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

The 2024 presidential election has raised complex emotions for incarcerated Ohioans, many of whom are unable to vote but remain deeply engaged in political discussions.

As a group often left out of political discourse, their views on the election reflect a broader desire for involvement in decisions that directly affect their lives.

Nicole Lewis, engagement editor for The Marshall Project, talked about the findings of its new survey of Ohio's incarcerated population.

"Many of the people who oversee the system are elected officials, sheriffs, judges, district attorneys," Lewis observed. "and so incarcerated people have a really unique perspective on how well the people in those roles are executing their jobs."

The presidential election held particular significance this year, with concerns about criminal justice reform, sentencing policies and who can participate in elections. Despite limited news access, many voiced strong opinions about candidates, especially former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor.

Lewis noted the broader implications of the political divide, especially in how those inside view figures like Trump and Harris.

"Many, many people told us, 'How can I move forward?'" Lewis reported. "'How can I believe that society would want me back if they're so willing to cast Donald Trump aside and make his felony convictions a complete disqualification for public office?'"

While people in prison in Ohio may not have had the opportunity to vote in the 2024 election, advocates said their voices and perspectives are crucial to understanding the political landscape. Their insights, shaped by years behind bars, are particularly relevant as more individuals regain the right to vote upon release and the effects of their views could shape the future of both criminal justice reform and electoral engagement nationwide.


get more stories like this via email

Wisconsinites overwhelmingly voted 'yes' on a record number of school funding measures, according to a new Wisconsin Policy Forum study. The appeals essentially asked voters to increase their own property taxes to fund school operations across the state. Voters favored a record number 169 referendums, authorizing a record total of $4.4 billion in new funding for 145 school districts.

Denise Gaumer Hutchison, Northwest regional organizer with the Wisconsin Public Education Network, said districts are being forced to take their needs to the ballot box to fund gaps between prioritizing students and overdue bills.

"The first responsibility of our public schools across the state is to educate children and to take care of the kids and the families they serve, every single day," she said. "So, that means any available funds that public schools have they put toward educating children. And so, if that means a boiler has to be patched rather than replaced, that's what they're going to do."

Almost half of the state's 421 school districts passed a referendum in April or November. Hutchison blames the state for not adequately funding school priorities, from building maintenance, to student mental-health services. The state superintendent announced last week the proposed 2025-27 budget would include $4 billion more in spending for public schools.

Despite 78% of the ballot measures passing, Hutchson said the districts where voters turned them down are in dire need of support to keep their doors open. Regardless of whether taxpayers have children in public schools, she says, the focus should be on providing every Wisconsin student with a quality education.

"I want their experience in public schools to be as awesome as my 25 and 26-year-old's were. I want them to get to be able to participate in sports, in theater, in drama and DECA, and learn about the history of our state and our country, and think about what our state and our country can be," she continued.

The study found factors like inflation outpacing the state allocated per-student revenue limits, the loss of pandemic aid and staff competition in a tight labor market are all factors that contributed to the record number of referendums.


get more stories like this via email

The presidential vote was close in Nevada and with the results in, local organizations leaning more progressive believe the re-election of Donald Trump could put much of the progress made in the Silver State in jeopardy.

Shelbie Swartz, executive director of Battle Born Progress, said Nevadans should take Trump's campaign promises seriously. She called on leaders in Carson City and in Congress to "stand up for their constituents," whom she argued a Trump administration could target, from immigrants to people who identify as transgender.

"If your values change based on polling, if your willingness to fight for the dignity of all Nevadans does not extend to our transgender siblings, then those are not values," Swartz contended. "They're talking points drafted in pencil."

Swartz stressed she has faith in the Nevada Legislature to pass bills to uphold and protect the rights of Nevadans but added the biggest challenge will be seeing what can make it across Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo's desk. Last year, Lombardo, who endorsed Donald Trump, vetoed a record 75 bills passed by the Legislature's Democratic majority.

Trump campaigned on the idea of mass deportations and has doubled down on the threat since his win.

Leo Murrieta, executive director of the group Make the Road Action Nevada, said it is time for leaders who are ready to move beyond what he calls "fear-based policies," to advocate instead for immigration reform, including clearer, earned pathways to citizenship.

"It is time for leaders to see our community as an integral part of this country's fabric, not just a political talking point," Murrieta argued. "We are standing united with many other groups ready to resist any of the policies and any of the other threats that we're certainly going to face."

A new report from the American Immigration Council found a one-time mass deportation operation would cost the United States at least $315 billion to remove more than 13 million people.