Connect with us

Indiana

Indiana lawmakers move forward with bills to ban antisemitism, expand workforce training funds – Indiana Capital Chronicle

Published

on

Indiana lawmakers move forward with bills to ban antisemitism, expand workforce training funds – Indiana Capital Chronicle


Indiana lawmakers are fast-tracking a bill they say will ban antisemitism in public educational institutions — although critics of the proposal maintain it limits free speech and conflates anti-Jewish rhetoric with criticism of a foreign government.

The legislation advanced from the House Education Committee on Wednesday in a bipartisan 12-0 vote, sending it to the full chamber.

Authored by Republican Rep. Chris Jeter, of Fishers, House Bill 1002 is a priority measure for the House GOP caucus.

Indiana law already bans discrimination on the basis of race and “creed,” which means religion. The legislation would specify that antisemitism — bias against Jewish people — is religious discrimination and is not allowed within the public education system.

Advertisement

The legislation uses a definition of antisemitism adopted by the U.S. State Department, U.S. Education Department and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. And it makes clear that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country” is not antisemitism.

“This bill does not tell anybody what they can or cannot say, does not tell anybody what they can or cannot do. There’s no new crime. There’s no police force enforcing it. It’s simply a reflection of our values as a state when it comes to teaching our youth and our students,” Jeter said before the House Education Committee on Wednesday. “We have a long tradition of support for our Jewish community, and particularly our Jewish students. This bill reaffirms that — it makes it clear that they’re going to be safe here.”

Jeter filed an identical bill in 2023. It passed out of the House in a 97-0 vote but never received a committee hearing in the Senate, effectively killing the proposal. 

Sen. Jeff Raatz, R-Richmond, who chairs the Senate Education Committee, said last month that he expects his chamber to support the bill this time around.

Antisemitism on Hoosier campuses

Some 40 people testified on the bill Wednesday at the Indiana Statehouse. Many were students or faculty at Indiana colleges, including Indiana and Purdue universities. A handful of high school students also spoke before lawmakers, sharing stories about various antisemitic incidents in their classrooms.

Advertisement

Rabbi Sue Silberberg, executive director at IU Hillel, said the bill is a much-needed response to a problem she has “faced and struggled with” during her tenure at Indiana University.

Since the Hamas attack in October, she said antisemitic chalkings, drawings on bridges and flyers hung around the campus have prompted an increase of scared and crying students to her office.

“I’ve seen antisemitism regularly throughout my years at IU. Thankfully, IU has tried to address it,” Silberberg said. “But the overarching problem has been that Indiana does not have a clear and strong definition of antisemitism, and it is not specifically identified or called out as a problem and something that we stand behind prohibiting or stopping in our state.”

At Purdue, public health student Honor Fuchs said she has faced antisemitism “in the form of wildly biased curriculum, hateful posters on campus and outright verbal attacks from students.”

She described an experience last fall, when she and other Jewish students were “mobbed, yelled at and insulted by fellow students” while holding a fundraiser on the campus.

Advertisement

“I couldn’t complain, because being called a Nazi pales in comparison to the real persecution my grandparents faced in Nazi-occupied Romania,” Fuchs said. “It is horrifying that in 2024, in the United States, I have to make these calculations of gradations of bigotry and discrimination.”

Günther Jikeli, associate director of IU’s Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, also supported Jeter’s bill, noting that criticism of Israel is not the same as “wanting to destroy this person or this community or this state.”

But more than two-dozen critics of the bill pushed back, many emphasizing that criticism of the Israeli government does not amount to antisemitism. Some warned of witch hunts under the vague definition.

Need to get in touch?

Have a news tip?

Advertisement

Daniel Segal, representing Jewish Voice for Peace – Indiana, said the bill “undermines the struggle against antisemitism and would thus make me and other Jews less safe in Indiana.”

“House Bill 1002 makes it harder to fight the scourge of antisemitism, because its sole purpose is to sow confusion about antisemitism. We cannot fight what we are confused about,” he continued.

“If people want to respond to criticisms of the Israeli state, they should provide reasoned counter arguments, not fake charges of antisemitism,” Segal said. “Defenders of the Israeli state resort to these fake charges of antisemitism only when they lack such reasoned counter arguments.”

He added that the legislation would also “trample education” by making teachers and students “fearful of speaking openly, in regard to the history and current events in Israel and Palestine.”

Advertisement

Echoing others who testified, Anisse Adni, an Islamic studies teacher in Indianapolis, said lawmakers should take out “vague and ambiguous language” in the bill “that would restrict our constitutional right to freedom of speech.”

“If I, as an American citizen, have the right to criticize my own government’s policies — if I have the right as an American to ask my government to right its wrongs, to change its policies — and I have no fear of punishment or reprisal because free speech is enshrined in the constitution … Why would I, as an American, be okay with my right of free speech being impeded or restricted when criticizing a foreign government’s policies? It shouldn’t be wrong.”

“I’m not anti-Chinese if I criticize China’s government policies or their behaviors or whatever it may be,” he continued. “We should not conflate antisemitism with criticism of the Israeli government and its policies.”

Fixes to last year’s workforce training legislation

House lawmakers additionally advanced a bill that seeks to make fixes to a major work-based learning bill adopted during the 2023 session.

The new measure, House Bill 1001, authored by Rep. Chuck Goodrich, R-Noblesville, primarily seeks to allow money from the 21st Century Scholars program and Frank O’Bannon grants to be used by high school graduates for training by an approved intermediary, employer or labor organization — rather than for education costs at a college or university.

Advertisement

The bill would also permit annual career savings account (CSA) grants to be used by students to cover costs associated with obtaining drivers licenses, and extend the timeline for completing CSA applications.

Last year, Goodrich similarly authored HEA 1002, which put in motion statewide career-centered education and training programs that seek to graduate Hoosier students who are better prepared for the workforce. Paramount to that legislation was a provision to establish CSAs for students in grades 10-12 to pay for career training outside their schools. 

Participating students can use the $5,000 CSAs to pay for apprenticeships, career-related coursework, or certification.

Goodrich said his 2024 bill “widens the scope” of how those funds can be used and “removes barriers” faced by some Hoosier students who tried to access technical education and work-based learning opportunities over the summer.

Democrats on the committee took issue with multiple provisions in the bill, however.

Advertisement

Rep. Ed DeLaney, R-Indianapolis, pointed to language that expands the use of state-sponsored scholarships, which he said leaves out spending cap stipulations or specific restrictions around what funds can and can’t be used for.

“We’re going to enter into the program without any guidance for how much we’re going to spend?” DeLaney questioned.

Committee chairman Rep. Bob Behning, R-Indianapolis, said the Indiana Commission for Higher Education (CHE) will instead have to decide when 21st Century and Frank O’Bannon funds are eligible for students post-high school.

Democratic Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary, also expressed concerns over the provision to fund drivers licenses.

“Are we going to start buying used cars, too? Will the next step be uniforms, or technical equipment, coming out of the scholarship accounts?” he asked.

Advertisement

Goodrich said in response that access to transportation “has been a huge issue for kids getting access to opportunities.”

Before voting on the bill, the committee unanimously adopted two amendments offered by Goodrich; one to clarify data reporting requirements associated with work-based learning programs, and another to add teaching to Indiana’s Next Level Jobs Employer Training Program grants.

DeLaney offered other amendments but they all failed.

The bill passed out of the committee in a 9-4 vote along party lines. DeLaney promised to call additional amendments to the bill on the House floor.

Advertisement

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Advertisement



Source link

Indiana

College sports wants Congress’ help. Why Indiana Sen. Todd Young voted against bill

Published

on

College sports wants Congress’ help. Why Indiana Sen. Todd Young voted against bill


The Protect College Sports Act, legislation meant to introduce and codify sweeping reforms related to college athletics, passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday morning.

It now heads to the Senate floor.

The bill passed out of committee by a 19-9 vote. Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young voted no, his decision reflecting Big Ten concerns over the bill.

Advertisement

A spokesman for Sen. Young told IndyStar, “Senator Young hopes that additional changes can be made to the bill to address concerns raised by the Big Ten.”

Co-sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), the Protect College Sports Act represents Congress’ most substantial success so far in a yearslong effort to bring legislative reform to college athletics. Since before the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders in college sports — including the NCAA, member conferences and schools, and other major players — have lobbied for national solutions to what have become state and regional problems.

Several pieces of legislation have been introduced across the last several years, only to fizzle long before reaching the floor of either chamber. The SCORE Act, introduced last year in the House of Representatives, gained some traction and passed out of committee, but was never brought to the floor.

Which makes Thursday’s news meaningful. Moving the Protect College Sports Act to the Senate floor, while not a guarantee of any outcome, potentially takes the bill past a threshold no other such piece of reformative legislation has yet been able to cross.

Advertisement

Cruz told Yahoo! Sports’ Ross Dellenger on Thursday that Cruz believes Sen. Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is committed to introducing the bill to the Senate floor soon.

The bill provides a legal framework for a host of potential reforms and protections for college sports. It grants limited antitrust protection to the NCAA, places limits on certain things including potential conference realignment, builds safeguards meant to protect non-revenue and Olympic sports, addresses potential broadcast rights reforms, and more.

It enjoys significant backing, and not just among leaders in college sports. This week, the NFL, its players’ association, the National Basketball Players Association and Major League Baseball all voiced their support for the bill.

Two key constituencies not in lockstep on the bill voiced their own concerns Thursday.

Advertisement

In a joint statement issued just after 10 a.m. Thursday, the Big Ten and SEC — far and away the two most powerful conferences and arguably two greatest power centers, full stop, in college athletics — suggested they still hold significant reservations over the bill.

“From the outset, we identified a set of essential revisions to the PCSA necessary for the long-term sustainability of college athletics,” the statement read. “We have worked with both majority and minority staff to advance those revisions, which focus on better supporting student-athletes and stabilizing the college sports environment. We continue to believe revisions are needed to secure our support for the bill.

“Despite our sustained engagement and good faith efforts, these critical revisions have not been accepted.”

The statement went on to note the “several Commerce Committee members that share our concerns and support these recommendations.”

Young is one of several members of the committee representing a Big Ten state, including one of three Republicans. He is the only Republican member of the committee whose state contains multiple schools in the conference.

Advertisement

Allowing for those reservations, Thursday’s news is still significant. It marks the first time a bipartisan bill on the subject has reached this point in the Senate and, should it be brought to the floor, it would be the first such legislation to reach that stage, in either chamber.

The bill could be brought to the Senate floor as early as July, though that timeline remains fluid.



Source link

Continue Reading

Indiana

State regulators OK $71 million rate increase for AES Indiana

Published

on

State regulators OK  million rate increase for AES Indiana


(INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE) – The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission voted 3-1 Wednesday to approve a $71 million electricity rate increase for AES Indiana customers.

That is about 37% of what the utility initially requested and lower than a settlement agreement proposed in October.

Neither Gov. Mike Braun nor consumer advocates are happy with the outcome.

“My top priority is affordability, which is why I am deeply disappointed by the IURC’s approval of another AES rate increase,” he said. “Hoosiers have spent years tightening their belts and making tough financial decisions. It’s time for utility companies to do the same.”

Advertisement

Members of the commission didn’t explain their votes Wednesday. IURC Chair Andy Zay focused his remarks on the process.

“There’s a lot of eyes on this order and what we’re doing today,” he said. “What is before you on the floor is a nearly a year’s worth of work, evidence, deliberations, and considerations that bring us to this moment in this decision. None of this was taken lightly. I want to thank my colleagues for the patience and working through this amongst the auspice of affordability, which is certainly a hot topic now, as well as the resiliency, reliability that we see in this increased demand in electricity.”

The Office of Utility Consumer Counselor last year recommended that state regulators deny AES Indiana’s request for a $193 million base rate increase — instead proposing a $21 million reduction in current rates.

“The AES rate order issued today is an outrage and Hoosiers deserve better!” Counselor Abby Gray said in a statement Wednesday. “Governor Braun has made it clear that ratepayer affordability is a priority, far more than just a ‘hot topic’ as described by the chairman of the IURC today. This order fails the governor’s call to overhaul how utilities are regulated in order to lower bills for ratepayers.”

Gray’s office represents Hoosier ratepayers in regulatory cases.

Advertisement

“The order approves a substantial profit margin for shareholders in addition to a rate increase for customers,” she continued. “It even requires ratepayers to pay approximately $3 million to AES lawyers and experts.”

AES Indiana provides electricity service to about 490,000 homes and businesses in Indianapolis and some nearby areas.

The utility originally sought $193 million in rate increases. The previously proposed settlement agreement dropped that to $91 million, while the final, approved settlement agreement lands at $71 million.

Three IURC members supported the increase: Zay, David Veleta and David Ziegner.

Commissioner Bob Deig voted no. A fifth member, Anthony Swinger, recused himself because he worked on the case previously when he was on the consumer counselor’s office staff.

Advertisement

Ben Inskeep, program director for ratepayer advocacy group Citizens Action Coalition, said utilities across the country often ask for a larger increase than they need, knowing that regulators will disallow “roughly half” of it.

“The latest AES Indiana fuel adjustment clause proceeding shows AES Indiana is actually not only earning all of their allowed profit but over-earning by $19 million their return amount,” he said. “They’re already extremely financially successful at this moment in time, so it’s rather bizarre to even get an extra $71 million dollars approved here.”

Inskeep also noted that the increases will fall disproportionately on residential customers over commercial and industrial users.

Brandi Davis-Handy, president of AES Indiana, said the company has maintained some of the lowest rates in the state for more than a decade “through disciplined planning and a focus on efficiency. We applied the same approach here by working closely with stakeholders to make balanced decisions that keep the system reliable, limit customer impact, and align with the state’s energy pillars.”

AES said for a typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month, the increase will be less than $5 per month per phase. Phase one rates will be implemented in July 2026 and phase two rates will be implemented in January 2027.

Advertisement

The final order says the utility “will not seek to implement a change in basic rates and charges as a result of its next base rate case before January 1, 2030.”

A new law, however, requires all utilities to file a multi-year rate case in 2029, though implementation wouldn’t happen until 2030.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Indiana

Indiana AG seeks execution date for death row inmate convicted in 2010 killings of two children

Published

on

Indiana AG seeks execution date for death row inmate convicted in 2010 killings of two children


Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita on Wednesday asked the Indiana Supreme Court to schedule the execution of death row inmate Jeffrey Weisheit.

The filing came just eight days after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in Weisheit’s case.

He was sentenced to death in 2012 for the murders of 5-year-old Caleb Lynch and his 8-year-old sister, Alyssa Lynch, who were killed in a Vanderburgh County house fire in 2010.

Advertisement

In a verified motion filed with the state’s high court, attorneys for the state argued that Weisheit has exhausted all available avenues of review and that no active stay remains in place to prevent his execution.

The state requested that the court set an execution date 30 to 45 days after granting the motion.

“For more than 15 years, the family of these two innocent children has waited for justice,” Rokita said in a Wednesday statement. “A jury lawfully convicted Weisheit and sentenced him to death. That sentence has been upheld through every level of the judicial system. It is long past time to carry out the sentence.”

Weisheit killed the children during the early morning hours of April 10, 2010, according to court records. Prosecutors said he “hog-tied” Caleb and placed railroad flares in the boy’s underwear before igniting them and fleeing the home. Alyssa was also inside the residence when the fire spread through the house, killing both children.

Advertisement

Authorities later apprehended Weisheit in Kentucky after a high-speed chase. Court records indicate he threw a knife at pursuing officers before being taken into custody.

A Vanderburgh County jury convicted Weisheit in 2012 of two counts of murder and recommended a death sentence after finding multiple aggravating circumstances, including that both victims were younger than 12 years old. The trial court subsequently imposed the death penalty.

The case has spent more than a decade moving through state and federal courts.

The Indiana Supreme Court upheld Weisheit’s convictions and death sentence in 2015. His request for post-conviction relief was later denied, and the state’s high court affirmed that decision in 2018.

Weisheit then turned to federal court, filing a habeas corpus petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in 2020. The petition was denied in 2022, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision last August before rejecting a rehearing request the following month.

Advertisement

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case on June 8.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending