By Marilyn Odendahl for The Indiana Citizen.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the Indiana Citizen-Free Press Indiana-Public News Service Collaboration.

Hoosiers going to the polls in November will find a question on their ballots, asking if they want to amend the Indiana Constitution to revise the list of elected state officials who could succeed the governor.

The proposed amendment revises Article 5, Section 10, which outlines the process for succession if the sitting governor resigns, dies or becomes incapacitated. Namely, the lieutenant governor would be elevated to governor, but if the second-in-command also cannot fulfill the duties of the top office, then the Indiana General Assembly would have to convene within 48 hours to elect a governor from the same political party as the immediate past governor.

In the interim between the governor and lieutenant governor's offices becoming vacant and the legislature installing a new governor, the constitution provides a list of elected officials who would discharge the powers and duties of the governor. Sixth on that list is the state superintendent of public instruction, but since that position was switched from elected to appointed in 2021, Rep. J.D. Prescott, R-Union City, thought the state's top education official should no longer be in line to assume the governor's office.

"The question on the ballot is really clean-up language from when the state superintendent of public instruction was changed to the secretary of education," Prescott said. "Since we no longer have that state superintendent of public instruction, we're striking that language to allow parity with the other elected positions that are in that line of succession, so we do not have a path in place for an appointed position to be acting governor."

Unlike the proposed constitutional amendments the General Assembly sent to Hoosiers in the past, capping property taxes, prohibiting same-sex marriage, and protecting the right to hunt and fish, the succession amendment has not garnered any attention, let alone controversy. The amendment passed through the required two separate sessions of the legislature as a House Joint Resolution with no debate, no attempts to change the language and with only seven votes cast against it during the 2022 session.

Julia Vaughn, executive director of Common Cause Indiana, said the amendment was noncontroversial, noting in her 40 years of public advocacy, she had never heard anyone concerned about the succession for state governor. Still, she said, making this update to the constitution is important even though the superintendent is at the bottom of the succession list and likely would never get tapped to serve as governor.

"It probably does make sense to remove that position from the succession plan," Vaughn said. "But, I think Hoosiers would rather be asked constitutional questions that are a little bit more impactful to their everyday lives. It would be nice if we had the opportunity to weigh in directly, as voters, on issues like gerrymandering and abortion."

Wanting to clean up an oversight

Indiana did not have a governor who was elected to the office and served a complete term until Noah Noble, the fifth person to serve as the state leader, according to the Capitol & Washington blog. The four proceeding governors, including Indiana's first governor, Jonathan Jennings, either left office before their terms were over or assumed the office under legal succession. Noble was elected governor in December 1831 and remained in the office until December 1837, when his term ended.

Most recently, Indiana's constitutional succession process was enacted when Gov. Frank O'Bannon died in September 2003, during his second term in office. Then-Lt. Gov. Joe Kernan became governor and served until Mitch Daniels was elected and sworn into office in January 2005.

Under the Indiana Constitution, the line of succession for Indiana governor begins with the lieutenant governor. If both the governor and lieutenant governor positions are vacant, then the constitution offers an ordered list of elected officials who would be tapped to serve as governor.

The speaker of the Indiana House is at the top of the list, but if that office is vacant or if that individual is unable to perform the gubernatorial duties, the president pro tempore of the Indiana Senate would step in. If the Senate president's seat is vacant, then the state treasurer would take over, followed by the state auditor and then the secretary of state.

At the bottom of the list is the state superintendent of public instruction who would assume the duties of governor only if the five previous elected officials could not do so.

The superintendent was an elected position until the legislature passed the law abolishing the office in 2017 and created the Indiana secretary of education position. As part of that change, lawmakers made the secretary a position appointed by the governor.

Katie Jenner was appointed by Gov. Eric Holcomb as Indiana's first secretary of education in 2022.

Prescott said he discovered the language in the line of succession needed updating when he was reading through the Indiana Constitution. Every year, he sets aside time to read both the U.S. Constitution and the Indiana Constitution prior to Organization Day, the ceremonial start to the upcoming legislative session.

"We take an oath to uphold both the United States Constitution and the state of Indiana's constitution every year on Organization Day," Prescott said, noting he also encourages other legislators to read the constitutions. "Every word in our constitution, every word in statute, they're all there for a reason, so you have to pay attention to all those details."

Once he found what he considered to be a problem, Prescott said he sought input from House leaders to make them aware of the wording and to see if they had any thoughts or concerns about amending the provision. Leadership acknowledged, he said, that the succession language should be cleaned up.

Also, Prescott said, he did notify the Indiana secretary of education, before he introduced the resolution calling for the amendment. No one in the executive branch had any concerns, he said.

"Everyone that I talked to said, 'Yeah, it makes sense to strike that from the constitution, because (the superintendent's) position is no longer there,''' Prescott said. "It was kind of an oversight that we need to make sure we clean it up."

Hoosiers need to know before they vote

Although the amendment has not attracted much attention in the two years it rolled through the Statehouse, Prescott is confident that Hoosiers will learn about the proposed change to the state's constitution as Election Day get closer and more media outlets report on ballot issues. He said the key is educating voters about the rationale for the amendment, but he does not see a need for a "full out campaign" to raise public awareness.

Vaughn agreed that only state officials elected by the voters should be in line to succeed the governor. However, because this amendment "really has been flying under the radar screen," she said Hoosiers have to be informed and given time to think about the revision to the line of succession before they go to the polls. Already, she noted, Indiana has one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the country and often voters say they do not participate in elections because they do not know enough about what is on the ballot to make an informed decision.

"I don't think we need to give Hoosiers yet another excuse to say, 'Well, I don't know enough. I'm just going to sit this one out,'" Vaughn said. "From the top of the ballot to the bottom, things like these constitutional questions, it's all important. We do a disservice to Hoosiers by not making them fully aware of each and every choice they're going to be asked to make on Election Day."


Marilyn Odendahl wrote this article for The Indiana Citizen.


get more stories like this via email

A common narrative suggests that deeply polarized American voters always support their party's candidates, but a new study suggests otherwise in certain circumstances.

Researchers from Sacramento State and San Diego State universities asked more than 900 partisan voters about housing and homelessness - then asked them to choose, in a hypothetical local election - between a candidate from their party who disagreed with their views, or one from the opposite party who is aligned with them on policy.

Sacramento State Associate Professor of Political Science Danielle Martin co-authored the study.

"Overall, voters do support candidates from their own party - even when an opposite party candidate was closer to their views on one of those salient local issues," said Martin. "But we also found that about 40% defected from their party."

The study found that people with weak party loyalty were more likely to defect, as were people who are very invested in their policy position.

They also found that in national and state-level races, people are much less likely to split their votes between parties.

Study co-author Professor of Public Policy and Administration Ted Lascher, also from Sacramento State, said the data show that voters are more flexible when an issue hits close to home.

"One of the implications is that somebody who's running, who's the out party, in terms of local party identification, may be able to win elections in city council and mayoral races," said Lascher, "if they choose the issue very carefully. Because voters will sometimes cross party lines on particular local issues."

San Diego State University Political Science Professor Brian Adams said this means that even though Democrats enjoy broad support in California, that support is more conditional than absolute in local races.

"A lot of this research suggests that if Republicans put forward candidates that actually agreed with some of the policy positions that Democratic voters have," said Adams, "at least some Democratic voters would be willing to switch."

About 96% of electoral contests in the U.S. are at the local level - for races such as the school board, the city council, and the county board of supervisors.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

A proposal to end closed party primaries and use a ranked choice system will appear on the November ballot.

With less than two months to the election, a district court judge has dismissed a challenge from Attorney General Raúl Labrador to keep Proposition 1 off the ballot.

The initiative would end the state's closed party primaries and implement a ranked choice voting system. Labrador argued signature gatherers misled the public on the nature of the initiative.

In August, the state Supreme Court dismissed a similar claim from the Attorney General.

Margaret Kinzel, liaison with Mormon Women for Ethical Government and Idahoans for Open Primaries, said Labrador has failed to prove his case.

"We are gratified that the system worked," said Kinzel, "and that the citizen's ballot initiative process has been protected."

Kinzel said the organizations she's affiliated with have continued doing outreach despite the challenges to Proposition 1.

In response to the district court ruling, Labrador said it's up to voters whether to approve "an expensive ranked choice voting system that has resulted in confusion" in other states.

Kinzel said the initiative will allow about 270,000 independent voters, not affiliated with either major party, to participate in consequential primary elections.

"They currently cannot vote in the taxpayer-funded primary elections, particularly the Republican primary election in May," said Kinzel, "and that is where most races are decided, because we have such a strong Republican majority in the state."

Supporters have said opponents to Proposition 1 have exaggerated costs for implementing the initiative. Kinzel also pushed back on the idea that the top-four ranked choice voting system is confusing.

"We really do ranked choice voting all the time," said Kinzel. "We send somebody to the grocery store and say, 'Buy the apple pie. If they don't have apple, get blueberry.' And so this really is this idea of we express our preference. If that preference is not available we move on to our second preference."

The general election takes place on November 5.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

For the 2024 presidential election, Wisconsin has retained its status as a battleground state.

That means voters are hearing a lot from campaigns and their supporters, and one expert says there are ways to become better informed about those running.

The Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and her Republican counterpart Donald Trump have already crisscrossed Wisconsin at various points, with more visits expected.

University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Political Science Professor David Helpap said if you're approached by a campaign volunteer, ask about the candidate's stances on certain issues that come to mind.

After that encounter, a little homework is encouraged.

"If time allows it, do some of your own research to check the facts - to go to news sources, reputable news sources," said Helpap. "There are some nonprofit organizations out there that try to provide good, nonpartisan unbiased information."

Vote411.org is one of those sites that outlines a candidate's stances on certain issues, as well as their previous voting and policy record.

Helpap said cross-checking that information with the answers from a campaign staffer can help assess whether that person is worthy of your vote.

He also encouraged comparing criticisms of rival candidates with the facts, to see if they match up.

Helpap said if you have the time, attending a political rally is another valuable way of becoming an informed voter.

"And particularly in swing states where we are seeing so many visits by different people," said Helpap, "politicians, groups, even celebrities in some cases."

Helpap said even if you don't agree with a candidate's views, showing up to an event allows you to gain some insight into how other voters feel, possibly making political discourse less hostile.

He added that this kind of added exposure is hard to come by in non-swing states. Political experts say these tips are just as important in deciding candidates for state and local offices.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email