Senator.

Deery wins in district 23 communities still in need of flood recovery and repre comes up in abortion arguments from the television studios at WFYI Public Media.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending September 11th, 2026.

Indiana Week In Review is produced by Wfyi in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey The Indiana Supreme Court has declared Spencer Dearie, the winner of his primary race against Trump backed challenger Paula Copenhagen.

Indiana's recount commission initially upset dairies when tossing out a number of ballots for missing clerks signatures.

On Thursday, the court heard the case.

Ben Thorp has more.

At issue was whether the recount commission errored in tossing out just enough ballots to tip Deery's three vote lead over Copenhagen.

Justice Derek Molter asked whether there was an inherent problem and how the secretary of State's office had weighed in on the ballots.

So it seems problematic to me that you have the secretary of state before the election saying if this scenario were to arise, we will count the ballot.

And it's only after the election when we know what the rule, who that's kind of benefit that that that view flips other justices.

Asked whether the decision to exclude ballots sets a precedent moving forward, the court's decision now sends Deery to the November ballot, as.

Did the Indiana Supreme Court.

Get it right in district 23.

It's the first question for our Indiana Weekend Review panel.

Political analyst Elise Schrock.

Republican Mike O'Brien.

Oseye Boyd, editor in chief at Mirror Indy.

And Ebony Chappel, director of brand and community strategy at Free Press Indiana.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at Wfyi.

So, Mike, the Supreme Court came back with this decision fairly quickly.

Is this, the right end to this saga that we've been going through for months?

And for a. Lot of reasons, they had to come back quickly because we don't have a lot of time.

I mean, you think about what the average guy thinks for elections November 3rd, that's way off.

There are for everyone thinks this is just some made up process that's full of fraud.

This is a very prescriptive process that starts at Election Day, and then we go backwards 30 days to early voting, which is in three weeks.

Ballots have to be certified by, you know, they made a decision this week.

The last window to operationally process a ballot or make a change to a ballot is Monday.

All right.

So they could sit around for a week and go, well, what do you think?

You know, especially when law was so clear or right or wrong.

reference that.

And now quote in the end, and that's been the law for 40 years in Indiana that if if a voter, through no fault of their own, has a vote that can't be certified because of an administrative error, you have the burden of proof that there was fraud involved has to be proven before you can not count that ballot, period.

And that's what justice, I like justice Molter's comment I don't think was in the clip, but, he said, you know, if there's some plot because the, you know, of course, Copenhagen's, attorneys were trying to say, well, this is just part of a bigger, bigger conspiracy that's like, all right, so three votes in three different counties.

Why didn't you make it?

Once you defraud 200 ballots and then nobody's even looking, you know.

So, but the idea of this is, like, systemic fraud or whatever was silly in the but it was the only argument they could make to try to toss these, the try to use ballots.

But, you know, the Supreme Court just wasn't going to go along with that.

So they needed to make that decision quick.

So this process can these clerks, you know, when people forget that you're leaving these locals in limbo.

I mean, they're going to work at all night, all weekend to get these ballots done by Monday.

So people know who they're voting for and where they're voting.

so they can get them out the door, in the mail on Friday, and then we're off, you know, but you can't just, you know, you can't just think that it's Election Day and that's it.

I mean, there's and we know this election calendar a year in advance at least.

and the Supreme Court had to just, like, make the decision and go.

And they made the decision quickly.

But there has been so many pieces of this.

We've been talking a lot about district 23 since the May primary.

It's even before with redistricting.

you know, as we've seen this process play out, you know, questions about subpoenaing, subpoenaing voters and questions about, voters rights.

You know, what was your big takeaway with with this decision yesterday?

Well, I mean, I think it has been going on for so long.

The folks who probably wanted this to be over the most are the folks who are the candidates.

My God, I'm sure.

they just wanted a decision on this.

And I think this really comes down to we hear so much, each legislative session about fraud.

And I think this really solidified that that's that's not the case.

we have clerks across Indiana who are doing so much work like Mike said, but they're using many different systems, using, all different systems.

And we solve quite frankly, we saw Greg Ballard come out saying, hey, we need our clerks and we need our poll workers to have some perhaps better training on this, something more standard.

and as someone who has had a front seat to voter protection, working alongside my sister who led voter protection, for the Democratic Party, over the years, that's something that we've seen clerks need that support.

because it it's just so different in every different county.

so that we don't get into these situations where we're having to look through clerical errors, to determine what a voters intent was.

And I think that's the right decision.

We shouldn't be disenfranchizing voters based on that, type of administrative error.

So we also saw so, again, so many tentacles of this story playing out, Republicans now calling for closed primaries because of this.

Also, some of candidates calling for a bipartisan recount commission.

we did see, you know, the Secretary of state's, and also the recount commission decide, for Copenhagen initially before the Supreme Court did, decided for dearie, you know, was that, surprising at all that they overturned the commission's decision and that the commission made that decision in the first place?

I think, no, it's not surprising, one, that Paula Copenhagen are on their side.

If they wanted to fight this, they really wanted that seat.

They really wanted that role.

And ultimately, I think this comes down to being a victory for the voters.

To quote, Sorry.

because at the end of the day, like everyone has shared, if you go in and you cast your ballot through no fault of your own, a lot of times Election Day is chaos and in that particular instance, extra chaos because we have all of the national attention on these local races.

All of this, millions and millions of dollars poured in, you know, from Washington insiders and other groups that wanted to influence the way that this, election went.

So I think it's a victory for the voters.

I think that it is, you know, an incredible story for us to look back on and make some changes and some adjustments as to what, our elections look like.

But ultimately, I think that the court got it right, and this was a victory for the voters.

And I said many times before, as we've been following this, you know, story, that every vote counts.

But ultimately this was, you know, is the end.

I'm sure Mike is happy to get an entire redistricting saga from last year as well.

You know, this started, when these when President Trump, primaried a lot of voters.

And now Spencer's area is one of only two incumbent senators to to keep their seat.

After all the redistricting that a saga that happened here in Indiana.

Yeah.

So there was a lot of pressure for him to win this election or to lose this election.

Right.

For a Copenhagen or to win from, as Abney said, DC insiders, people who wanted the redistricting to happen in it.

And it didn't happen.

So there was a lot of pressure for this race.

and he did mention he did say in another quote that, like, this was the biggest race he will ever probably win, ever elected official because it was major.

It was a major thing.

We've been watching this since May.

Yeah.

it really re, districting since what, December?

So this has been a long saga, for him especially.

And for the voters to figure out for the state of Indiana, because we've all been kind of wondering what's going to happen, who's going to win.

I think it's very interesting, though, that the commission, flipped when they found out who the, winner actually was.

but I do think it is a win for voters because it is not the voters fault that there was a mistake that the clerk made.

It had nothing to do with the voters.

I wouldn't want my vote to be counted.

And we say every vote counts and we say your vote counts.

So there was not fraud here.

It was a mistake.

and it does.

I want to reiterate, I've said it before, but it does show how much your vote does matter, especially in local elections.

Like what, three, three votes or three votes?

And they were they were fighting about six.

So it's a vote in matters it really does, especially at these local elections, where you get to see like how much that one, two, three votes make a huge difference.

I do want to say quick, credit to Copenhagen because right now it is so easy to lose and then demagogue it.

It was fraud, I got cheated.

Whatever the whatever the line is and it's so pre-made.

And she didn't say that.

She said, I don't like the outcome, but I trust it.

Good luck.

I'll pray for your dirty right thing for for voters.

And and when they have to move down.

They have to, like you said, you have to start easy.

They have to start running for November.

There's no one like November is coming up.

And so they need to start actually preparing for November.

Until the generals.

Well, it's time now for viewer feedback.

Every week we post an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question should a voter's ballot be counted?

If the clerk makes an error?

Vote yes or no.

The last question posed to viewers should cities get rid of flock cameras?

61% answering yes and 39% say no.

If you would like to take part in the poll, go to wfyi.org/i w I r and look for the poll.

Some Indiana cities and towns are facing millions of dollars in recovery costs after the historic August storms and flooding.

Caroline Beck has more on a new program that is meant to get money to communities faster.

A new loan program created by the state Treasurer's office will allow local governments to apply for up to $1 million for storm recovery needs.

The Recovery Advance Program for Infrastructure damage, or rapid for short, will provide low interest loans through the Indiana Bond Bank.

Indiana Department of Homeland Security Leader Jonathan Whitham says this is meant to provide immediate assistance while towns wait for state or federal disaster funding, which can take longer to arrive.

What this will do is it will it will allow communities to start recovering on day one.

The loans can be paid back through federal or state recovery funds, and repayments won't have to begin for another two years.

So at least our Hoosier communities and families getting the support they need after the storms.

Well, I think this will help.

I think communities are already, struggling and fronting the cost right now for a lot of cities and towns would be really difficult.

Their budgets are already strapped.

After Senate Bill one, it's really hard to come into, this type of situation.

So covering this gap so that they don't have to front it.

and being creative with these rapid loans is a good thing.

and I'm glad to see it.

so I think it's really on communities to be making sure they get those applications in by the end of the month.

and then, I think one group that I'm specifically going to be looking at in our communities are renters, because a lot of these funds go will be going to landlords, and we need to make sure that those funds are also being, because they flow through the landlords, that renters are getting the support that they need.

It's going to be hard in places like or harder in places like Indianapolis, where the legislature has come in, and it has limited tenants rights.

and these are things that we should be thinking about when we pass this type of legislation.

but that's one group that I think I'm going to be looking at closely in the, in the fall out.

But, I think these communities, and the state and the treasurer are doing what they can and coming up with creative ideas to make sure that, we're getting people relief.

And then we have been very active, the state, the governor, you know, we've seen a number of programs, 40,000, Hoosiers have already applied for state assistance.

We're hearing, but some communities I'm thinking of Carmel.

There was a representative there with announcement this week are facing major infrastructure needs.

and this type of infusion, from the loans should be a good thing for local government.

It's a good start.

It builds a bridge between, you know, the federal process and getting dollars into the into the communities.

And you can only do that, you know, it's the state's position to do that.

If the Indiana Finance Authority has, you know, the state's bond rating is what it is.

They can access, you know, cheap money that they can go loan to these communities.

because it is a process you'd like it to go as you'd like to do at lightning fast.

So kudos to those to Brian for getting I think he got that emergency declaration as fast as he could.

And and the federal administration's not handed these out the way they used to.

I mean, the standard is going up, for the feds to come in and help FEMA cover 75% of these costs, the state will come in with 18 locals, pay 6%.

And so that that million dollar cap is seems low.

It's really like a $16 million cap because you're paying about 6% or whatever your, what, which isn't going to be enough at the end of the day.

Certainly not in Carmel to rebuild a bridge.

Right.

You know, a rebuilt road.

but it it'll help get money to these communities fast, faster than they otherwise could if they just relied on the federal system.

I mean, oh, sure, we are hearing about cracks in the system as well now.

And we know that, you know, individuals are facing a lot of challenges when they are looking to receive funds for recovery after the storms.

what should people that are these one stop shops have really helped, you know, connect people directly with someone that can can help them get the assistance they need?

Yeah, I think, this is a good thing to help fill that gap.

while we wait for FEMA assistance to come through.

I do have concerns about, how long this will actually take.

We have made promises such as people will get, snap replacement benefits, and then they go and they apply and they are told, no, you will not.

So I do worry about promises that are made and they're not capped and people having expectations and then being told when they get there, oh no, you don't meet the requirement.

Or here's the reason why.

So we have a blanket statement out that you will get this, that communities will get this, local governments will get this.

But then what is really what what's the nuance, what's between the, you know, what's between the between the lines that we don't know about?

because we saw that, like I said with snap that people if I think it was if you got your benefits before the flood, the before or after made a difference where people didn't know that.

Either way it goes, I'm out of food and I have to feed my family.

So then what happens?

And I hope this doesn't happen with this situation as well.

Do you think the red tape is too much sometimes happening?

I absolutely think the red tape is too much.

We see this a lot when it comes to disaster relief.

When it comes to philanthropy.

There are people that are in need and they have an immediate need.

If I have an immediate need to oh, she is point the food in my house has spoiled.

I need to feed my children.

We think about communities like Gary, Indiana, weeks without power in the hottest time of the year that we've experienced, and they still have electricity bills that are extremely high.

You think about communities in Broad Ripple and Rocky Ripple and what those, homeowners and renters experienced.

And if I have an immediate need and then I need to go somewhere, fill out paperwork, and I need to call and I need to chase it around, that, to me, creates a barrier that is unnecessary.

A lot of these things can be solved.

We're all human beings.

These are things that a human being can solve like that.

so I think that is an issue.

Something else that I am concerned about to talk about, Gary, Indiana and surrounding communities, again, is the issues with Nipsco.

And when it comes to that, they had already a lot of infrastructure issues going on.

And now you have these people that are like, Governor Eddie Melton is asking, you know, excuse me, mayor.

Mayor Eddie.

Yes.

yeah.

is is asking, you know, we want to put a moratorium on disconnect notices, and you have the governor asking for an investigation on what's going on up there.

So those things, I think this stopgap here can help resolve, but only if the bureaucracy doesn't get in the way.

Also this way, does Indiana's religious freedom law protect the right to an abortion?

That's the question the Indiana Supreme Court heard Thursday, considering the challenge to the state's near-total abortion ban on the grounds that it conflicts with someone's deeply held religious beliefs.

Ben Thorp has more.

The case was first brought in 2022 by Hoosier Jews for choice, asserting that the religious beliefs conflict with the state's abortion restrictions.

Attorney James Barta argued, on behalf of the state, our nation's long tradition of respect for religious exercise has never been understood to encompass a right to intentionally destroy human life.

Chief Justice Loretta Rush asked the state to explain why religious exemptions wouldn't apply in this case.

Explain why the.

Important piece of religious freedom.

Butting up against this is just game.

Over.

Justices seemed uncertain how the state would allow people to apply for exemptions to Indiana's near-total abortion ban.

So how should referral apply to Indiana's abortion ban?

Well, I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but it seems like it could be applicable here, especially when you think about, we've had situations where, that were much less extreme or important in there, such as I don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple.

so yes, yes, that's how it started, right?

And 2015, we passed it because so many people felt as if, well, I don't know, something, but lawmakers felt as if, their Christian values were not being, were being disregarded.

at the time, I don't know that there was thought about other rights, other people who have different religious views.

I mean, like play sports.

Or thank you.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

who had other views outside of Christianity.

And so now this is kind of coming back full circle to kind of bite them, in the behind, because you have people who have different beliefs who say this is something I believe is my religious right to have this, we have seen what my whole life they've been trying to chip away at Roe v Wade.

so this is now another way to chip away at getting those rights back.

I think we're going to keep seeing way.

So to figure out how can we actually make this less extreme and at least get more exemptions, to, to that pretty much total ban.

It's a back and forth for sure.

We see that happening now.

But, you know, I think a lot of the arguments yesterday were interesting when, a lot of it did focused on that, you know, how could you prove an exemption like this.

And it is fascinating.

It is fascinating.

But I think that's one of the beauties of the law.

That's one of the beauties of having a, system set up.

The way that we do is that things are open to interpretation.

So if you can creatively interpret things in a way, then you can work it to your advantage.

So I think it is amazing when citizens decide to see the the course of things and decide to get involved that way.

It does make me laugh because I was a reporter.

when refer a pass.

So to think about what that started as and where we are today is like, I never would have thought that this was possible.

it is interesting because people use these religious exemptions for all kinds of things for deciding not to become vaccinated, and that's applicable.

And that is a medical procedure.

This is a medical procedure as well.

So if people are able to interpret it that way, I think it is interesting and it's just another chapter in this.

We use the word saga earlier in this saga around, people's civil rights.

Yeah.

I mean, that was the fix for reference to, you know, was that, what were considering, you know, the civil rights of individuals and also any anti-discrimination, rights that or laws that we have on the books.

So, does this, discussion yesterday with the Supreme Court, fascinate you as well?

it doesn't surprise me.

I mean, unfortunately for the folks that charged in in 2015, this isn't the Christian religion freedom, act.

It is the religious, and that includes all religions.

And I think what the plaintiffs are trying to argue religions and spiritualities I think you can see the disdain for women and reproductive freedom when it comes to the attorney general side, when they're trying to say that you can only, you can only enact this when someone is pregnant, as if people don't plan for families for years and don't consider medical history, the way their family is comprised, their actual health, like preexisting conditions, the way their bodies works, their bodily autonomy that you have to actually already be pregnant for you to consider a pregnancy that just tells me everything I need to know about where they're coming from on this.

Well, also this week, as the Chicago Bears consider moving across the state line to Hammond, Indiana is already setting money aside for infrastructure upgrades.

The Indiana Capital Chronicle reports the operator of the Indiana Toll Road made its first $300 million payment in June as part of this year's lease amendment.

The Indiana Finance Authority says that money remains unspent and invested in a trust account.

The operator agreed to pay the state a total of $700 million in exchange for more frequent toll increases if the stadium is not built.

That money could also be spent and any of the counties along the Indiana Toll Road.

The bears have said their sole focus remains on Hammond.

But NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said he met with Illinois lawmakers and wants to make sure they have an opportunity.

So my we don't know for sure about the bears, but is this money going to be put to good use anyway?

Yeah, I mean, it's a toll road, but it should be used for infrastructure in northwest Indiana.

And then the and the counties along the toll road.

Right.

I mean, they're the ones paying substantially out of state traffic.

And the people in those counties are the ones paying those most of those holes.

And so it's great that we have that that resource, because you look across in Illinois, where the arguments against the the Bears in Arlington Heights and other places has been we're not paying for your infrastructure, not paying for your, you know, for your upgrades.

We're not supporting any of that.

And then the bears come here and we're like, no, we got a lot of money to go to go make that happen.

We need to put it.

Toward the roads.

Well, but the dotted line.

Is.

That you can raise it twice.

Now they're saying raising it twice.

I just came from Chicago.

The other 94 Indiana.

we know when we hit Indiana from Illinois.

So I would like to see more money for the road, with or without the bears, with or without the bears.

Just fix our roads.

Well, I think a lot of people, though, do see this, like, great amount of money for a sports, you know, team being offered through the billion dollar package that the lawmakers did set up and, and do have questions.

So, you know, but the tolls are not going down anytime soon, even now.

Now the toes are not going down.

They're going to raise, as Oseye just pointed out.

And I think having this, financial tool is a good thing.

But sitting the money in an investment account and not spending it and kind of like waiting out the bears, saying to me, I think is is a mistake because how long is that going to take?

yeah.

Oh my God.

That's Indiana we can review for this week.

Our panel is Ben political analyst Elise Schrock.

Republican Mike O'Brien, Oseye Boyd, editor in chief at Mirror Indy, and Ebony Chappel, director of brand and community strategy at Free Press Indiana.

You can find Indiana Weekend Reviews, podcast and episodes at WFYI.org/IWIR or on the PBS app.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at Wfyi.

Join us next time because a lot can happen in an Indiana Week The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by Wfyi in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey