>>> ALLOWING UTILITIES TO RECOVER MORE COSTS FROM CUSTOMERS.

EXPANDING THE "DON'T SAY GAY" BILL.

PLUS ADDING VOTER ID TO ABSENTEE VOTING AND MORE.

FROM THE TELEVISION STUDIOS AT WFYI, IT'S INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THE WEEK ENDING MARCH 24, 2023.

>>> INDIANA INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATIONS.

>>> THIS WEEK GOVERNOR ERIC HOLCOMB SIGNED A BILL INTO LAW THAT COULD UNDO THE EFFECT OF ANARCH SUPREME COURT DECISION OVER DUKE ENERGY'S COAL ASH WASTE.

INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING'S REBECCA THIELE REPORTS ALLOWING YULES TO RECOVER UP EXPECTED COSTS FROM CUSTOMERS WAS PUT INTO THE BILL JUST IT EIGHT DAYS AGO.

THE COST TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL RULES WAS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN IT THOUGHT SO THE UTILITY ASKED IF IT COULD RAISE RATES IN 2018.

THE REGULATORY COMMISSION APPROVED THE INCREASE.

THE REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE ED SOLIDAY SAYS THE COURT SHOULD HAVE DEFERRED TO THE AGENCY.

HE AUTHORED A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE BILL SIMILAR TO ONE HE PROPOSED IN HOUSE.

THE NEW LAW LETS UTILITIES RECOVER THE EXTRA COSTS FROM COMPLYING WITH FEDERAL RULES WITHOUT PRE'S RULE OF LAW FIRST.

CONSUMER ADVOCATES WORRY THIS WILL MEAN HIGHER ELECTRIC BILLS FOR RESIDENT AND BUSINESS AND SOLIDAY SAYS THIS ARE FIVE CASES THAT COULD BE IMPACTED BY THE LAW BUT HOW THE IURC WILL RESPOND ISN'T CLEAR RIGHT NOW.

>> ARE LAWMAKERS TAKING A BALANCED APPROACH?

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

DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY, REPUBLICAN MIKE O'BRIEN, JON SCHWANTES, HOST OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS, AND OSEYE BOYD, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE.

I'M INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATE HOUSE BUREAU CHIEF BRANDON SMITH.

AND THIS GIVES DEAF RESIDENCE ORTHOINDIANA REGULATORY COMMISSION.

ISN'T THAT WHERE IT SHOULD BE?

>> LET'S SOMETHING STRAIGHT, THE SUPER MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONTROLLED BY THE UTILITY COMPANIES AND IT STILL IS.

THIS BILL IS A MISTAKE.

WHEN YOU HAVE ISSUES -- FIRST OF ALL THIS ISN'T AN EMERGENCY.

THE COAL ASH HAS BEEN ACCUMULATING FOR DECADES.

THE REGULATIONS COME DOWN, THE WAY TO HANDLE THIS IS USE THE EXPERTISE OF THE REGULATORY COMMISSION UP FOR A MOMENT AND HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON WHAT'S THE MOST MIGHT BELY SENSIBLE APPROACH AND THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSIBLE APPROACH NOT A RETRO ACTIVELY WE SPEND MORE THAN WE HAD AND AL YOU NEED TO MAKE US WHOLE.

THAT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF USE THE EXPERTISE OF THE REGULATORY COMMISSION AND IT'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE FACT THE SUPERMAJORITY IS CONTROLLED BY THE UTILITIES.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS A GOOD BILL.

I DON'T THINK THIS PUTS THE OF THE CONSUMERS AHEAD OF THE UTILITYINGS OR BALANCE IT.

IT GIVES PREFERENCE TO THE UTILITIES, WHAT ARE BALD DECISION THEY MADE THAT COST SO MUCH, THE CONSUMERS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

>> I'M NOT GOING TO SAY A BAD DECISION BUT FEDERAL LAW SAYS THEY HAVE TO GET RID OF THIS STUFF.

THEY LAID OUT A PLAN FOR THE IURC TO DO IT AND IT COST MORE THAN THEY PLANNED.

IS IT RIGHT TO CHARGE CONSUMERS MORE?

>> I THINK FOR THE UTILITIES -- ON A SIMILAR ISSUE IS THAT ABSENTED THAT YOU'RE JUST GUESSING SO WHAT -- FORGET THAT IT'S COAL ASH AND IT'S DUKE, IT HAPPENS TO BE DUKE AND THE COAL ASH MANDATE THAT CAME FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT DUKE HAS TO COMPLY WITH.

I WOULD COULD BE ANY OTHER UTILITY SO WHEN THE FEDERAL MANDATE STATUTE PASSED WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE SUPERMAJORITIES BY THE WAY -- >> STILL CONTROLLED BY THE SUPERMAJORITY.

>> WE DIDN'T HAVE SUPERMAJORITIES.

WHEN THE FEDERAL MANDATE BILL PASSED IT INTENDED WHAT SENATE BILL NINE TRIES TO REESTABLISH THIS IS THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF RECOVERING NOT JUST THE ACTUAL -- THE ACTION THE MANDATE IS REQUIRING BUT THE PLANNING TO PEREMPTORY IT TO THE IURC WHETHER THOSE ARE LEGAL FEES OR ENGINEERING FEES SO THAT WAS ALWAYS THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT LAW DOESN'T ALLOW THAT, AND SO THIS IS A IF I CAN TO DO THAT SO THERE ARE ARGUMENTS IS WE SHOULDN'T DO IS THIS WHEN THERE IS PENDING LEGISLATION.

THERE'S ALWAYS PENDING LITIGATION, THERE'S ALWAYS LITIGATION IN THESE RATE DECISIONS AND THAT'S ON PURPOSE.

>> YOU NEVER KNOW THAT.

>> THE COURT CAN'T TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

>> NO BUT YOU'RE SAYING THE REASON THEY HAVE TO GO BACK CAN CHANGE IT IS THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT.

>> OF COURSE WE CAN, THAT'S HOW THE INDUSTRY IS OPERATING AND THEN THEY WERE SUED AND HEN THE SUPREME COURT SAID NO THE LAW DOESN'T ALLOW THAT.

>> I WANT TO ASK ABOUT A SEPARATE PART OF THE BILL.

THIS WAS JUST ADDED EIGHT DAYS AGO AND THAT'S INTERESTING BUT I WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE ORIGIN FALL BILL WHICH GOES THE OTHER WAY IN WHAT WE'RE STARTING TO SEE THERE FROM UTILITY COMPANIES IS THEY ARE RETIRING COAL FIREPOWER PLANTS AND THAT'S THE WAY THE INDUSTRY IS GOING.

SOME OF THEM ARE TRYING THE RETIRE THEM SOONER THAN THEY PLANNED AND THEY'RE TODAYSING THE HIGHER COSTS AS A RESULT AND THE LEGISLATURE SAYS% YOU CAN'T GET THOSE COSTS BACK FROM CONSUME EASY, SO IS THERE BALANCE BETWEEN UTILITY AND CONSUMERS?

>> WHENEVER YOU TALK ABOUT THEE KIND OF ISSUE IT IS THIS IS A MULTITIER PROPPING.

PROPOSITION.

AND WHETHER YOU WANT LEVEL ONE, LEVEL TWO, LEVEL THREE THE TALK ABOUT.

FORGET THE CLOUT FOR INSTANCE OF PUBLICLY HELD UTILITIES, ELECTRICAL PROVIDERSst THERE'S A CLOUD ALSO STILL IN THE STATE OF COAL MINES AND OPERATORS, THAT'S A POWERFUL FORCE.

YES THERE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY FORCE TOO BUT PROBABLY NOT AS -- CERTAINLY DOESN'T HAVE THE TRADITIONAL KIND OF CLOUT AS WE'VE SEEN HISTORICALLY.

SO THERE ARE SO MANY LEVELS TO THIS AND I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE WE WANT TO ADDRESS, BUT CLEARLY YOU COULD SAY THAT THIS BILL IS BALANCED AND THAT IT'S A -- ONE IS A VICTORY FOR CONSUMERS, IF YOU WANT TO CONSTRUE IT THAT WAY AND ANOTHER PART OF THE BILL IS A VICTORY FOR YOU KNOW, THEE POWER COMPANIES BUT I IT DOESN'T DO JUSTICE TO THIS BILL.

IN THE END, THIS STATE HAS BEEN KIND TO ITS UTILITIES AND PERHAPS FOR GOOD REASON.

THEY WANT STABLE RELIABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY AND IT SEEMS THATTED PATTERN IS CONTINUING, GOES DESPITE THE SECOND PART OF THE BILL.

>>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ORIGINAL PART OF THE BILL BECAUSE REPUBLICANS IN THE STATE HOUSE SAY UTILITYINGS KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING, EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES THE RETIRING COAL PLANTSES WHICH THE LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN PUSHING BACK AGAINST FOR A WHILE AND THIS IS THE LATEST OF THEM DOING THAT.

IT'S NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T BUT IF YOU DO AND IT COSTS YOU MORE MONEY WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET YOU RECOVER THE COSTS FROM YOUR CONSUMEERS THAT.

PRO-CONSUMER OR ANTI-ENVIRONMENT OR HONESTLY A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH?

>> PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH.

I THINK IT'S FAIR.

I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THIS AS A CONSUMER.

ALL THE POLICY STUFF MATTERS BUT TO ME THE REGULAR ELECTRIC USER PAY MY BILL, I DON'T CARE ABOUT ALL THAT STUFF, I JUST WANT TO KNOW IS MY BUILT BILL GOING UP AND WHY AND THAT'S ALL RAVEL REALLY CARE ABOUT, SO THE ARGUMENT IS IS IT GOING TO BENEFIT ME AND IT SEEMS LIKE FROM THE CONSUMER'S PERSPECTIVE IT'S GOING TO BENEFIT THE ELECTRIC COMPANIES AND WE ARE HELD CONTAMINANTIVE BY THESE COMPANIES BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE ONE COMPANY YOU CAN GO TO FOR YOUR POWER, YOU DON'T GET TO CHOOSE SO I HAVE TO SUCK IT UP AND IF IT SAYS I HAVE TO GO BACK AND PAY I HAVE TO PAY THAT OR I DON'T HAVE POWER.

THERE'S NOT A LOT OF US GOING OFF THE GRID SO IT SEEMs LIKE THERE CAN NEVER BE THIS ACTUAL CAN WE DO ALL THE LEVELS, CAN WE ACTUALLY TAKE CARE OF ALL THE LEVELED A ONCE.

DO WE HAVE TO ATTACK ONE LEVEL AT A TIME.

CAN WE CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, CAN WE CARE ABOUT THE CONSUMER, CAN WE HAVE THE ELECTRIC COMPANY, CAN THEY STILL SUSTAIN AND BE IN INDIANA AND OPERATE.

HOW DO WE MAKE ALL THESE THINGS WORK AND WE NEVER SEEM TO HAVE EVERYTHING WORKING TOGETHER.

>> TIME FOR VIEWER FEEDBACK.

EACH WEEK WE POST AN ONLINE POLL QUESTION AND THIS WEEK'S QUESTION IS IS DO YOU THINK THE INDIANA GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS DOING ENOUGH TO ADDRESS RISING UTILITY BILLS?

A.

YES.

B.

NO.

LAST WEEK'S QUESTION IS SHOULD INDIANA PUT CAMERAS IN CONSTRUCTION ZONES?

ACHE PERCENT OF YOU SAY YES AND 20 PERCENT SAY NO.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE PART THIS THE POLL GO TO WFYI.ORG/IWIR.

RESEARCH LAWMAKERS PATHED A BILL THIS WEEK THAT REQUIRE TEACHERS TO NOTIFY PARENTS IF STUDENTS REQUEST A NAME TITLE OR PRONOUN CHANGE IN THE CLASSROOM.

INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING'S VIOLET REPORTS THE AMENDED LEGISLATION ALSO ADDRESSES OTHER ISSUES UNDER THE BANNER OF PARENTS RIGHTS.

>> THE AMENDED BILL WOULD REQUIRE TEACHERS TO TELL PARENT IF A STUDENT REQUESTS TO CHAIN THEIR NAME O PRONOUNS INCLUDING NICKNAMES AND CHIEF CHANGES NOT RELATED TO GENDER EXPRESSION.

MANY THAT TESTIFIED EXPRESSED COP FUSION ABOUT THIS CHANGE INCLUDING SENATOR SHELLI YODER WHO SAID HER RELIGION WILL CONVINCE HER TO GO AGAINST THE LAW AND USE THE CHANGE NAMES IN PRONOUNS CHILDREN REQUEST.

>> I HAVE A DEEPLY HELD RELIGIOUS CONVICTION TO SEE CHILDREN IN THEIR FULL HUMANITY.

>> THE BILL MAIN TODAYS THE RESTRICTIONS ON TEACHING HUMAN SEXUALITY SENDING THE LIMITATION FROM PREKINDERGARTEN UP UNTIL THIRD GRADE.

THE BILL NOW HEADS TO THE FULL SENATE.

>> MIKE O'BRIEN, IF YOU WESTERN TO A TEACHER AND SAID I WANT TO BE CALLEDDED MIKE INSTEAD OF MICHAEL WHICH I IMAGINE IS A CONVERSATION YOU HAD ONCE IN YOUR LIFE THAT THE TEACHER NOW HAS TO GIVE PARENTAL CONSENT.

>> IF YOU WANT TO REDUCE IT TO ITS MOST RIDICULOUS APPLICATION -- >> I LOOK AT THIS TWO WAYS.

YOU LISTEN TO THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY IN THEIR TESTIMONY AND YOU'RE OUTING THESE KIDS.

THESE KIDS ARE GOING TO TRUSTING ADULTS AND THAT PUTS THEM AT RISK.

ON THE OTHER HAPPENED AS A PARENT I LOOK AT THIS -- I'VE GOT TWO TEENAGERS AND A TEN-YEAR-OLDS AND I'VE BEEN VERY PRO-ACTIVE ABOUT BEING SEX POSITIVE AND HAVING AN OPEN CONVERSATION, THINKING IF YOU SEW THE SEATS EARLY ON -- I'M NOT EXPLAINING SETBACKS TO MY DAUGHTER WHEN SHE'S ON HER WAY THE DOOR THE PROM.

BUT IF MY DAUGHTER WENT TO SOMEBODY THIS THE SCHOOL AND SAID I'M HAVING REAL QUESTIONS OR A.M.

STRUGGLING WITH OR THEY OVERHEAR HIM OR HER TALKING TO A FRIEND AND THEY HUNG THEMSELVES AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHEN I COULD HAVE RALLIED THE RESOURCES AND BEEN THAT FOR THAT -- ROUNDED OUT THE OTHER HALF OF THAT CONVERSATION OR THEIR LIFE IS PARKING LOT PART AT SCHOOL AND PART AT HOME I WOULD BE FURIOUS THAT I DIDN'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE I THINK THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT WE HAVE TO PROTECT THESE KIDS FROM THEIR HILLBILLY DADS WHEN THEY BEAT THE HELL OUT OF THEM WHEN THEY GO HOME AND SAY I'M GAY.

SO I STRUGGLE WITH THIS BILL WHEN ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED WHO UNDERSTAND THE DYNAMICS IN A MORE COLOR IT FEEL WAY IN A MORE DYNAMIC WAY, THEY KNOW THE PARENTS SO THEY KNOW -- IF MY KID GOES TO A SCHOOL COUNSELOR, THEY SAY I ENCOURAGE YOU TO TALK TO YOUR DAD BUT YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE THAT CONVERSATION OR THE REACTIONS SYSTEMICALLY THROUGH THAT.

>> I THINK THERE IS GENUINE PUSH AND PULL HERE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT EVERYBODY INVOLVEDDED IN BACKING THIS BILL HAS THAT SAME GENUINE.

>> REALLY?

>> BUT I THINK THERE'S A GENUINE WE WANT PARENTS TO BE INVOLVED A LOT OF TIME, NOT IN EVERY CASE BUT A LOT OF TIME WE NEED PARENTS TO BE INVOLVED FOR KIDS TO BE AS HEALTHY AS THEY CAN.

>> YOU CAN'T LEGISLATED THAT, YOU HAVE TEACHERS AND COUNCILOR WHO PRESUME MRI KNOW THE CHILD AND HAVE SOME EXPERINCE WITH THE FAMILY AND WILL SAY TO THE CHILD YOU NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH YOUR PARENTS ABOUT THIS OR WHETHER IT'S RISKY FOR THE CHILD THEY'LL THOUGH THAT, AND LEGISLATING THIS IS T A EXAM OF THE REPUBLICANS TRYINGS TO HAVE A GROUP OF PEOPLE THEY CAN BEAT UP ON TO FIRE SEVEN THEIR BASE SO SHOW THEY'RE REALLY TOUGH ON GAYS AND TOUGH ON TRANSGENDER AND THE THEY CAN BULLY THEM AND IT'S SENSELESS.

YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE THIS.

EITHER THE PARENTS HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR CHILD OR THEY DON'T, AND I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT YOU GET A CHILD TO THE TEENAGE YEARS WITH RESPONSIBLE PARENTS THAT DON'T HAVE SOME IDEA ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON.

IT'S OBVIOUS, AND THEY'LL KNOW THAT.

AND IF THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE PARENTS THEY'LL DEAL WITH IT AND IF THEY'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE READS YOU'RE EXPOSING THOSE KIDS TO RISK FOR POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.

>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS BILL THIS THE COMMITTEE IN THE ORIGINAL BILL SAID THE SAME PARENTAL NOTIFICATION STUFF IF A KID GOES TO A TEACHER AND SAYS I WANT YOU TO CALL ME THIS NAME INSTEAD BUT IT WAS ONLY PARENTAL NOTIFICATION IF THAT CHANGE WAS BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT DIFFERED FROM THE GENDER THEY WERE BORN WITH.

SO IT WAS CLEARLY TARGETED AT TRANSGENDER YOUTH.

THIS DOES NOT TARGET TRANSGENDER YOUTH EXPLICITLY BUT IT OPENS IT UP TO THESE RIDICULOUS SCENARIOS SO DOES IT TARGET TRANS KIDS BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE GOING TO SENT A NOTE HOME EVERY TIME JOHNNY WANTS TO BE JOHN OR JANE?

>> IT'S STUPID BECAUSE IT IS TARGETING TRANS KID THIS IS A WAY AT A WE'RE GOING TO GET AROUND IT AND I SAID EXPLICITLY.

THAT'S THE TRICK, RIGHT?

SO THAT YOU CAN OUT THESE KIDS OR YOU CAN -- AND WE HAVE THIS LINE, AND THIS IS NOT AN EASY -- WE SHOULDN'T EXPLOITED THIS, WE'VE ALREADY SAID IT.

IT'S NOT AN EASY THING FOR PARENT.

AS A PARENT I WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH ANY CHILD.

I WOULDN'T WANT SOMEONE KNOWING ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON WITH MY CHILD AND I DON'T AND I WOULD BE OFFENDED IF YOU KNEW AND YOU CAN'T TELL ME BUT NOT EVERY PARENT CHILD SITUATION IS THE SAME.

NOT EVERY KID IS SAFE AT HOPEFUL AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE KNOT THINKING AWE ABOUT AND THAT'S WHAT A APPALLING AND IT'S VERY ANTI-TRANS.

WHY DO YOU WANT THE BULLY THESE KIDS?

THEY'RE KIDS SO TO YOUR POINT -- SORRY I KIND OF WENT OFF, BUT TO YOUR POINT IT IS A WAY TO GET AROUND BECAUSE HOW MANY OF US HAVE GONE TO SCHOOL AND HAD A PEER SAY DON'T CALL ME SAMANTHA, CALL ME SAM.

SO ARE WE SAYING THAT'S.

>> WELL IT'S ANY CHANGE.

>> THE THE NOTION OF SELF IDENTIFICATION OR HOW YOU WANT OTHERS TO REFER TO YOU IS AN ODD BEGINNING.

WHAT SEPARATES THAT FROM A CHECKLIST THAT SAYS WHAT KIND OF GAYS IS YOUR STUDENT LOOKING AT MALES OR FEMALES?

IS THERE APP INTERESTING WALK?

IS THERE SOME SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR OF CLOTHING OR A RAINBOW IT BUTTON OR DID SOMEBODY SEEM TO BE STANDING TOO CLOSE TO SOMEBODY ELSE?

WHEN DO WE GET INTO THE REALM OF BEHAVIORAL THINGS -- ONE OTHER WRINKLE I WILL INTRODUCE THAT PERHAPS -- WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT HERE BUT IT'S BEEN LITIGATED IN OTHER STATES WHERE IF YOU SAY I WANT TO BE REFERRED TO BY THIS PRONOUN THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN TO ALIGN WITH MY BIOLOGICAL BIRTH GENDER COULD YOU REPEATS HAVE FOUND THAT THE PROFESSORS AND THAT WAS ELECTED AT A POST-SECONDARY LEVEL, AT A MAY HAVE BEEN THE RELIGIOUS SENSIBILITIES OF THE TEACHER WHO WANTS TO REFER TO SAMANTHA -- >> AND THAT'S IN THIS BILL TOO AND I THINK SHELLY GOAD YODER RAISES AN INTERESTING POINT WELL THAT'S SOME RELIGIONS AND THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHOSE RELIGIONS WHO TELL THEM THEY'RE GOING TO CALL THAT KID WHAT THE KID WANTS TO BE CALLED.

>> HOW DOES THAT OFFEND ME BY CALLING YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO BE CALLED?

>> UNDERSTAND MRI THE LEGISLATURE IS REACTING TO THE SHEER VOLUME OF THIS, THE VOLUME OF KIDS IDENTIFYING AS TAX REFORM AS TRANSGENDER AS -- >> WHICH IS STILL MINUTE.

>> BUT IT'S MORE THAN IT'S EVER BEEN BUT IT'S ALSO CONFUSING AT 16 AND 15 -- OR 43 BUT IT'S HARD TO BE A TEENAGER COMING OF ABLE THAT WAY BUT IT'S ALSO NEVER BEEN MORE OKAY TO GO I DON'T KNOW HOW I FEEL AND OPENLY HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS IN SOCIETY BUT -- AND THE LEGISLATURE IS TRYING TO PUT THAT BACK IN THE BOX AND I DON'T EVEN HOW YOU DO IT.

>>> AS A COMEDIAN REFERRED TO IT SARCASTICALLY THESE TRANSGENDER KIDs IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS HAVE HAD IT TOO GOOD FOR TOO LONG.

>> THE SENATE COMMITTEE REJECTED AN EFFORT TO ALLOW ANYONE TO VOTE ABSENTEE BY MAIL IN INDIANA.

>> THE BILL REQUIRES VOTERS WHO MAIL IN AN APPLICATION TO VOTE BY MAIL TO INCLUDE EITHER THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSE, STATE ID OR VOTING NUMBER OR A PHOTO COPY OF A PHOTO ID THEY CAN USE FOR VOTING.

REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE TIM WESCO SAYS HIS BILL EXTENDS VOTER ID RECENTS USED FOR IN PERSON VOTING TO VOTING BY MAIL.

>> I'VE LONG FELT THE PROCESS OF SIMPLY MATCHING SIGNATURES AS THE MEANS OF VERIFYING THE AWE THENTY IT ISTY OF A BALLOT APPLICATION IS INSUFFICIENT >>> DEMOCRATS ON THE SAYING THE BILL CREATES AN UNNECESSARY HURDLE BUT MAJOR JD FORD SAYS IF THEIR GOING TO ADD THIS AREA THEN VOTE BY MAIL SHOULD BE OPEN TO EVERYONE.

HE PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE THE EXCUSES NEEDED TO CAST A MAIL IN BALLOT.

>> I'M ASKING WHY THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS KNOW.

>> REPUBLICANS REJECTED FORD'S PROPOSAL WITHOU EXPLANATION.

>> JON SCHWANTES IN THE STATE HAS BEEN DOING VOTER ID LAW LONGER THAN MOST STATES IN THE COUNTRY.

DOES IT MAKES SENSE TO APPLY THE VOTER BEYOND REASONABLE ID LAW TO ABSENTEE BALLOTS?

>> I GUESS YOU COULD SAY YES, SINCE 2005 -- AND THIS WAS LITIGATEDDED -- INDIANA WAS ONE OF THE FIRST AND IN FACT IT WAS A TEST CASE THAT WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT, I'VE HEARD IT ARGUED YES LET'S TREAT IT THE SAME BECAUSE EVERYONE GETS ONE VOTE BUT AGAIN THIS IS THE FIRST ISSUE WE TALKED ABOUT, IS THIS AN ATTEMPT TO DISSUADE OR DISCOURAGE CERTAIN PEOPLE FROM VOTING AND THE ARGUMENT THERE IS OF COURSE IT MIGHT BE MORE DIFFICULT FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH LIMITED INCOME WHO HAVE DISABILITIES WHO ARE MORE -- YOU KNOW, OLDER SIMPLY OR HAVE SOME SORT OF IN CAPACITY TO GET THE NECESSARY ID OR TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S -- YOU KNOW, ALL THE TS ARE CROSSED AND THE I THINKS ARE DOTTED.

THAT'S ANOTHER ARGUMENT.

AGAIN WE COULD HAVE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS.

>> THE REASON IS TO DEPRESS THE VOTE.

THERE'S NEVER BEEN VOTER FRAUD ON ABSENTEE BALLOTS.

>> IT'S NOT YOUR TURN THOUGH.

>> I DON'T CARE.

>> WE'RE TRYING THE EXTEND THE LOGICAL ARGUMENT -- >> IT'S NOT LANGUAGE LOGICAL.

>> IF YOU GO TO THE AVERAGE VOTER WHEN YOU GO TO VOTE IN PERSON YOU HAVE TO SHOW YOUR ID.

IF YOU'RE CASTING A BALLOT BY MAIL YOU SHOULD HAVE TO PROVE SOMEHOW WHETHER IT'S A PHOTO COPE YOU SHOULD HAVE TO DO THAT.

I THINK THE AVERAGE VOTER GOES WHAT'S WHEREON WITH THAT?

>> I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE IT ACROSS THE BOARD AND REMOVE ALL THE OTHER STIPULATIONS I THINK VOTERS WILL BE OKAY WITH THAT.

I THINK THAT EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW THERE'S THIS PLOT OUT HERE TO SUPPRESS THE VOTE BUT I THINK PEOPLE WILL BE FINE WITH THAT BECAUSE VOTERS CARE.

WE DON'T WANT VOTER FRAUD, WE WANT TO PROVE THIS, YES I HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE SO IF I SHOW MY ID WHY CAN'T I PUT MY ID NUMBER IN THERE AND MAKE IT CONVENIENT?

>> YOU CAN'T ALL VOTE BY ABSENTEE THOUGH.

>> ALL THE STIPULATIONS THERE ARE THERE NOW -- >> LET'S SAY THIS BILL BECOMES LAW AS I EXPECT IT WILL, IF THE NEXT STEP IS OPENING VOTE BAY MAIL TO ANYONE, THAT THE RIGHT WAY THIS SHOULD BE DONE?

>> I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT IF THEY WOULD EVER DO IT BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT.

IT'S NOT BY ACCIDENT THAT INDIANA VOTES 48TH IN VOTER TURNOUT.

ED THE BEEN A PLOT BY THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY FOR YEARS -- IT HAS.

WE KEEP IT AT 6:00 O'CLOCK AMOUNT NIGHT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN EXCUSE TO VOTE ABSENTEE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A VOTER ID AND ALL THOSE THINGS ARE DESIGNED TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

>> SOME REPUBLICANS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AREN'T SHY ABOUT THIS.

THEY DON'T WANT VOTE BY MAIL.

THEY WANT TO ENCOURAGE VOTING IN PERSON.

THAT THE WAY THAT INDIANA VOTERS WANT IT TO GO?

>> I'VE DONE A LOT OF THINGS IN REPUBLICAN POLITICS IN TWO DECADES.

RUN RECOVER RACES, RUN STATE CAMPAIGNS, RUN LOCAL RAISES.

I'VE NEVER HAD A KEEP THE VOTE IN STRATEGY, THAT'S NOT A CONVERSATION THAT'S CONSCIOUS.

BUT I DON'T HAVE A HOME ON ELECTION POLICY FROM A PARTY STANDPOINT.

I'M FOR WHAT YOU TALKED ABOUT, I'M FOR LET'S MAKE IT EASY TO VOTE ABSENTEE, LET'S GET RID OF THE ABSURD -- I'M NOT GOING TO BE HOME ON ELECTION DAY BUT I'VE NOT HAD A PROBLEM WITH VOTER ID LAWs AND MAKE THIS CONSISTENT MAKES SENSE, I ALSO DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.

>> ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN?

I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY.

I AGREE WITH VOTER ID AND I AGREE WITH -- MAKING IT EASY TO VOTE BY MAIL.

THERE'S WAYS TO SECURE THE SYSTEM THAT OPEN IT UP TOO.

>> IT FEELS LIKE BEGINNING BACK TO THE IDEA WHICH IS COMPLETED WE DO A LITTLE BIT OF EVERYTHING FOR EVERYBODY?

THAT IS INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW FOR THIS WEEK.

OUR PANEL IS DEMOCRAT ANN DELANEY, REPUBLICAN MIKE O'BRIEN, JON SCHWANTES, HOST OF INDIANA LAWMAKERS, AND OSEYE BOYD, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE.

YOU CAN FIND INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW'S PODCAST AND SEVEN SEWEDS AT WFYI.ORG/IWIR OR ON THE PBS VIDEO APP.

I'M BRANDON SMITH OF INDIANA PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

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

.THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE PANELIST.

INDIANA WEEK IN REVIEW IS A WFYI PRODUCTION IN