELIEF SYSTEM IS MARGINALALIZED, THIS SYSTEM IS MARGINALALIZED, THIS IS THE LATEST CHAPTER IN THAT IS THE LATEST CHAPTER IN THAT TYPE OF DYNAMIC THAT EXISTS IN TYPE OF DYNAMIC THAT EXISTS IN AMERICAN SOCIETY RIGHT NOW.

IT AMERICAN SOCIETY RIGHT NOW.

IT IS NOT UNHELPFUL TO TODD ROKITA, IS NOT UNHELPFUL TO TODD ROKITA, IT IS A FLASHPOINT ISSUE IN THE IT IS A FLASHPOINT ISSUE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY RIGHT NOW, A REPUBLICAN PARTY RIGHT NOW, A LARGE MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS LARGE MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS CARE ABOUT THIS VIEW, CARE ABOUT THIS VIEW, CRITICAL -- OR THESE OTHER CRITICAL -- OR THESE OTHER ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE CURRICULUM OR ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE CURRICULUM OR VIEW THINGS THROUGH MAYBE A VIEW THINGS THROUGH MAYBE A DIFFERENCE LENS THAN WE HAVE DIFFERENCE LENS THAN WE HAVE HISTORICALLY AS ATTACKS, AND HISTORICALLY AS ATTACKS, AND THEY SUPPORT THINGS LIKE THE THEY SUPPORT THINGS LIKE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID WITH THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL DID WITH THIS REPORT.

REPORT.

>> MIKE JUST TALKED ABOUT THIS >> MIKE JUST TALKED ABOUT THIS IS NOT LIKE ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS IS NOT LIKE ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS JUST POPPED UP, IT IS A JUST POPPED UP, IT IS A GROWTH -- GROWTH -- >> NO, IT'S A GROWTH -- >> NO, IT'S A GROWTH -- >> IS IT ALL THAT DIFFERENT IN A >> IS IT ALL THAT DIFFERENT IN A WAY FROM THE SORT OF RESPONSE WE WAY FROM THE SORT OF RESPONSE WE SAW TO COMMON CORE A FEW YEARS SAW TO COMMON CORE A FEW YEARS AGO?

AGO?

>> ENGLISH IS THE LANGUAGE OR >> ENGLISH IS THE LANGUAGE OR THE FLAG, OR ANY OF THE OTHER THE FLAG, OR ANY OF THE OTHER HOT BUTTON ISSUES THAT THE HOT BUTTON ISSUES THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WANT TO WHIP REPUBLICAN PARTY WANT TO WHIP UP.

IT IS A JOKE AND INSULT TO UP.

IT IS A JOKE AND INSULT TO OUR FOUNDING FATHERS TO PUT THIS OUR FOUNDING FATHERS TO PUT THIS AS A BILL OF RIGHTS.

THERE IS AS A BILL OF RIGHTS.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT DOCUMENT THAT NOTHING IN THAT DOCUMENT THAT ISN'T ALREADY COMMON PRACTICE.

ISN'T ALREADY COMMON PRACTICE.

PEOPLE GO TO SCHOOL BOARD PEOPLE GO TO SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS, THEY MAKE THEIR MEETINGS, THEY MAKE THEIR FEELINGS KNOWN, THEY RUN FOR THE FEELINGS KNOWN, THEY RUN FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD THEY HAVE A RIGHT SCHOOL BOARD THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT CURRICULUM, ABOUT EDUCATION.

ALL CURRICULUM, ABOUT EDUCATION.

ALL IT IS IS ANOTHER STEPPING STONE IT IS IS ANOTHER STEPPING STONE ON THE PART OF TODD ROKITA TO ON THE PART OF TODD ROKITA TO TRY TO DRIVE HIS PARTY FURTHER TRY TO DRIVE HIS PARTY FURTHER TO THE RIGHT SO THAT HE CAN BE TO THE RIGHT SO THAT HE CAN BE THE NOMINEE FOR GOVERNOR.

THAT'S THE NOMINEE FOR GOVERNOR.

THAT'S ALL THIS IS.

AND IT IS INSULTING ALL THIS IS.

AND IT IS INSULTING TO THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE TO THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE PARENTS OF CHILDREN IN PUBLIC PARENTS OF CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT SCHOOLS.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS BEING CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS BEING TAUGHT IN K-12.

IT'S NOT EVEN TAUGHT IN K-12.

IT'S NOT EVEN HAPPENING.

THE IDEA THAT WE HAPPENING.

THE IDEA THAT WE DON'T DISCUSS RACE IN THIS DON'T DISCUSS RACE IN THIS COUNTRY, I MEAN, DOES ANYBODY COUNTRY, I MEAN, DOES ANYBODY SERIOUSLY THINK THAT THERE SERIOUSLY THINK THAT THERE AREN'T REPERCUSSIONS FROM AREN'T REPERCUSSIONS FROM SLAVERY STILL TO THIS DAY?

SLAVERY STILL TO THIS DAY?

WE SEE IT IN THE POLICE WE SEE IT IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS, WE SEE IT IN THE DEPARTMENTS, WE SEE IT IN THE DISPARITY IN INCOME AND DISPARITY IN INCOME AND EDUCATION, ALL KINDS OF EDUCATION, ALL KINDS OF OPPORTUNITIES.

AND I THINK IN A OPPORTUNITIES.

AND I THINK IN A FREE SOCIETY WE OUGHT TO BE FREE SOCIETY WE OUGHT TO BE DISCUSSING THOSE.

AND NOT ONLY DISCUSSING THOSE.

AND NOT ONLY THAT THEY'RE THERE, BUT NOT THAT THEY'RE THERE, BUT NOT SAYING THAT ANYBODY THAT'S OUT SAYING THAT ANYBODY THAT'S OUT THERE NOW OWNS SLAVES OR IS THERE NOW OWNS SLAVES OR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SLAVERY, BUT RESPONSIBLE FOR SLAVERY, BUT WHAT WE AS A COMMUNITY CAN DO TO WHAT WE AS A COMMUNITY CAN DO TO MAKE THE SITUATION BETTER.

YOU MAKE THE SITUATION BETTER.

YOU DON'T BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND DON'T BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND AND PRETEND IT IS NOT THERE.

IT AND PRETEND IT IS NOT THERE.

IT IS A TODD ROKITA THING IS A TODD ROKITA THING >> CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS IT'S >> CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS IT'S NOT CURRICULUM, NO KID IN NOT CURRICULUM, NO KID IN AMERICA IS GOING FROM PHYSICS TO AMERICA IS GOING FROM PHYSICS TO CRITICAL RACE THEORY TO GYM.

CRITICAL RACE THEORY TO GYM.

>> RIGHT.

>> RIGHT.

>> WHAT MAKES IT A POWERFUL >> WHAT MAKES IT A POWERFUL POLITICAL WEAPON FOR BOTH SIDES POLITICAL WEAPON FOR BOTH SIDES IS THAT IT CAN BE WHATEVER YOU IS THAT IT CAN BE WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE, IS BLACK HISTORY WANT IT TO BE, IS BLACK HISTORY MONTH TEACHING CRITICAL RACE MONTH TEACHING CRITICAL RACE THEORY.

THEORY.

>> YES.

>> YES.

>> IS TALKING ABOUT GEORGE >> IS TALKING ABOUT GEORGE FLOYD'S DEATH, IT'S MALLEABLE, FLOYD'S DEATH, IT'S MALLEABLE, AND IT CAN LITERALLY BE WHATEVER AND IT CAN LITERALLY BE WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE, THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT IT TO BE, THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT SO EFFECTIVE MAKES IT SO EFFECTIVE POLITICALLY.

POLITICALLY.

>> I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN ASKING >> I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN ASKING THIS NOT JUST ON THIS SHOW, BUT THIS NOT JUST ON THIS SHOW, BUT JUST IN GENERAL.

WHAT DOES THIS JUST IN GENERAL.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH BEING THE HAVE TO DO WITH BEING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA?

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA?

>> NOT VERY MUCH.

HE OBVIOUSLY >> NOT VERY MUCH.

HE OBVIOUSLY HAS NO ROLE IN EDUCATION HAS NO ROLE IN EDUCATION CURRICULUM THAT IS THROUGH OUR CURRICULUM THAT IS THROUGH OUR SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, OUR SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, OUR DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

HE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

HE COULD HAVE PUT OUT A SIMPLE COULD HAVE PUT OUT A SIMPLE BROCHURE, MAYBE FIVE OR SIX BROCHURE, MAYBE FIVE OR SIX PAGES EXPLAINING PARENT'S PAGES EXPLAINING PARENT'S RIGHTS, I'M SURE THERE ARE PANTS RIGHTS, I'M SURE THERE ARE PANTS WHO DON'T KNOW THEY CAN GO SEE WHO DON'T KNOW THEY CAN GO SEE THE CURRICULUM.

THERE ARE THINGS THE CURRICULUM.

THERE ARE THINGS HE CAN SAY TO DO THAT.

HE WENT HE CAN SAY TO DO THAT.

HE WENT FURTHER, INSERTED HIS OWN FURTHER, INSERTED HIS OWN OPINION OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY.

OPINION OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY WAY I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY WAY THAT YOU COULD ARGUE HE DIDN'T THAT YOU COULD ARGUE HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

IN THE END, THIS IS DO THAT.

IN THE END, THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE, WHETHER HE'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE, WHETHER HE'S OUT THERE DOING A GROUNDBREAKING OUT THERE DOING A GROUNDBREAKING FOR A LOCAL BUSINESS, OR FOR A LOCAL BUSINESS, OR WHATEVER, IT'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHATEVER, IT'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE THAT HE WANTS TO RUN FOR THAT HE WANTS TO RUN FOR GOVERNOR IN 2024, HE WANTS HIS GOVERNOR IN 2024, HE WANTS HIS NAME IN THE MEDIA, AND HE GOT NAME IN THE MEDIA, AND HE GOT IT.

IT.

>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HIM AS >> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HIM AS THE LEAD TOPIC ON THIS SHOW, IS THE LEAD TOPIC ON THIS SHOW, IS TODD ROKITA THE BIG WINNER HERE?

TODD ROKITA THE BIG WINNER HERE?

>> [LAUGHTER].

>> [LAUGHTER].

>> OH, SO MANY WAYS TO ADDRESS >> OH, SO MANY WAYS TO ADDRESS THIS QUESTION.

THIS QUESTION.

>> OH, WOW.

>> OH, WOW.

>> IF THE QUESTION IS FRAMED IN >> IF THE QUESTION IS FRAMED IN THAT MANNER THAT WAS JUST THAT MANNER THAT WAS JUST DISCUSSED, IS HE GETTING BANG DISCUSSED, IS HE GETTING BANG FOR HIS POLITICAL BUCK?

FOR HIS POLITICAL BUCK?

THAT IS, IS HE GETTING A LOT OF THAT IS, IS HE GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION, A LOT OF PUBLICITY, ATTENTION, A LOT OF PUBLICITY, HEADLINES, THAT WILL RESONATE HEADLINES, THAT WILL RESONATE WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING HIS CORE REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING HIS CORE CONSTITUENCY, AND PERHAPS THE CONSTITUENCY, AND PERHAPS THE MOST ACTIVE WING OF THE -- YES.

MOST ACTIVE WING OF THE -- YES.

AND TO THAT EXTENT, THERE IS NOT AND TO THAT EXTENT, THERE IS NOT A LOT INVESTED IN THAT, IT A LOT INVESTED IN THAT, IT DIDN'T COST HIM ANYTHING, STAFF DIDN'T COST HIM ANYTHING, STAFF TIME TO PUT TOGETHER THIS TIME TO PUT TOGETHER THIS REPORT, THIS TREATISE.

SO, SURE, REPORT, THIS TREATISE.

SO, SURE, FROM THAT STANDPOINT, YES.

I FROM THAT STANDPOINT, YES.

I THINK IT'S -- THE ONLY GAMBLE THINK IT'S -- THE ONLY GAMBLE COMES IN.

THIS SEEMS TO BE THE COMES IN.

THIS SEEMS TO BE THE THRUST RIGHT NOW, THAT THE THRUST RIGHT NOW, THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SEEMS TO BE REPUBLICAN PARTY SEEMS TO BE MOVING RIGHT NOW, FOR ALL THE MOVING RIGHT NOW, FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT MIKE MENTIONED HERE REASONS THAT MIKE MENTIONED HERE AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND SO AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND SO HE IS -- THE EGGS ARE IN THAT HE IS -- THE EGGS ARE IN THAT BASKET, PRESUMING THERE ISN'T BASKET, PRESUMING THERE ISN'T SOME CHANGE, YOU DON'T WANT TO SOME CHANGE, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE OUT THERE, FOR SOME REASON BE OUT THERE, FOR SOME REASON PUBLIC OPINION STARTS SHIFTING, PUBLIC OPINION STARTS SHIFTING, YOU ARE SORT OF SEEN WHAT WERE YOU ARE SORT OF SEEN WHAT WERE YOU DOING OUT THERE ARGUING THIS YOU DOING OUT THERE ARGUING THIS CAUSE CAUSE >> LET ME ASK -- >> LET ME ASK -- >> I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY >> I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN.

I WILL GO BACK GOING TO HAPPEN.

I WILL GO BACK TO MY ORIGINAL ANSWER, YEAH, IN TO MY ORIGINAL ANSWER, YEAH, IN THAT CONSTRUCT, HE'S A WINNER.

THAT CONSTRUCT, HE'S A WINNER.

>> LET ME FOLLOW UP, I AGREE >> LET ME FOLLOW UP, I AGREE WITH YOU GENERALLY THAT -- WELL, WITH YOU GENERALLY THAT -- WELL, ONE, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE ONE, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE PUBLIC OPINION ON CRITICAL RACE PUBLIC OPINION ON CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS GOING TO SHIFT THEORY IS GOING TO SHIFT SUDDENLY BETWEEN 20 AND 2024, SUDDENLY BETWEEN 20 AND 2024, DOES IT REALLY MATTER IF YOU PUT DOES IT REALLY MATTER IF YOU PUT ALL YOUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET AND ALL YOUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET AND THINGS SHIFT?

THINGS SHIFT?

OR PUT IT IN THE PAST, DON'T OR PUT IT IN THE PAST, DON'T TALK ABOUT IT AND MOVE ON TO THE TALK ABOUT IT AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT THING, DOES IT MATTER AS NEXT THING, DOES IT MATTER AS MUCH.

MUCH.

>> YOU SEE, I DIDN'T PUT THAT >> YOU SEE, I DIDN'T PUT THAT OUT, THAT'S WHAT REPUBLICANS DO.

OUT, THAT'S WHAT REPUBLICANS DO.

>> I DON'T THINK IT IS JUST >> I DON'T THINK IT IS JUST REPUBLICANS.

REPUBLICANS.

>> OH, I THINK DONALD TRUMP HAS >> OH, I THINK DONALD TRUMP HAS THE CORNER ON THAT MARKET, AND THE CORNER ON THAT MARKET, AND THEY'RE ALL FOLLOWING HIM.

THEY'RE ALL FOLLOWING HIM.

>> HE'S NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO >> HE'S NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO DID IT.

DID IT.

>> NO, PENCE, A LOT OF THEM.

>> NO, PENCE, A LOT OF THEM.

>> WE USED TO FIND THINGS THAT >> WE USED TO FIND THINGS THAT WERE INCONSISTENCY, LOOK BACK IN WERE INCONSISTENCY, LOOK BACK IN THE POSITION PAPER OF CANDIDATE THE POSITION PAPER OF CANDIDATE XY OR Z, FILL IN THE BLANK, AT XY OR Z, FILL IN THE BLANK, AT ODDS WITH THE POSITION NOW, THAT ODDS WITH THE POSITION NOW, THAT WOULD BE FRONT PAGE, OR AN A WOULD BE FRONT PAGE, OR AN A BLOCK STORY ON TV.

AND GENERALLY BLOCK STORY ON TV.

AND GENERALLY THE PERSON WOULD HAVE TO RESPOND THE PERSON WOULD HAVE TO RESPOND AND EXPLAIN IT AWAY.

AND EXPLAIN IT AWAY.

>> I DIDN'T SAY IT -- >> I DIDN'T SAY IT -- >> YOU'RE RIGHT.

THAT WASN'T AN >> YOU'RE RIGHT.

THAT WASN'T AN OPTION IN THE OLD DAYS.

OPTION IN THE OLD DAYS.

>> MAYBE NOT IN THE OLD DAYS, IT >> MAYBE NOT IN THE OLD DAYS, IT IS NOW, EVEN IF YOU'RE ON TAPE IS NOW, EVEN IF YOU'RE ON TAPE YOU STILL SAY YOU DIDN'T SAY IT.

YOU STILL SAY YOU DIDN'T SAY IT.

>> >> THE NCAA IS FACING INCREASING THE NCAA IS FACING INCREASING PRESSURE TO CHANGE POLICIES PRESSURE TO CHANGE POLICIES FOLLOWING THIS WEEK'S U-S FOLLOWING THIS WEEK'S U-S SUPREME COURT RULING.

THE SUPREME COURT RULING.

THE UNANIMOUS DECISION AGAINST THE UNANIMOUS DECISION AGAINST THE INDIANAPOLIS-BASED ORGANIZATION INDIANAPOLIS-BASED ORGANIZATION COULD CHANGE THE COMPETITIVE COULD CHANGE THE COMPETITIVE FIELD OF COLLEGE RECRUITMENT.

FIELD OF COLLEGE RECRUITMENT.

INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING'S INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING'S SAMANTHA HORTON REPORTS.

SAMANTHA HORTON REPORTS.

>> >> WHILE THE NARROW SUPREME COURT WHILE THE NARROW SUPREME COURT DECISION IS FOCUSED ON DECISION IS FOCUSED ON EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS, IT GIVES EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS, IT GIVES GREATER LEGITIMACY TO THE IDEA GREATER LEGITIMACY TO THE IDEA THAT STUDENT ATHLETES SHOULD BE THAT STUDENT ATHLETES SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROFIT OFF THEIR NAME, ABLE TO PROFIT OFF THEIR NAME, IMAGE AND LIKENESS.

IMAGE AND LIKENESS.

KELLEIGH FAGAN IS A COLLEGE KELLEIGH FAGAN IS A COLLEGE SPORTS LAWYER.

SHE SAYS THE SPORTS LAWYER.

SHE SAYS THE LANDSCAPE OF COLLEGE ATHLETICS LANDSCAPE OF COLLEGE ATHLETICS WILL BECOME EVEN MORE WILL BECOME EVEN MORE COMPLICATED IN ABOUT A WEEK WHEN COMPLICATED IN ABOUT A WEEK WHEN LAWS WILL GO INTO EFFECT IN SOME LAWS WILL GO INTO EFFECT IN SOME STATES THAT WILL ALLOW JUST STATES THAT WILL ALLOW JUST THAT.

THAT.

>> KELLEIGH FAGAN: SO YOU'RE >> KELLEIGH FAGAN: SO YOU'RE CERTAINLY GOING TO SEE THAT CERTAINLY GOING TO SEE THAT UNEQUAL PLAYING FIELD, UNEQUAL PLAYING FIELD, POTENTIALLY, SOME STATES THAT POTENTIALLY, SOME STATES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO NCAA RULES, ... ARE SUBJECT TO NCAA RULES, ...

WHETHER THEY CHANGE BETWEEN NOW WHETHER THEY CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND JULY 1, SOME STATES THAT AND JULY 1, SOME STATES THAT HAVE A STATE LAW, OR SCHOOLS HAVE A STATE LAW, OR SCHOOLS THAT HAVE STATE LAW THAT THEY THAT HAVE STATE LAW THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH.

HAVE TO COMPLY WITH.

>> THE NCAA IS PUSHING FOR >> THE NCAA IS PUSHING FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO SETTLE FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO SETTLE THE ISSUE ONCE AND FOR ALL.

THE ISSUE ONCE AND FOR ALL.

>> >> ANN DELANEY, WILL IT BE FEDERAL ANN DELANEY, WILL IT BE FEDERAL LEGISLATION THAT SETTLES THE LEGISLATION THAT SETTLES THE ISSUE?

ISSUE?

>> WELL, IT EITHER HAS TO BE >> WELL, IT EITHER HAS TO BE FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO SETTLE IT FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO SETTLE IT OR IT HAS TO BE THE NCAA OR IT HAS TO BE THE NCAA STEPPING UP AND RECOGNIZING THAT STEPPING UP AND RECOGNIZING THAT THINGS HAVE EVOLVED OVER THE THINGS HAVE EVOLVED OVER THE YEARS AND THEY NEED TO GET WITH YEARS AND THEY NEED TO GET WITH THE TIMES.

WE HAVE TO HAVE A THE TIMES.

WE HAVE TO HAVE A STANDARD, AND THE STANDARD HAS STANDARD, AND THE STANDARD HAS TO BE REALISTIC.

OTHERWISE WE'RE TO BE REALISTIC.

OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THINGS LIKE IF WE GOING TO HAVE THINGS LIKE IF WE HAD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HAD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE, EXTRACURRICULAR LOUISVILLE, EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES FOR RECRUITS AND ACTIVITIES FOR RECRUITS AND THEIR FATHERS, WE DON'T WANT THEIR FATHERS, WE DON'T WANT THAT CORRUPTION IN COLLEGE THAT CORRUPTION IN COLLEGE SPORTS AND WE DON'T WANT COLLEGE SPORTS AND WE DON'T WANT COLLEGE SPORTS TO BE PROFESSIONAL.

THERE SPORTS TO BE PROFESSIONAL.

THERE IS A LOT OF ROOM WHERE THE NCAA IS A LOT OF ROOM WHERE THE NCAA IS NOW AND WHERE THEY NEED TO BE IS NOW AND WHERE THEY NEED TO BE TO BE IN TOUCH WITH REALITY.

AND TO BE IN TOUCH WITH REALITY.

AND EITHER THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EITHER THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DO IT OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT.

WE IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT.

WE CAN'T DO THIS PIECEMEAL, WARS CAN'T DO THIS PIECEMEAL, WARS BETWEEN KENTUCKY AND INDIANA BETWEEN KENTUCKY AND INDIANA OVER PLACED BASED ON WHETHER OVER PLACED BASED ON WHETHER THEY CAN HAVE SUMMER THEY CAN HAVE SUMMER INTERNSHIPS, OR WHETHER THEIR INTERNSHIPS, OR WHETHER THEIR PARENTS CAN BE FLOWN IN FOR THE PARENTS CAN BE FLOWN IN FOR THE GAMES.

IT HAS TO BE PUT OUT GAMES.

IT HAS TO BE PUT OUT CONSISTENTLY, AND THEY'VE GOT TO CONSISTENTLY, AND THEY'VE GOT TO BE REALISTIC.

THE NCAA MAKES A BE REALISTIC.

THE NCAA MAKES A LOT OF MONEY.

THEY MAKE A LOT OF LOT OF MONEY.

THEY MAKE A LOT OF MONEY, PART OF WHAT THAT MONEY MONEY, PART OF WHAT THAT MONEY IS FOR IS TO HAVE AN APPROACH IS FOR IS TO HAVE AN APPROACH THAT IS TRANSPARENT, PROTECTS THAT IS TRANSPARENT, PROTECTS ATHLETES, AND IT SEEMS TO ME AS ATHLETES, AND IT SEEMS TO ME AS A HAIR SET OF RULES THAT ALL THE A HAIR SET OF RULES THAT ALL THE SCHOOLS CAN AGREE ON.

THAT'S SCHOOLS CAN AGREE ON.

THAT'S WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.

WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.

>> SEEMS TO ME, ANN BROUGHT UP >> SEEMS TO ME, ANN BROUGHT UP TWO WAYS, CHANGE IS COMING, I TWO WAYS, CHANGE IS COMING, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN DISAGREE DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN DISAGREE WITH THAT POINT.

ANN LAID OUT WITH THAT POINT.

ANN LAID OUT TWO WAYS IT COULD GO, FEDERAL TWO WAYS IT COULD GO, FEDERAL LEGISLATION OR THE NCAA STEPS UP LEGISLATION OR THE NCAA STEPS UP AND MAKES CHANGES ON ITS OWN.

AND MAKES CHANGES ON ITS OWN.

THERE ARE ALSO TWO OTHER, MORE THERE ARE ALSO TWO OTHER, MORE COURT ACTION, OR A PATCHWORK OF COURT ACTION, OR A PATCHWORK OF STATE LAWS.

WHICH DO YOU THINK STATE LAWS.

WHICH DO YOU THINK IS THE MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN?

IS THE MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN?

>> WE ALSO HAVE A TWO-STEP >> WE ALSO HAVE A TWO-STEP EVOLUTION OF THIS, TOO.

IN LARGE EVOLUTION OF THIS, TOO.

IN LARGE STEP.

SO THAT THIS DECISION WAS STEP.

SO THAT THIS DECISION WAS FOCUSED ON THE BENEFITS DIRECTLY FOCUSED ON THE BENEFITS DIRECTLY RELATED TO YOUR EDUCATION.

AND RELATED TO YOUR EDUCATION.

AND HOW IS THAT DEFINED, AND EXPAND HOW IS THAT DEFINED, AND EXPAND THAT LIST.

THE NEXT FIGHT WHICH THAT LIST.

THE NEXT FIGHT WHICH THE SUPREME COURT WHO HAD THE SUPREME COURT WHO HAD NOTHING NICE TO SAY ABOUT THE NOTHING NICE TO SAY ABOUT THE NCAA AT ALL.

THEY WENT OUT OF NCAA AT ALL.

THEY WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO COMMENT WHEN THEY THEIR WAY TO COMMENT WHEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO TO CRITICIZE THE DIDN'T HAVE TO TO CRITICIZE THE NCAA.

THE SECOND PIECE OF THIS NCAA.

THE SECOND PIECE OF THIS IS PAYING PLAYERS.

THEY WERE IS PAYING PLAYERS.

THEY WERE PRACTICALLY INSTRUCTING SOMEONE PRACTICALLY INSTRUCTING SOMEONE TO BRING THEM, OR BEGGING TO BRING THEM, OR BEGGING SOMEONE TO BRING THEM A LAWSUIT SOMEONE TO BRING THEM A LAWSUIT SO THEY COULD DECIDE THAT SO THEY COULD DECIDE THAT PLAYERS -- PLAYERS -- >> I'M SHOCKED THAT LAWSUIT >> I'M SHOCKED THAT LAWSUIT HASN'T BEEN FILED ALREADY.

HASN'T BEEN FILED ALREADY.

>> THE MONEY WILL HAVE TO DRIVE >> THE MONEY WILL HAVE TO DRIVE THAT PART.

I THINK YOU CAN THAT PART.

I THINK YOU CAN SURVIVE IN A WORLD WHERE THERE SURVIVE IN A WORLD WHERE THERE IS A PIECEMEAL APPROACH TO THE IS A PIECEMEAL APPROACH TO THE EDUCATION BENEFIT, AND WHAT IS EDUCATION BENEFIT, AND WHAT IS THIS BUCKET OF BENEFITS YOU GET THIS BUCKET OF BENEFITS YOU GET AS A COLLEGE ATHLETE OR THE AS A COLLEGE ATHLETE OR THE ELITE LEVEL.

BUT WHEN THE MONEY ELITE LEVEL.

BUT WHEN THE MONEY COMES IN, THAT WILL DRIVE SOME COMES IN, THAT WILL DRIVE SOME KIND OF STANDARDIZATION.

KIND OF STANDARDIZATION.

>> WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT?

>> WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT?

IF YOU'RE THE 5th PLAYER ON A IF YOU'RE THE 5th PLAYER ON A BASKETBALL TEAM AND THE NUMBER BASKETBALL TEAM AND THE NUMBER ONE PLAYER IS RAKING IN THE ONE PLAYER IS RAKING IN THE MONEY, DO YOU SAY THAT'S GREAT, MONEY, DO YOU SAY THAT'S GREAT, I'M GLAD FOR YOU, OR YOU'RE NOT I'M GLAD FOR YOU, OR YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE BALL FROM ME AGAIN GETTING THE BALL FROM ME AGAIN THE REST OF THE SEASON UNLESS I THE REST OF THE SEASON UNLESS I GET PART OF THAT SHARE.

IT'S GET PART OF THAT SHARE.

IT'S GOING TO REALLY CHANGE THE GOING TO REALLY CHANGE THE DYNAMIC DYNAMIC >> THAT HAPPENS IN PROFESSIONAL >> THAT HAPPENS IN PROFESSIONAL SPORTS.

I THINK THERE IS A SPORTS.

I THINK THERE IS A COUPLE -- COUPLE -- >> WHICH IS WHY WE DON'T WANT >> WHICH IS WHY WE DON'T WANT THAT.

THAT.

>> THE TWO BIGGEST KNOCKS ON >> THE TWO BIGGEST KNOCKS ON COLLEGE BASKETBALL ELITE LEVEL, COLLEGE BASKETBALL ELITE LEVEL, HOW DO YOU RETAIN PLAYERS, WHERE HOW DO YOU RETAIN PLAYERS, WHERE THEY DON'T GO TO THE NBA TO MAKE THEY DON'T GO TO THE NBA TO MAKE MONEY WHEN THEY HAVE TO.

19, 20 MONEY WHEN THEY HAVE TO.

19, 20 YEARS OLD, HOW DO YOU KEEP YEARS OLD, HOW DO YOU KEEP SCHOOLS FROM TRANSFERRING.

YOU SCHOOLS FROM TRANSFERRING.

YOU CAN TAKE CARE OF THAT WITH NEW CAN TAKE CARE OF THAT WITH NEW INCENTIVES AND RULES.

INCENTIVES AND RULES.

>> IS ALL OF THIS PRESSURE WE'RE >> IS ALL OF THIS PRESSURE WE'RE DISCUSSING AND THAT EXISTS, IS DISCUSSING AND THAT EXISTS, IS THE NCAA GOING TO STEP UP AND THE NCAA GOING TO STEP UP AND MAKE REAL CHANGE THAT PEOPLE ARE MAKE REAL CHANGE THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE RELATIVELY SATISFIED GOING TO BE RELATIVELY SATISFIED WITH?

WITH?

OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE FORCED OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE FORCED INTO IT?

INTO IT?

>> I THINK THE ANSWER IS THEY'VE >> I THINK THE ANSWER IS THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN FORCED INTO IT.

ALREADY BEEN FORCED INTO IT.

THIS IS NOT UNFOLDING IN THE THIS IS NOT UNFOLDING IN THE MANNER THAT THE ORGANIZATION MANNER THAT THE ORGANIZATION WOULD HAVE PREFERRED.

OBVIOUSLY.

WOULD HAVE PREFERRED.

OBVIOUSLY.

AND ITS HAND IS BEING PUSHED AND ITS HAND IS BEING PUSHED FURTHER AND MORE QUICKLY BY THE FURTHER AND MORE QUICKLY BY THE EMERGENCE OF THE SIX OR SEVEN EMERGENCE OF THE SIX OR SEVEN STATES THAT HAVE STATE STATUTES STATES THAT HAVE STATE STATUTES ON THIS TOPIC THAT ARE TAKING ON THIS TOPIC THAT ARE TAKING PLACE, GUESS WHAT?

PLACE, GUESS WHAT?

JULY 1, WHICH AS THE CALENDAR JULY 1, WHICH AS THE CALENDAR POINTS OUT ISN'T THAT FAR OFF.

POINTS OUT ISN'T THAT FAR OFF.

THE NCAA ALREADY HAS SUGGESTED THE NCAA ALREADY HAS SUGGESTED IN THIS STILL DRAFT PROPOSAL IN THIS STILL DRAFT PROPOSAL THAT'S CIRCULATING THAT CBS THAT'S CIRCULATING THAT CBS SPORTS AND OTHERS HAVE TALKED SPORTS AND OTHERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT WHICH EFFECTIVELY WAVES ABOUT WHICH EFFECTIVELY WAVES THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY RULES THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY RULES RELATED TO THE USE OF NAME, RELATED TO THE USE OF NAME, IMAGE LIKENESS FOR THE IMAGE LIKENESS FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE IN STATES FORESEEABLE FUTURE IN STATES WHERE THIS OTHERWISE YOU'VE GOT WHERE THIS OTHERWISE YOU'VE GOT COACHES AND ATHLETIC DIRECTORS COACHES AND ATHLETIC DIRECTORS SAYING STAY LAW SAYS THIS, NCAA SAYING STAY LAW SAYS THIS, NCAA SAYS THAT, IT'S DOING WHAT THE SAYS THAT, IT'S DOING WHAT THE ORGANIZATION SEEMS TO BE DOING ORGANIZATION SEEMS TO BE DOING WHAT IT HAS TO DO, AND IS FORCED WHAT IT HAS TO DO, AND IS FORCED TO DO, WAIVING THE RULES IN TO DO, WAIVING THE RULES IN THOSE STATES, A RECOGNITION OF THOSE STATES, A RECOGNITION OF REALITY.

HOW IT COMES UP REALITY.

HOW IT COMES UP WITH -- YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT WITH -- YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT IS SATISFACTORY.

IS SATISFACTORY.

>> ENOUGH.

YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO >> ENOUGH.

YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO DO SOMETHING THAT MAKES DO SOMETHING THAT MAKES EVERYBODY -- EVERYBODY -- >> THEY CAN DO THAT IN A WIDE >> THEY CAN DO THAT IN A WIDE RANGE -- RANGE -- >> THE PROBLEM IS TWO THINGS, >> THE PROBLEM IS TWO THINGS, SPORTS ARE NOT EQUAL IN TERMS OF SPORTS ARE NOT EQUAL IN TERMS OF DRAWING POWER AND THE MONEY THAT DRAWING POWER AND THE MONEY THAT ATHLETES IN THE SPORTS CAN ATHLETES IN THE SPORTS CAN COMMAND, IN PART BECAUSE THE COMMAND, IN PART BECAUSE THE DOLLARS GENERATED, BY SCHOOLS DOLLARS GENERATED, BY SCHOOLS THEMSELVES AREN'T EQUAL.

YOU'VE THEMSELVES AREN'T EQUAL.

YOU'VE GOT TO COME UP WITH A RULE THAT GOT TO COME UP WITH A RULE THAT ALABAMA FOOTBALL AND ANYTHING I ALABAMA FOOTBALL AND ANYTHING I SAY NOW IS GOING TO BE THE SAY NOW IS GOING TO BE THE OPPOSITE, I'M GOING TO OPPOSITE, I'M GOING TO EMBARRASS -- EMBARRASS -- >> A SMALLER SCHOOL, HOW DO YOU >> A SMALLER SCHOOL, HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT SATISFIES THAT IS TOUGH.

SATISFIES THAT IS TOUGH.

>> NCAA IS A REAL BIG DEAL HERE >> NCAA IS A REAL BIG DEAL HERE IN INDIANA.

DOES THE INDIANA IN INDIANA.

DOES THE INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY DIP ITS TOES GENERAL ASSEMBLY DIP ITS TOES INTO THIS AREA, OR DO THEY JUST INTO THIS AREA, OR DO THEY JUST STAY OUT OF IT AND SEE WHAT STAY OUT OF IT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS?

HAPPENS?

>> ON ONE HAND, THEY'RE GOING TO >> ON ONE HAND, THEY'RE GOING TO RESPECT THEM AS THE GOOD RESPECT THEM AS THE GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN THEY ARE, BUT CORPORATE CITIZEN THEY ARE, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IF I, YOU, ON THE OTHER HAND, IF I, YOU, AND PURDUE AND NOTRE DAME AREN'T AND PURDUE AND NOTRE DAME AREN'T GETTING THE ATHLETES BECAUSE GETTING THE ATHLETES BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO ANOTHER STATE, THEY'RE GOING TO ANOTHER STATE, WHERE THEY CAN MAKE MONEY, I WHERE THEY CAN MAKE MONEY, I MEAN THAT'S NOT GOOD.

THAT'S MEAN THAT'S NOT GOOD.

THAT'S CHAOS, AND WE'RE GOING TO CHAOS, AND WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY HAVE THAT FOR PROBABLY PROBABLY HAVE THAT FOR PROBABLY A YEAR.

I MEAN BECAUSE NONE OF A YEAR.

I MEAN BECAUSE NONE OF THIS MOVES FAST.

THIS MOVES FAST.

>> LET'S SEE WHAT MULTI-CLASS >> LET'S SEE WHAT MULTI-CLASS HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL, WE CAN HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL, WE CAN THROW THAT?

THROW THAT?

>> >> TIME NOW FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK.

TIME NOW FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK.

EACH WEEK WE POSE AN EACH WEEK WE POSE AN UNSCIENTIFIC, ONLINE POLL UNSCIENTIFIC, ONLINE POLL QUESTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR QUESTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR ICEMILLER E-MAIL AND TEXT ICEMILLER E-MAIL AND TEXT ALERTS.

ALERTS.

THIS WEEK'S QUESTION: THIS WEEK'S QUESTION: SHOULD THE NCAA ALLOW STUDENT SHOULD THE NCAA ALLOW STUDENT ATHLETES TO MAKE MONEY OFF THEIR ATHLETES TO MAKE MONEY OFF THEIR NAME, IMAGE AND LIKENESS?

NAME, IMAGE AND LIKENESS?

A, YES, B, NO.

A, YES, B, NO.

LAST WEEK'S QUESTION: LAST WEEK'S QUESTION: WILL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WILL THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT EVENTUALLY BE STRUCK DOWN BY THE EVENTUALLY BE STRUCK DOWN BY THE COURTS?

COURTS?

I'M SURPRISED.

THIS LOPSIDED, I'M SURPRISED.

THIS LOPSIDED, 10% SAID YES, 90% NO.

I'M LESS 10% SAID YES, 90% NO.

I'M LESS CONFIDENT.

CONFIDENT.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE PART IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE PART IN THE POLL GO TO WFYI.ORG/IWIR IN THE POLL GO TO WFYI.ORG/IWIR AND LOOK FOR THE POLL.

AND LOOK FOR THE POLL.

SPEAKING OF THE COURTS, SPEAKING OF THE COURTS, FEDERAL COURTS WON'T EXPAND FEDERAL COURTS WON'T EXPAND VOTE-BY-MAIL IN INDIANA ANY TIME VOTE-BY-MAIL IN INDIANA ANY TIME SOON AFTER THE U-S SUPREME COURT SOON AFTER THE U-S SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO HEAR A CASE ON THE REFUSED TO HEAR A CASE ON THE ISSUE TUESDAY.

BUT HOOSIER ISSUE TUESDAY.

BUT HOOSIER VOTE-BY-MAIL ADVOCATES SAY VOTE-BY-MAIL ADVOCATES SAY THEY'RE NOT DETERRED BY THE THEY'RE NOT DETERRED BY THE SETBACK.

SETBACK.

>> >> THE ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION THE ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION INDIANA VOTE BY MAIL SUED THE INDIANA VOTE BY MAIL SUED THE STATE IN AN EFFORT TO LET ANYONE STATE IN AN EFFORT TO LET ANYONE CAST A MAIL-IN BALLOT.

BUT BOTH CAST A MAIL-IN BALLOT.

BUT BOTH THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS RULED AGAINST COURT OF APPEALS RULED AGAINST THEM, BEFORE THE U-S SUPREME THEM, BEFORE THE U-S SUPREME COURT OPTED NOT TO HEAR THE COURT OPTED NOT TO HEAR THE CASE.

CASE.

INDIANA VOTE BY MAIL PRESIDENT INDIANA VOTE BY MAIL PRESIDENT BARBARA TULLY SAYS THE COURT'S BARBARA TULLY SAYS THE COURT'S DECISION DOESN'T CHANGE HER DECISION DOESN'T CHANGE HER ORGANIZATION'S WORK.

ORGANIZATION'S WORK.

>> BARBARA TULLY: IT DOESN'T >> BARBARA TULLY: IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE'LL MEET CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE'LL MEET WITH LEGISLATORS.

IT DOESN'T WITH LEGISLATORS.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE'LL SHOW CHANGE THE FACT THAT WE'LL SHOW UP AT THE STATEHOUSE DURING UP AT THE STATEHOUSE DURING SESSION.

SESSION.

>> >> TULLY SAYS INCREMENTAL STEPS - TULLY SAYS INCREMENTAL STEPS - FOR INSTANCE, EXPANSIONS TO THE FOR INSTANCE, EXPANSIONS TO THE LIST OF REASONS FOR VOTING BY LIST OF REASONS FOR VOTING BY MAIL - ARE THE BEST WAY FORWARD.

MAIL - ARE THE BEST WAY FORWARD.

JON SCHWANTES, ARE THE CHANCES JON SCHWANTES, ARE THE CHANCES OF EXPANDED VOTE BY MAIL ZEROED OF EXPANDED VOTE BY MAIL ZEROED OUT BY THIS DECISION?

OUT BY THIS DECISION?

>> I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO >> I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE ANY EXPANSION ANY TIME SOON, SEE ANY EXPANSION ANY TIME SOON, UNLESS WE SEE THE UNEXPECTED AT UNLESS WE SEE THE UNEXPECTED AT THIS POINT, WHICH WOULD BE THIS POINT, WHICH WOULD BE FEDERAL LAW THAT FORCES THE FEDERAL LAW THAT FORCES THE ISSUE.

AND IN A WAY IT'S ISSUE.

AND IN A WAY IT'S WHAT -- THE ISSUE WE JUST TALKED WHAT -- THE ISSUE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.

THERE ARE SEVERAL TRACKS ABOUT.

THERE ARE SEVERAL TRACKS THAT THIS COULD UNFOLD, FEDERAL THAT THIS COULD UNFOLD, FEDERAL LEGISLATION THAT ANSWERS LEGISLATION THAT ANSWERS QUESTION, JUST LIKE WITH QUESTION, JUST LIKE WITH ATHLETES, TALKING WITH THE ATHLETES, TALKING WITH THE PROPRIETY AND EXPANSIVENESS OF PROPRIETY AND EXPANSIVENESS OF MAIL-IN VOTING ON EVERY STATE AS MAIL-IN VOTING ON EVERY STATE AS OPPOSED TO PIECEMEAL WHICH WE'VE OPPOSED TO PIECEMEAL WHICH WE'VE HAD HISTORICALLY.

OR YOU HAVE HAD HISTORICALLY.

OR YOU HAVE STATES COMING AROUND TO THIS STATES COMING AROUND TO THIS POINT OF VIEW.

THAT'S POINT OF VIEW.

THAT'S NOT -- THAT'S NOT GOING TO NOT -- THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND I DON'T THINK BASED HAPPEN.

AND I DON'T THINK BASED ON WHAT WE'RE SEEING OUT OF ON WHAT WE'RE SEEING OUT OF WASHINGTON WITH THE DIFFICULTY WASHINGTON WITH THE DIFFICULTY OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUSES IN OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUSES IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE AND THE THE HOUSE AND SENATE AND THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND SECURING A WAY TO OVERCOME THE SECURING A WAY TO OVERCOME THE HURDLES SET FORTH BY SENATE HURDLES SET FORTH BY SENATE REPUBLICANS, THAT WE WILL SEE REPUBLICANS, THAT WE WILL SEE FEDERAL LEGISLATION.

ALL OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION.

ALL OF WHICH BRINGS US BACK TO, NO, WHICH BRINGS US BACK TO, NO, UNLIKELY THAT WE WILL SEE UNLIKELY THAT WE WILL SEE MAIL-IN VOTING EXPANSION SOON.

MAIL-IN VOTING EXPANSION SOON.

>> THERE WAS LEGISLATION THAT >> THERE WAS LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HAVE RESTRICTED MAIL-IN WOULD HAVE RESTRICTED MAIL-IN VOTING A LITTLE BIT, OR A LOT A VOTING A LITTLE BIT, OR A LOT A BIT IN SOME CASES.

AND WE DIDN'T BIT IN SOME CASES.

AND WE DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING LIKE THAT PASS, SEE ANYTHING LIKE THAT PASS, UNLIKE SEVERAL OTHER STATES, UNLIKE SEVERAL OTHER STATES, WHICH HAVE GONE THAT DIRECTION WHICH HAVE GONE THAT DIRECTION AFTER THE 2020 ELECTIONS.

SO IN AFTER THE 2020 ELECTIONS.

SO IN THAT WAY, WAS THERE A BIT OF A THAT WAY, WAS THERE A BIT OF A VICTORY THIS YEAR FOR THOSE VICTORY THIS YEAR FOR THOSE ADVOCATES?

ADVOCATES?

>> YEAH, I THINK THE COURTS HAVE >> YEAH, I THINK THE COURTS HAVE MADE CLEAR, IT'S NOT A RIGHT TO MADE CLEAR, IT'S NOT A RIGHT TO VOTE BY MAIL.

YOU HAVE A RIGHT VOTE BY MAIL.

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE, BUT NOT TO VOTE BY TO VOTE, BUT NOT TO VOTE BY MAIL.

THE LEGISLATURE DID TEST MAIL.

THE LEGISLATURE DID TEST THE WATERS ON REELING THAT BACK.

THE WATERS ON REELING THAT BACK.

AND I THINK ADVOCATES MADE THEIR AND I THINK ADVOCATES MADE THEIR PEACE KNOWN, THAT'S THE BEST PEACE KNOWN, THAT'S THE BEST THEY CAN HOPE FOR.

I DON'T SEE THEY CAN HOPE FOR.

I DON'T SEE ANY EXPANSION ANY TIME SOON.

ANY EXPANSION ANY TIME SOON.

>> ALL THE COURT SAID WAS WE'RE >> ALL THE COURT SAID WAS WE'RE NOT GOING TO FORCE YOU TO DO THE NOT GOING TO FORCE YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

THE LEGISLATURE CAN RIGHT THING.

THE LEGISLATURE CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE DO IT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE CONSISTENTLY AT THE BOTTOM OF CONSISTENTLY AT THE BOTTOM OF TURNOUT, THAT'S DELIBERATE, WE TURNOUT, THAT'S DELIBERATE, WE DON'T MAKE IT EASY AND SAFE FOR DON'T MAKE IT EASY AND SAFE FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE BECAUSE PEOPLE TO VOTE BECAUSE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT MORE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE.

BECAUSE IF MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE.

BECAUSE IF MORE PEOPLE VOTE THEN THEY'RE NOT PEOPLE VOTE THEN THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE SUPERMAJORITIES, GOING TO HAVE SUPERMAJORITIES, EVEN WITH THE GERRYMANDERING EVEN WITH THE GERRYMANDERING THEY SO HEARTFULLY HAVE DONE THEY SO HEARTFULLY HAVE DONE WITH COMPUTERS.

AND IT IS WITH COMPUTERS.

AND IT IS AMAZING TO ME, YOU WOULD THINK AMAZING TO ME, YOU WOULD THINK THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IN AN THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IN AN AREA WHERE WE TRADE IDEAS AND AREA WHERE WE TRADE IDEAS AND TRADE PHILOSOPHIES, AND THAT'S TRADE PHILOSOPHIES, AND THAT'S WHAT GAINS VOTES.

THAT'S NOT WHAT GAINS VOTES.

THAT'S NOT WHAT REPUBLICANS ARE DOING, THEY WHAT REPUBLICANS ARE DOING, THEY HAVE NO IDEAS, THEY HAVE A HAVE NO IDEAS, THEY HAVE A PHILOSOPHY, BUT NO IDEAS.

SO PHILOSOPHY, BUT NO IDEAS.

SO THEIR IDEA, THEN, IS TO RESTRICT THEIR IDEA, THEN, IS TO RESTRICT VOTING AS MUCH AS THEY CAN.

AND VOTING AS MUCH AS THEY CAN.

AND I FRANKLY THINK IF THEY COULD GO I FRANKLY THINK IF THEY COULD GO BACK TO WHITE MEN OWNING BACK TO WHITE MEN OWNING PROPERTY, BEING THE ONLY ONES TO PROPERTY, BEING THE ONLY ONES TO VOTE THEY WOULD DO THAT IF THEY VOTE THEY WOULD DO THAT IF THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT.

COULD GET AWAY WITH IT.

>> AS THE FOUNDING FATHER...MY >> AS THE FOUNDING FATHER...MY OWN TRAIN OF THOUGHT THERE FOR A OWN TRAIN OF THOUGHT THERE FOR A SECOND.

THERE WAS VOTE BY SECOND.

THERE WAS VOTE BY MAIL -- MAIL -- >> WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MAIL-IN >> WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MAIL-IN VOTING VOTING >> HAVE BEEN WORKING IN THIS >> HAVE BEEN WORKING IN THIS STATE FOR A WHILE.

THIS WAS NOT STATE FOR A WHILE.

THIS WAS NOT A BRAND-NEW THING, THEY TRIED A A BRAND-NEW THING, THEY TRIED A LAWSUIT, IT IS NOT A NEW LAWSUIT, IT IS NOT A NEW ADVOCATETY POSITION FOR SOME OF ADVOCATETY POSITION FOR SOME OF THESE FOLKS, THERE WAS A MUCH THESE FOLKS, THERE WAS A MUCH BRIGHTER SPOTLIGHT SHOWN LAST BRIGHTER SPOTLIGHT SHOWN LAST YEAR HERE AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY YEAR HERE AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY ON MAIL-IN VOTING, IN A WAY THAT ON MAIL-IN VOTING, IN A WAY THAT REPUBLICANS WERE NOT VERY HAPPY REPUBLICANS WERE NOT VERY HAPPY WITH IT IN A LOT OF PLACES.

DID WITH IT IN A LOT OF PLACES.

DID THE 2020 ELECTIONS MAKE VOTE BY THE 2020 ELECTIONS MAKE VOTE BY MAIL ADVOCATES JOBS MUCH HARDER MAIL ADVOCATES JOBS MUCH HARDER IN INDIANA?

IN INDIANA?

>> MIGHT HAVE BEEN EASIER, WE >> MIGHT HAVE BEEN EASIER, WE ACTUALLY DID IT, HAD AN ALL MAIL ACTUALLY DID IT, HAD AN ALL MAIL ELECTION, IN THE PRIMARY A YEAR ELECTION, IN THE PRIMARY A YEAR AGO, I DON'T HAVE -- I GUESS I'M AGO, I DON'T HAVE -- I GUESS I'M NOT THE PARTY MESSENGER, I DON'T NOT THE PARTY MESSENGER, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MAIL IN.

16 HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MAIL IN.

16 STATES THAT ALLOW IT, IF YOU STATES THAT ALLOW IT, IF YOU HAVE AN EXCUSE, ONE OF EIGHT OR HAVE AN EXCUSE, ONE OF EIGHT OR NINE EXCUSES, YOU'RE NOT IN THE NINE EXCUSES, YOU'RE NOT IN THE COUNTY, WHATEVER, YOU'RE WORKING COUNTY, WHATEVER, YOU'RE WORKING THAT DAY.

THAT WAS FINE BEFORE THAT DAY.

THAT WAS FINE BEFORE WE HAD EARLY VOTING.

NOW WE HAD EARLY VOTING.

NOW IT'S -- IS IT REALLY AN EXCUSE IT'S -- IS IT REALLY AN EXCUSE THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE IN THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE IN THE COUNTY ON ELECTION DAY, THE COUNTY ON ELECTION DAY, WHERE WERE YOU THE LAST 30 WHEN WHERE WERE YOU THE LAST 30 WHEN WE COULD VOTE EARLY.

WE'VE MADE WE COULD VOTE EARLY.

WE'VE MADE THE RESTRICTIONS ON MAIL-IN THE RESTRICTIONS ON MAIL-IN IRRELEVANT OR AT LEAST HARD TO IRRELEVANT OR AT LEAST HARD TO EXPLAIN FROM A POLICY EXPLAIN FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT.

AND I DON'T THINK STANDPOINT.

AND I DON'T THINK ANYTHING CHANGES, THERE IS NO ANYTHING CHANGES, THERE IS NO BACK END AUDIT, I DON'T HAVE A BACK END AUDIT, I DON'T HAVE A SHERIFF KNOCKING ON MY DOOR AND SHERIFF KNOCKING ON MY DOOR AND STRIKING MY MAIL-IN BALLOT.

I STRIKING MY MAIL-IN BALLOT.

I THINK IF WE ALLOWED IT, I DON'T THINK IF WE ALLOWED IT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHANGES IN REAL-LIFE KNOW WHAT CHANGES IN REAL-LIFE IN INDIANA OTHER THAN ELECTED IN INDIANA OTHER THAN ELECTED OFFICIAL -- ELECTION OFFICIALS OFFICIAL -- ELECTION OFFICIALS WOULD BE ABLE TO PROMOTE THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO PROMOTE THAT OPTION.

OPTION.

>> AND MORE VOTES WOULD BE >> AND MORE VOTES WOULD BE COUNTED.

COUNTED.

>> MAYBE.

>> MAYBE.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS OFFICIALLY ENDING THE WORK OFFICIALLY ENDING THE WORK REQUIREMENTS IN INDIANA'S REQUIREMENTS IN INDIANA'S MEDICAID PROGRAM.

THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.

THE REQUIREMENTS HAD NOT BEEN IN REQUIREMENTS HAD NOT BEEN IN EFFECT FOR MONTHS DUE TO A EFFECT FOR MONTHS DUE TO A FEDERAL LAWSUIT.

FEDERAL LAWSUIT.

INDIANA GOT APPROVAL FOR ITS INDIANA GOT APPROVAL FOR ITS WORK REQUIREMENTS - KNOWN AS WORK REQUIREMENTS - KNOWN AS GATEWAY TO WORK - FROM THE TRUMP GATEWAY TO WORK - FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN 2017.

IT WOULD ADMINISTRATION IN 2017.

IT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED SOME HOOSIERS HAVE REQUIRED SOME HOOSIERS USING THE LOW-INCOME HEALTH CARE USING THE LOW-INCOME HEALTH CARE PROGRAM HIP TWO-POINT-OH TO WORK PROGRAM HIP TWO-POINT-OH TO WORK AT LEAST 20 HOURS A WEEK TO AT LEAST 20 HOURS A WEEK TO CONTINUE RECEIVING BENEFITS.

CONTINUE RECEIVING BENEFITS.

BUT A LAWSUIT PROMPTED INDIANA BUT A LAWSUIT PROMPTED INDIANA TO SUSPEND THE WORK REQUIREMENTS TO SUSPEND THE WORK REQUIREMENTS IN 2019.

AND NOW, AFTER A NEW IN 2019.

AND NOW, AFTER A NEW REVIEW BY THE BIDEN REVIEW BY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, THE CENTERS FOR ADMINISTRATION, THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES ARE REVOKING ITS APPROVAL.

ARE REVOKING ITS APPROVAL.

IN A LETTER TO STATE OFFICIALS, IN A LETTER TO STATE OFFICIALS, CMS DIRECTOR CHIQUITA CMS DIRECTOR CHIQUITA BROOKS-LASURE SAYS THE WORK BROOKS-LASURE SAYS THE WORK REQUIREMENTS DO NOT “PROMOTE THE REQUIREMENTS DO NOT “PROMOTE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE MEDICAID OBJECTIVES OF THE MEDICAID STATUTE.” AND SHE EXPRESSES STATUTE.” AND SHE EXPRESSES CONCERN THAT THE REQUIREMENTS CONCERN THAT THE REQUIREMENTS WILL LEAD TO “SUBSTANTIAL” LOSS WILL LEAD TO “SUBSTANTIAL” LOSS OF COVERAGE FOR HOOSIERS.

OF COVERAGE FOR HOOSIERS.

THE STATE CAN APPEAL THE THE STATE CAN APPEAL THE DECISION.

DECISION.

>> >> NIKI KELLY, THE WORK NIKI KELLY, THE WORK REQUIREMENTS HAD BEEN SUSPENDED REQUIREMENTS HAD BEEN SUSPENDED FOR A WHILE.

DOES THIS HAVE ANY FOR A WHILE.

DOES THIS HAVE ANY REAL IMPACT?

REAL IMPACT?

>> NO.

NO ONE WAS EVER -- I >> NO.

NO ONE WAS EVER -- I DON'T THINK WE EVEN EVER STARTED DON'T THINK WE EVEN EVER STARTED THEM.

THEM.

>> I THINK THEY WERE GOING TO >> I THINK THEY WERE GOING TO EXPAND.

EXPAND.

>> SO NO ONE IS IMPACTED >> SO NO ONE IS IMPACTED DIRECTLY.

I THINK IT IS A BIT OF DIRECTLY.

I THINK IT IS A BIT OF A MORAL VICTORY FOR THOSE WHO A MORAL VICTORY FOR THOSE WHO OPPOSED IT.

I THINK IT'S ALSO OPPOSED IT.

I THINK IT'S ALSO ANOTHER REMINDER THAT ELECTIONS ANOTHER REMINDER THAT ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, AND THIS IS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM.

ONE OF THEM.

>> WAS THIS ALWAYS GOING TO >> WAS THIS ALWAYS GOING TO CHANGE AS SOON AS THE DEMOCRATIC CHANGE AS SOON AS THE DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION GOT IN THE WHITE ADMINISTRATION GOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

HOUSE.

>> YEAH, I THINK IT WAS JUST A >> YEAH, I THINK IT WAS JUST A GIVEN.

THE WAIVERS THAT WERE GIVEN.

THE WAIVERS THAT WERE GRANTED BEFORE, BECAUSE THIS WAS GRANTED BEFORE, BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT -- DIDN'T PRESCRIBE THE WORK NOT -- DIDN'T PRESCRIBE THE WORK REQUIREMENTS, THAT WAS A WAIVER REQUIREMENTS, THAT WAS A WAIVER GRANTED TO THE STATES.

THIS IS A GRANTED TO THE STATES.

THIS IS A RETURN TO I HATE TO SAY NORMAL RETURN TO I HATE TO SAY NORMAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO NORMAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO NORMAL ANYMORE.

TO WHAT STATUTE ANYMORE.

TO WHAT STATUTE DESCRIBED AND THE DEMOCRATIC DESCRIBED AND THE DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION I THINK A ADMINISTRATION I THINK A LIKELIHOOD.

LIKELIHOOD.

>> I MENTIONED THAT THE STATE >> I MENTIONED THAT THE STATE CAN APPEAL THAT CAN APPEAL THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY, IS THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVELY, IS THE STATE GOING TO FIGHT THIS?

GOING TO FIGHT THIS?

>> I DON'T KNOW, THE PROBLEM I >> I DON'T KNOW, THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS, THIS IS THE HAVE WITH THIS, THIS IS THE MEDICAID EXPANSION POPULATION MEDICAID EXPANSION POPULATION UNDER OBAMACARE, UNDER THE BRAND UNDER OBAMACARE, UNDER THE BRAND OF HEALTHY INDIANA PLAN.

BUT OF HEALTHY INDIANA PLAN.

BUT WHEN IT WAS SOLD UNDER WHEN IT WAS SOLD UNDER OBAMACARE -- WHEN OBAMACARE WAS OBAMACARE -- WHEN OBAMACARE WAS BEING SOLD AS A LAW, 11 YEARS BEING SOLD AS A LAW, 11 YEARS AGO, OR LONGER, 12 YEARS AGO, IT AGO, OR LONGER, 12 YEARS AGO, IT WAS -- THIS PART OF IT WAS SOLD WAS -- THIS PART OF IT WAS SOLD ON THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE ON THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE WORKING POOR PEOPLE WHO ARE THE WORKING POOR WHO ARE WORKING 40 HOURS A WEEK WHO ARE WORKING 40 HOURS A WEEK OR MORE, MAKING 138% OF FEDERAL OR MORE, MAKING 138% OF FEDERAL POVERTY, NO ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE POVERTY, NO ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE BECAUSE EMPLOYERS PROVIDE IT, BECAUSE EMPLOYERS PROVIDE IT, AND THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT.

WE'RE AND THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT.

WE'RE GOING TO EXPAND MEDICAID FOR GOING TO EXPAND MEDICAID FOR THAT POPULATION OF PEOPLE.

WE THAT POPULATION OF PEOPLE.

WE PUT A WORK REQUIREMENT ON IT AND PUT A WORK REQUIREMENT ON IT AND EVERYBODY FREAKED OUT.

EVERYBODY FREAKED OUT.

>> BECAUSE THE WORK REQUIREMENT.

>> BECAUSE THE WORK REQUIREMENT.

>> THAT POPULATION WHO -- >> THAT POPULATION WHO -- >> BY THE WAY, THESE WORK >> BY THE WAY, THESE WORK REQUIREMENTS WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIREMENTS WOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED TO THE MAJORITY OF APPLIED TO THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO WERE ON THIS.

PEOPLE WHO WERE ON THIS.

>> IT WAS EXACTLY LIKE THE >> IT WAS EXACTLY LIKE THE PARENTS BILL OF RIGHTS.

IT WAS PARENTS BILL OF RIGHTS.

IT WAS ONE OF THESE HOT BUTTON ISSUES ONE OF THESE HOT BUTTON ISSUES THAT REPUBLICANS COULD ALL RALLY THAT REPUBLICANS COULD ALL RALLY BEHIND SAYING PEOPLE ARE BEHIND SAYING PEOPLE ARE QUITTING THEIR JOBS JUST SO THEY QUITTING THEIR JOBS JUST SO THEY CAN GET SICK AND GET ON CAN GET SICK AND GET ON MEDICAID.

THINK ABOUT THAT FOR MEDICAID.

THINK ABOUT THAT FOR AN ARGUMENT.

IT WAS RIDICULOUS AN ARGUMENT.

IT WAS RIDICULOUS IN THE BEGINNING.

IN THE BEGINNING.

>> WE DID THE OPPOSITE IN >> WE DID THE OPPOSITE IN INDIANA, IF YOU GOT TO 138% AND INDIANA, IF YOU GOT TO 138% AND GET A RAISE AND GET TO 140% AND GET A RAISE AND GET TO 140% AND WE MADE IT EASIER TO STAY ON WE MADE IT EASIER TO STAY ON MEDICAID, YOU COULD BUY YOUR MEDICAID, YOU COULD BUY YOUR WAY -- WE WANTED PEOPLE TO EARN WAY -- WE WANTED PEOPLE TO EARN MORE -- MORE -- >> IF AND WHEN A REPUBLICAN >> IF AND WHEN A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION TAKES THE WHITE ADMINISTRATION TAKES THE WHITE HOUSE, DOES THIS GO RIGHT BACK HOUSE, DOES THIS GO RIGHT BACK IN?

IN?

>> IT COULD.

I MEAN BUT, YEAH, >> IT COULD.

I MEAN BUT, YEAH, IT WOULD PROBABLY STILL BE IN IT WOULD PROBABLY STILL BE IN COURT.

COURT.

>> WELL THAT'S INDIANA WEEK IN >> WELL THAT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW.

REVIEW.

OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT ANN OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY REPUBLICAN MIKE O'BRIEN DELANEY REPUBLICAN MIKE O'BRIEN JON SCHWANTES OF INDIANA JON SCHWANTES OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS.

LAWMAKERS.

AND NIKI KELLY OF THE FORT WAYNE AND NIKI KELLY OF THE FORT WAYNE JOURNAL GAZETTE.

JOURNAL GAZETTE.

IF YOU'D LIKE A PODCAST OF THIS IF YOU'D LIKE A PODCAST OF THIS PROGRAM YOU CAN FIND IT AT PROGRAM YOU CAN FIND IT AT WFYI.ORG/IWIR OR STARTING MONDAY WFYI.ORG/IWIR OR STARTING MONDAY YOU CAN STREAM IT OR GET IT ON YOU CAN STREAM IT OR GET IT ON DEMAND FROM XFINITY AND ON THE DEMAND FROM XFINITY AND ON THE WFYI APP.

WFYI APP.

I'M BRANDON SMITH OF INDIANA I'M BRANDON SMITH OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

JOIN US NEXT TIME BECAUSE A LOT JOIN US NEXT TIME BECAUSE A LOT CAN HAPPEN IN AN INDIANA WEEK.

CAN HAPPEN IN AN INDIANA WEEK.

♪♪ ♪♪ >> INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS, AND BY ICE MILLER.

STATIONS, AND BY ICE MILLER.

ICE MILLER IS A FULL SERVICE LAW ICE MILLER IS A FULL SERVICE LAW FIRM COMMITTED TO HELPING FIRM COMMITTED TO HELPING CLIENTS BUILD, GROW AND PROTECT CLIENTS BUILD, GROW AND PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS.

THEIR INTERESTS.

MORE AT ICEMILLER.COM.

MORE AT ICEMILLER.COM.

THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE PANELISTS.

SOLELY THOSE OF THE PANELISTS.

"INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW" IS A "INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW" IS A WFYI PRODUCTION IN ASSOCIATION WFYI PRODUCTION IN ASSOCIATION WITH INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING WITH INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS.