After realizing that they can’t stop the Hoosier Special Session Train from departing the station, the engineers are working to implement some safety measures as the engine warms up. Concerned that the brakes may not work so well as the train starts downhill, and understanding that the Short Session Train waits a short way down the track to begin its journey, leaders are trying to jerry-rig the train and tracks to best accommodate the legislative passengers who are trying to get to their primary station by May.
That’s kind of a convoluted way of introducing you to what to watch for. A special session is now an inevitability, but we’re hearing that it may begin more toward mid-November, and not actually gavel out sine die until an early start to the 2025 regular session.
Don’t be surprised to see some substantive committee hearings in early December, but only on legislation that leadership has deemed to be absolutely necessary. That means the strictly attenuated number of bills would be limited to key tax or policy bills that would only make incumbents look good – fixing property tax perception problems caused by SEA 1-2025; perhaps shoring up popular state programs that might be in line for a hit from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; and trimming energy and health care costs for consumers.
The two precepts: (1) Do some good, and (2) Do no harm.
The key deadline approaching is a Wednesday, January 7 opening day for declarations for (congressional) candidacies; maps will need to be well in place by then . . . but the earlier date of consequence may be Monday, December 1. This is the first day that an absentee application can be received for the May 2026 primary election (although clerks have until March 21 to mail primary election absentee ballots to voters who filed an approved application). The bottom line, however, is that potential candidates don’t have a whole lot of time to prepare their respective candidacies and election administrators will be hard-pressed to handle the changes to congressional districts that will precipitate changes in precinct assignments and ballots.
A pair of competing (?) schools of thought suggest that lawmakers could be home as quickly as early January or, at worst, by early February, with leaders admonishing them to hit the streets and start campaigning early to compensate for the potential retribution for congressional redistricting, and to capitalize on the fixes that they would have just passed.
The earliest we can recall in the more recent decades of life with a short session was a Valentine’s Day adjournment in 1993, after then-Senate president pro tem Bob Garton (R) and then-House speaker Mike Phillips (D), with members still weary from a 1993 special session that lasted until the evening of June 30, pledged at the beginning of the session to spend the minimum amount of time possible at the State House, and lived up their pledge.
The Senate Majority Caucus met privately for more than two hours on Wednesday to discuss the road ahead; House Republicans were slated to convene virtually on Friday, September 12, as we were headed to press with this issue.
All of this happens as opposition has failed to grow, and support has not only been building since the White House “State Leadership Conference” visit (and scores of 1600 selfies) last month, but some previous opponents have now flipped. “I am now a rock solid HELL YES for redistricting!” reads a Wednesday tweet from Rep. Jim Lucas (R), originally a “hard no” who is not known for shifting his positions – and, unlike some of his colleagues – has nothing to gain or lose from any new congressional lines. His change of heart came amidst a series of posts about the murder of MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk.
One would think that a brief short session would be a merciful outcome for most, but the implications of a long special session and quick short session would be profound.
Those who want to pass any comprehensive or new legislation – think about a significant property tax reform antidote to help better fund newly local government units and schools who suddenly find themselves with empty pockets, or policy initiatives such as cannabis legalization; a casino move, major changes to the health care framework; further education curriculum or testing reform; restructuring utility practices or regulation; or repealing same sex marriage laws – will not find a place on the agenda, and the lobby could find itself apoplectic, bereft of vehicles for even minor tweaks.
The much-discussed April 2025 option of reopening of the budget to tweak legislation – which some viewed as a concession for obtaining votes for not fully vetted financial measures – is likely off the table for major items, but a corrections measure of sorts may become a financial omnibus measure, which could become the proverbial Christmas Tree in an otherwise barren legislative forest.
The publicly unspoken professed reason for an early sine die would be to allow supermajority lawmakers to head Back Home to begin campaigning early to help them overcome what already appears to be voter disapproval of mid-decade congressional redistricting.
Forward America is already back in the field with pre-game digital ads aimed at swaying recalcitrant GOP lawmakers toward redistricting . . . while also planting subliminal messages in the minds of Republican primary voters that not only is this particular mid-decade redistricting scheme justified, it is imperative. “Our state legislators have the power to counter the radical progressives’ power grab by doing our own redistricting here in Indiana,” scream the ads from the still-mysterious dark money entity. The digital ads are again coupled with a texting campaign – but we’ve not heard about any automated phone calling effort in this round.
This two-pronged approach will be helpful to persuade solons, because we continue to hear considerable private skepticism from prominent Republican officials about the push for new districts. One points out that Republicans already control some 85% of all offices in the state, and “why change success?” A party chair speaking confidentially to us labels the move to redistrict as an “unnecessary blemish on the party’s brand,” particularly given that CD 01 “is going to go our way before too long without any redistricting action on our part.”
Also unspoken: GOP leaders are looking to give some of their targeted members a bit more time to help counter primaries from the far right MAGA ranks (Democrats don’t seem to be too concerned about progressives seriously primarying any of their incumbents – at least yet).
What could keep lawmakers in session until the second week of February: a desire by some to see just who might decide to file against them before a final vote on whatever key measures leadership might reserve for a last week. Filing deadline day could already be gearing up for chaos in the Office of Secretary of State if new congressional district lines lead to last-minute withdrawals and entries (even from those with surnames other than Baird!) in congressional races, and then, potentially triggering last-minute state legislative candidacies by those tipped off to 11:55 a.m. changes coming on filing deadline day, Friday, February 6.
And as for the direct political consequences . . . we continue to caution you about believing any publicly circulated maps (though even “insiders” are grabbing hold of any maps they see to make their case for or against a given land grab).
One of the more outspoken members of the Indiana GOP congressional delegation, U.S. Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R) – whose CD 03 was a +31 Trump district in 2024 – tells Punchbowl News Friday, September 5, that “he’s heard from state legislators that the White House meeting persuaded them to move forward. Stutzman said the pitch was focused on policies Trump could pursue with a GOP House majority. If Indiana does go ahead, there’s still the question of whether Republicans would try to pick up one seat or two. The state’s delegation currently has seven Republicans and two Democrats. Stutzman predicted a bigger push, saying it ‘would not be hard to draw 9-0 maps in Indiana.’ ”
Rep. Stutzman joined NBC News Meet the Press NOW Tuesday and acknowledged that he had not talked to the Governor about it, but pointed to “sanctuary state” California and Illinois taking advantage of illegals being counted there (and suggested that a six-figure number of Illinoisans have moved to Indiana in the past several years to “raise their family safely and don’t have to worry about the crime that’s going on in Chicago). He justifies mid-decade redistricting by noting that some other states have been required to redraw their maps, and Illinois, California, Massachusetts, and New York “drew their maps to favor Democrats.” “Massachusetts has nine districts and they don’t have one single Republican,” he continues. “We have nine districts in Indiana. If you let a kindergarten class draw the maps, you’d probably end up with nine Republicans.”
He repeated that argument the same day to former Hoosier Linsey Davis on ABC News LivePrime, adding that “something that needs to be discussed and talked about” is “making sure that Hoosiers have equal representation, properly in Washington, D.C., and not be at a disadvantage compared to states like Illinois and California.” At the recent White House confab, according to Rep. Stutzman, the key wasn’t a specific set of maps, but rather “the policy that the Trump Administration has been focusing on,” and how other states “put us at a huge disadvantage.” He also downplayed the prospect of those who might oppose redistricting being subjected to an organized attempt to primary them. “I don’t think so,” he said about such challenges, but otherwise largely deflecting the question back to policy needs and political imbalances.
Buried deep inside state political party rules are provisions that have been overlooked for decades, simply because they have never been called upon.
If lawmakers draw new congressional districts, there will have to be new congressional district party officer elections as well, affording the Republican base that has impacted primary and convention races.
Think back to how the base turned on the Holcomb/Crouch Administration and nominated successful candidates for lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, and attorney general in the last two cycles that were chosen over the preferred candidate of the governor or GOP nominee for governor.
While Democrats seem to be content to stick with decennial congressional district lines, Indiana Republican Party rules require a district reorganization meeting to be held within 90 days after new congressional districts are established to elect district officers to serve until the next quadrennial reorganization meeting.
Governor Mike Braun (R) will have to be concerned about watching his flank on the Indiana Republican State Central Committee. One former state committee member tells us that it could provide Lieutenant Governor Micah Beckwith (R) and supporters of Secretary of State Diego Morales (R) and Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) – officials also largely at odds with the Governor “some opportunity.”
We should also note that we sense some split between chairs on the AG/SoS front between those who see Rokita’s problems brought about by being “in the fight” in a positive sense, while the issues plaguing Morales have largely stemmed from what they perceive as questionable ethical decision making.
“It will be a complete free-for-all,” laments one county chair, who affirms that those in the Beckwith/Nisly alliance “are definitely going to push it. I am not sure that there are many county chairs aligned with them to serve as a basis of a push for power on the state committee,” but we’re told not to anticipate a repeat of the relatively sedate state committee reorganization of earlier this year given the rumors of what district lines could look like.
Another county chair tells us that “we could have a totally new state committee,” along with “a new vote potentially for state chair,” which “could potentially help or hurt Braun.” Recall that his first choice at convention for state chair was rejected before it was even formally announced, and the eventual permanent pick, Lana Keesling, was not considered part of the Braun inner political circle.
One veteran GOP political pro observes that members of state committee generally stay on until they decide that they no longer want to serve, but this potential mid-decade “by-election” of sorts would likely mean major shake-up in district chairs because of the major shift in counties between districts. Those alterations would probably find county chairs asked to vote for district chairs whom they do not even know personally, and likely even see some current district chairs end up in districts with another incumbent chair. “I see people already angling” for district chair posts, whispers one county chair . . . even though district maps were still inchoate.
You might look for the same network that propelled Beckwith forward to be particularly vocal on social media channels, which, we’re told, would be “a distraction to the Party leadership and provide a public airing of real and imagined grievances” . . . and make the 2026 Republican state convention in Fort Wayne “that much more interesting.”
Bear in mind that Lt. Governor Beckwith has already endorsed at least one primary challenger to a sitting Republican senator in good standing with GOP senate leadership, and if he’s freed from his responsibilities with the gavel at the podium asking the body “Shall the title of the bill remain the title of the act?”, he’ll be able to travel in person around the state promoting his preferred slate of candidates a month or so earlier (and he won’t be defending the congressional redistricting from a defensive position; he’ll be one of the few prominent Hoosier Republicans in state office using it as a positive).
So has any of this budding internal drama factored into any of the high-level decision making related to a go/no go decision on redistricting? “I don’t know that they are thinking of it in that way,” says one county chair whose thoughts are echoed by another we consulted, but “I know some county and district chairs who are.” The focus among the Big Three with a say in the matter has been on the external, and not internal politics: how redistricting would look to the voter and how it could be sold, as we pointed out earlier.
Former House Democratic leader Terry Goodin (D), a former public school superintendent and Biden Administration Indiana state director for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, also raises concerns about potential policy implications that can arise from changing district lines in mid-decade. That could mean issues with distribution of federal dollars, requiring hand-offs of constituent casework that now occurs only once in a decade at best, and also possibly hurt federal facilities that may be working closely with their current Member of Congress on new cash or other assistance and who must then work to familiarize a new member with their facility, issues, and problems.
“Redrawing districts mid-decade will complicate everything from veterans’ support to Social Security assistance,” Dr. Goodin laments in an op-ed this week – after detailing all the political concerns and the “dangerous precedent” of merely redrawing new districts on a political whim merely to accomplish “partisan gain.”
One of the more intriguing developments since we were last with was the abrupt departure of Secretary of Public Safety Jennifer-Ruth Green who got a late start (mid-February) on her new job as she was wrapping up military responsibilities related to the Army helicopter crash with a commuter plane outside Washington Reagan National Airport.
The Governor announced her hasty exit from the $275,000 post (and replacement with Indiana State Police Superintendent Anthony Scott, who will hold both roles) in a late Saturday night tweet. She responded with her own tweet showing her in uniform and “off to military duty.” Hoosiers distracted by the $1.8 billion Powerball jackpot a few hours away from being drawn probably missed the news entirely . . . as intended.
Some took her departure as a sure sign that redistricting was nigh and that the current CD 01 in which she lives (in south Lake County) would be drawn to be much more favorable for Republicans (if not her specifically) than in her maiden run for the then-open seat in 2022, the first time the seat had been open in almost 40 years (since 1984).
Green had burst onto the scene to considerable enthusiasm from the conservative crowd in Indiana and D.C. who were less than enamored with her primary opponent, the more moderate former LaPorte mayor Blair Milo (R), perceived as too close to the Holcomb Administration, in which she served.
The problem back then was that Green quickly flamed out among her key supporters after they perceived a campaign in disarray, a largely unengaged candidate, and fundraising issues. Important backing quickly dissolved and she lost the race 53% to 47% to now-U.S. Rep. Frank Mrvan (D) by what should have been a much closer margin . . . and was savvy enough to realize that a 2024 comeback could not overcome the incumbent’s advantage, even in what was expected to be a strong Republican year.
With district boundaries that could extend well east and south, CD 01 would become a much more enticing district for Republicans, and there was a belief that Green was readying a run here, likely with the full faith and credit of Governor Braun . . . who in 2023 had kicked around the idea of inviting Green to run on his ticket for lieutenant governor. Her own political advisors were hinting strongly in mainstream media after she stepped down from her lucrative and prominent state post that she was looking toward the starting gate.
But we soon learned that this may have just simply been some preemptive damage control to her brand.
The Indiana Capital Chronicle soon informed Hoosiers that Green left state employment while she was “the subject of a pending state ethics investigation …. into alleged misuse of state resources and workplace misconduct. A six-page July 21 remediation document that followed a Governor’s Office “expedited internal review of the allegations in mid-June after learning about the OIG investigation, which began in February,” the month she started employment, showed that Green was only allowed to remain in her position “pending the results of the Office of Inspector General investigation with appropriate safeguards in place to prevent additional ethics violations, including additional ethics training.”
The document, signed by Green and top staff in 206, “warned that if allegations denied by Green are later substantiated, ‘appropriate steps will be determined at that time, up to and including termination.’ Among the allegations against Green are claims that she used state vehicles and travel cards for personal and political purposes, and that she directed state employees to assist with those activities during work hours. Additional accusations center around inappropriate workplace conduct, ranging from ‘conversations with employees about personal relationships, intimate subjects, or sexual activities,’ to ‘uninvited touching of employees’ and retaliation. Green denied most of the allegations, state officials said in the agreement, although she admitted to ‘limited’ personal use of state vehicles and ‘having a financial relationship with an employee’ without disclosing the conflict of interest.”
“Green’s workplace behavior was also flagged in the document, specifically around allegations that her conduct ‘made female employees uncomfortable,’ ” Capital Chronicle continues. “This conduct includes: making comments about female employees’ clothing/body in front of other employees; your uninvited touching of female employees; your discussing personal relationships/intimate subjects during work hours with female employees,” according to the agreement. Some of this is particularly fascinating given Green’s fury over the Mrvan campaign having accessed leaked military information which included details from poor performance evaluations in her Air Force personnel file . . . and detailed some odd ancillary details of a sexual assault she reported during her service in Iraq from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during her campaign three years ago.
CapChron’s Casey Smith and Niki Kelly add that “The agreement alleged Green used state vehicles and travel cards for personal events. She also allegedly directed state employees to generate and post content on her personal social media pages and asked them to staff personal or political events. The agreement further suggests that Green promoted her book and brand, ‘Battle-Proven Leadership,’ during state time or with state employees and resources. She was also accused of asking staff to perform personal errands, including driving family members and completing tasks at her residence …. Other accusations detailed in the agreement include holding political meetings in her state office, facilitating fundraisers and attending political events using state resources.
Some who worked with Green in the public safety silo tell your favorite newsletter that she had a tough time directing her attention to the real issues in the key subject areas, including the Indiana Department of Homeland Security, which she served as executive director.
One individual with a major Southeast Indiana employer told us of Green’s work on the major spring flooding, “aside from appearing for photo ops she was basically no help. And she didn’t fight for much federal help either.”
Rather, she was said to be more concerned with trying to teach and promote broad leadership concepts along the lines of seminars she led and publications she authored in her private sector life – including her book, People Don’t Quit Their Jobs; They Quit Their Bosses. Some who had run-ins with her – such as this spring at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway – walked away concerned that she had not developed an understanding of her job . . . and, mor importantly, its limits.
In a statement published by the Indianapolis Star, Green appears to be oblivious to the document she signed and the seriousness of the allegations that led to an Office of the Inspector General investigation, and failing to acknowledge responsibility for her actions or omissions, as in her 2022 campaign. “I am disappointed and disgusted by these baseless allegations, but it’s not the first time in my time in public life I’ve faced false, politically motivated leaks designed to assassinate my character,” Green said. “I am pursuing legal options to address this, and believe this leak shows the reality of the environment that led me to resign.”
Hubris seems to have marked Green throughout her career.
Her bottom line in the Star statement: “I have spent my life dedicated to serving others and maintaining my honor and commitment as a follower of Christ, so I will not lower myself to address evil with evil.”
As for her future: “I continue to be grateful for the opportunity to have served Governor Braun and the people of Indiana, and I am committed to continuing to serve wherever the Lord leads me,” Green says.
The timing of both the Green swansong and CapChron report was interesting: just a few weeks before the first-ever reporting deadline (October 1) for each member of the, governor’s cabinet (and each state officer) to tell the State Budget Committee the details of the purpose and location of “each trip taken in an official capacity whether in-state or out of state” during the fiscal year ended June 30; total travel expenses incurred; and the state fund used to pay for each trip taken. We believe the Governor’s Office was trying to get ahead of the problem given the timing and nature of Green’s exodus.
The move also affords the Governor the opportunity to save another hefty salary (as he did with Secretary of Education Katie Jenner’s forthcoming dual role) to better ease the pain when those spending reports soon are released.
So take the news that Green is no longer part of state government in whatever context you might wish to view it: that Team Braun was ridding itself of an insidious internal problem (and, we believe, this may be one of those proverbial gifts that just keeps on giving) . . . or that Green was – and still may be – looking to make a bid in a new CD 01. If the latter may be the case, it now won’t be with the help of anyone close to the Governor, but she could portray herself as a martyr of sorts to the MAGA crowd, running against the Republican political establishment and Democrats who have also gone to extreme lengths to paint an unfair portrait of her.
Meanwhile, no one is quite certain to what extent – if any – the redistricting push may encounter 2026 voter pushback. Indiana Conservation Voters, Common Cause Indiana, and allied democracy organizations delivered petitions with almost 9,000 signatures to state leaders Tuesday morning, urging them to reject plans “by Washington insiders” to redraw the maps at mid-decade. Public sentiment, according to the sole poll released for public consumption, appears to be moderately against the concept. We won’t know until voters visit the polls next year under a new district plan whether voters may take out their anger on candidates – such as potentially Green – who seek to capitalize on the perniciously perceived new maps, or whether they may instead be pleased to proudly cast their votes for candidates of their choice who would previously have stood little chance of persevering in districts drawn to preserve a pair of Democrats.
