Connect with us

Indiana

Indiana Republicans may have to break with their rules to redistrict. Can Democrats stop them?

Published

on

Indiana Republicans may have to break with their rules to redistrict. Can Democrats stop them?


play

Though the Indiana House plans to reconvene to talk about redistricting on Dec. 1, there are two things that could get in the way: making quorum, and overcoming the fact that Republican leaders appear to have broken a House rule.

Per House rules, Republican legislative leaders should have gotten approval from House leadership in order to convene in December. Democrats say they never signed off on the change, but House leaders maintain they’re still following state law.

Advertisement

Either way, the House needs a two-thirds vote to meet in order to take up redistricting. If all Democrats are on the same page in their opposition, and with just 70 Republicans in the House, only five could break from the party, and the House would not be able to move forward with redistricting in December.

Should either of these things happen, it would only be the latest whiplash Indiana has experienced with regard to President Donald Trump’s request to redraw the state congressional map mid-decade, in order to give Republicans more favored seats before the 2026 midterm elections.

How we got here

State leaders held out for months, even with two visits from Vice President JD Vance and a mounting pressure campaign from the White House. Then Gov. Mike Braun called for a special session to redistrict in October, even though Senate President Rodric Bray insisted his chamber didn’t have the votes to make it successful. But the two legislative leaders came up with a date anyway: They would convene during the first two weeks of December for redistricting.

Then on Nov. 14, Bray reversed course and said the Senate would not show up since the votes weren’t there. This seemed to solidify on Organization Day Nov. 18, which kicked off the 2026 legislative session. Both the House and Senate chambers agreed to a concurrent resolution that set their return date on Jan. 5.

Advertisement

House Speaker Todd Huston, in a harbinger of what was to come, nonetheless told his members to keep their December calendars open.

On Nov. 25, he formally announced his chamber would be convening Dec. 1. Minutes later, Bray again switched up and said his chamber, too, would convene and a week later and vote on whatever map the House sends over.

Why lawmakers aren’t following the House’s rules

Therein lies the rule issue. The time and date that the House reconvenes can be changed from what was in that concurrent resolution from Organization Day, but only “with the agreement of the Speaker and minority leader,” the House standing rules say. House minority leader Phil GiaQuinta, D-Fort Wayne, said there was no such agreement, and it’s his position that the House should reconvene on Jan. 5 as written.

“The speaker called me this morning and said we will be going in Dec. 1,” he said on Nov. 25. “I did not agree to that.”

Advertisement

Even if lawmakers aren’t following their rules, they would be following state law by meeting on a different date than planned as long as enough lawmakers are present. A spokesperson for Huston pointed to the provision in state law that enables lawmakers to meet “either on a certain day fixed by concurrent resolution or when the gavel of each house falls in the presence of a quorum.”

It’s also not unusual to suspend House rules, but it too can only be done with a two-thirds vote.

Huston has said his chamber has the votes to pass a redistricting measure, but that’s because they just need a simple majority, or 51 members. Establishing quorum and suspending rules is a higher bar.

A House Democrat is focusing on the quorum issue in particular, calling out five Republicans by name and urging them to deny quorum on Dec. 1.

Advertisement

“I’m just saying, for the period of time where there’s a quorum call, people may be busy,” said Rep. Mitch Gore, D-Indianapolis. “I’ll pick listening to the people and showing some backbone over allowing my constituents to get ripped off by a 9-0 gerrymander.”

The five Republicans Gore is publicly naming are Reps. Becky Cash, R-Zionsville, Dave Hall, R-Norman, Danny Lopez, R-Carmel, Hunter Smith, R-Zionsville, and Ed Clere, R-New Albany.

Clere, Lopez and Cash have stated publicly or on social media that they are opposed to redistricting. Hall and Smith have not made clear their positions.

“If they really oppose redistricting, it’s up to them to deny a quorum,” Gore said.

But Clere sees it a different way, saying in a statement to IndyStar that a walkout is not the answer to stopping redistricting because “it’s not constructive.”

Advertisement

“Mid-cycle redistricting is harmful to both the legislative institution and to democracy more broadly,” he said. “A walkout would only deepen the existing partisan divide and further undermine the legislative institution.”

Likewise, Lopez and Cash said they will be there on Dec. 1.

Through spokespeople, the other Republican representatives did not respond to requests for comment.

The pressure has been intense around the redistricting debate. Voters in certain districts have been targeted with texts and calls from various nonprofits supporting redistricting. And some of the pressure has turned dark:  At least seven state senators have received some kind of violent threat since Organization Day, including some incidents of swatting, which is when a person calls in a false tip that prompts a large law enforcement response. Even Braun has received “credible threats,” his office said. 

There’s also the threat of primary challenges against lawmakers who vote against redistricting. Trump has openly called for this; at least one such challenger has already emerged in Republican state Sen. Spencer Deery’s West Lafayette district.

Advertisement

This story may be updated.

Contact IndyStar Statehouse reporter Kayla Dwyer at kdwyer@indystar.com or follow her on X @kayla_dwyer17.





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