Stay ahead of the curve as a political insider with deep policy analysis, daily briefings and policy-shaping tools.
Request a DemoCrouch calls for FSSA audit; criticizes Holcomb and GOP leaders
Lt. Gov. Suzanne Crouch is calling for an audit of the Family Social Services Administration two months after the agency acknowledged an unexpected nearly $1 billion cost jump in Medicaid expenses.
In doing so, Crouch was highly critical of Gov. Eric Holcomb, House Speaker Todd Huston and Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray after complicated legislation that included proposals addressing proposed cuts to Medicaid’s Attendant Care program died Feb. 1.
"I'm going to call for an independent audit of the FSSA," Crouch told Howey Politics/State Affairs on Monday ahead of a Tuesday news conference she called on the issue. "If they could make a billion dollar mistake that we know about, what else do we not know about ... yet? People just don't know about it."
The Family Social Services Administration’s Attendant Care program is complex. It currently compensates parents and guardians who provide attendant care to their disabled children. There is a shortage of trained professionals to help these families cope with often daunting disabilities. Crouch told Howey Politics she doesn't know how many Hoosier families will be impacted by the proposed cuts to the program that would go into effect July 1. Crouch said that she, the task force and affected families are seeking a "pause" in the new program rollout so questions can be answered.
Crouch said she and other critics asked the Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities Task Force at a recent meeting how many families would be impacted by the changes. “We never got an answer,” she said. “I've heard numbers of 11,000, but I didn't hear that from FSSA, I heard that from the parents that I met with in Warsaw."
"These people don't have a voice," Crouch said. "They've been bringing their children to the Statehouse to have rallies. But the challenge is a lot of them can't bring their children because they have highly complex medical conditions. They have tracheostomies, they have feeding tubes. They have epileptic seizures multiple times a day. To get them to the Statehouse is a challenge for those parents. It's hard for them to engage in the issue.
"We're racing against the clock," Crouch said. "If the Legislature doesn't do anything and the governor doesn't do anything, nothing is going to happen.
"It appears that the leadership just refused to call down the bill to avoid a discussion of these issues pertaining to these parents being compensated for taking care of their children," the lieutenant governor said. "They just didn't want a discussion. It's like they are trying to put a lid on things. They just don't want attention."
Huston said Tuesday he thought it was premature for the Legislature to intervene.
“FSSA has put out proposed rules — they're still open; they're still taking feedback. So it would strike me that we should let that process take place, where people can give feedback,” Huston said. “I think we'll let the situation play out, and I understand people are wanting to opine on it, and they should.”
Crouch said in a statement last week, "I’m deeply disappointed with FSSA, but it is hard to be angry when your heart aches for the families and caregivers of the precious children they are attending to. It truly is heartbreaking. Since the meeting Monday, more and more families are contacting my office asking what can be done to reverse, or at least pause, these cuts."
As for Holcomb, Crouch issued a rare rebuke. "He's the governor, and he's performing his duties and I'm performing my duties as chair of the task force of the IDD Task Force," she said. "It is my duty to speak out on behalf of the people who don't have voices. And they don't have high-paid lobbyists. They have only people like me and the other members of the task force to speak out and draw attention to this issue."
Asked who at Family Social Services should be held responsible? Crouch responded, "I think that's up to the governor to decide."
Crouch drew a historical parallel to another troubled FSSA episode from the Daniels administration. "I see this issue very much like the IBM issue. The governor ignores the issue until the media becomes engaged, until he can no longer ignore it. I see this as the very same issue."
That was in reference to 2009 when Gov. Mitch Daniels pulled the plug on a $1.34 billion welfare privatization deal with IBM. Then-state Rep. Crouch and other southwestern and northeastern legislators began fielding complaints that people without computer skills seeking services like food stamps were falling through the cracks, sometimes with lethal repercussions.
Crouch said that once media coverage on the issue began, Daniels opted for a new hybrid approach, much of which still exists today. In a text to State Affairs after her news conference Tuesday, Crouch said, “Gov. Daniels had the political courage to acknowledge the problem and come up with a hybrid model that better served Hoosiers.”
Asked in October 2009 about the IBM contract, Daniels told Howey Politics, "The easiest thing to do in a situation like this is throw your hands up and say, ‘Well, that’s as good as it can be.’ This has been a daunting thing all along, and it still is, of course. Our first attempt didn’t get us there, but we did get some positives out of it. We’ll just have to take them and reverse some of the mistakes and move forward.”
Crouch said that in this situation she told constituents with questions and concerns to “contact the governor.”
“I have been given just normal speeches and in them I have spoken about this issue. In every instance my message has been the same. People need to be engaged and need to contact the governor's office because the governor made this happen. And also they need to engage with legislators because if the governor does not do anything to address this situation, then the Legislature can do it. But barring that, nothing happens. I can't make it happen.
Asked if she had spoken to the governor about the issue, Crouch said, "No."
On Monday, Crouch tweeted on X: "The FSSA's proposed cuts to the Attendant Care program are deeply troubling. It's clear action is needed. Hoosiers, your voice matters! Reach out to your legislators and demand a pause on these cuts!"
FSSA's Attendant Care program was created in 2017, Crouch said, and then with the COVID-19 pandemic, usage amped up, contributing to a nearly $1 billion forecasting error.
Crouch also addressed the speculation of program abuse. "If there are abuses in the system, let's get them addressed," she said. "When I asked if there were abuses at the IDD Task Force, they really couldn't speak to it with any great thoroughness."
Brian Howey is senior writer and columnist for Howey Politics Indiana/State Affairs. Find Howey on Facebook and X @hwypol.
Senior Reporter Tom Davies contributed to this story.
Read more on the FSSA:
Crouch, lawmakers call for FSSA to pause its plan to make up for nearly $1B forecasting error
Read this story for free.
Create AccountRead this story for free
By submitting your information, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy.
Indiana appeals court chief judge on AI, mental health, and the state’s dwindling number of lawyers
Many Hoosiers may be familiar with their local courts or hear about the opinions of the Indiana Supreme Court, but a middle tier in the state’s judiciary system shapes justice through some 2,000 rulings a year.
The 15 judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals dole out opinions on everything from murder and fraud to civil and child welfare cases. Every Hoosier has the right to appeal a conviction or ruling, and the Court of Appeals, the second-highest court in the state, takes up each case sent its way.
Chief Judge Robert R. Altice Jr. has analyzed thousands of cases since being appointed by Gov. Mike Pence in 2015. Prior to that, he spent 15 years as an elected judge in Marion County.
Altice sat down with State Affairs for a discussion on the ins and outs of his court, how changes in technology and mental health care have impacted his work and what he sees as a major problem facing the nation’s judicial system.
This conversation has been edited for clarity, brevity and length.
Q. What sort of cases does the Court of Appeals hear?
A. We hear really everything except death penalty cases. If there’s a death penalty case, it goes straight to the [state] Supreme Court. Otherwise, we get it.
I’ve had to publish an opinion on a traffic court case. About 65% of our cases are criminal. Every, everything under the sun: murders, rapes, robberies, child molestation.
Then there are civil cases. We do medical malpractice suits, traffic accidents, you name it. Complex business litigation? Our court was involved.
Q. How does the appeals process work? There’s not a new trial, right?
A. I’ll give you an example. Let’s say you got a murder case and the defendant gets convicted and gets 65 years, which is the max for a murder conviction. Everybody in the state of Indiana has got an automatic right to appeal. Not everybody takes that right, but most criminal defendants do.
Somebody will write his brief for him. That attorney will find three issues that they think will result in a new trial if we rule in their favor. That’s really what the appellate process is: Are the errors committed at the trial court level significant enough to warrant a new trial?
And then the attorney general in the criminal cases will write a brief in opposition, then the appellant or the defendant can file a reply brief as well.
We sit and read transcripts and their briefs and do our own research and come to a decision as to whether or not there was error at the trial court level that warrants a new trial.
Q. How many of the 2,000 cases your court receives a year, how many are taken up by the Indiana Supreme Court?
A. It is rare. You start with the proposition that trial courts throughout the state are doing about 2+ million cases a year. That’s everything. We do 2,000 opinions a year. I think the Supreme Court writes about 60 opinions a year. That’s what their taking of ours.
But we’re considered an error-correcting court, whereas that’s really not their role. Their role is more jurisprudential. It’s “should we look at changing in this regard or changing precedent.”
It’s really an inverse pyramid, with the trial courts, I always say, doing the heavy lifting.
Our turnaround time is very quick. It’s about three months. Some states require oral arguments in every single case, but we don’t.
If you ask for an oral argument, we will sometimes grant that. We do a lot of oral arguments, but most of our oral arguments are traveling oral arguments. We travel all over the state and do live arguments. And we do those in front of high schools, small colleges, bigger schools.
We answer questions or ask questions like we normally would do, and then once we’re finished, then we have a question and answer session with the students.
Q. One thing we heard about at the State of the Judiciary is there’s an attorney shortage in the state, particularly in rural areas. How has that affected your work?
A. I think we’re seeing more pro se litigants, people representing themselves, and that can be difficult because we hold them to the same standard that we would hold a lawyer to. It can be really difficult for them. So in that regard, it has hurt.
We’ll go to traveling oral arguments in some rural county, and the bar association will host a lunch for us. We’ll go and there’ll be six lawyers in the room and I’ll say to somebody, “So how many people are in the bar?” And they’ll say, “Well, you’re looking at it.”
That access to justice is a really difficult thing that I think the state of Indiana is dealing with now. The Supreme Court has just set up a task force to look into how we can improve that. I believe law schools are looking at incentivizing young kids to go practice in rural areas.
It’s a real issue. I think a lot of it stems from the low bar passage rate of the last 10+ years. It’ll be interesting to see what the task force thinks.
Q. How has technology impacted the court?
A. Technology has been huge. All our work is done online now. The briefs are filed online.
The technology that we have to keep an eye on, and we’re already looking at, is artificial intelligence. What impact is that going to have on the courts, especially our courts?
You can punch a button and write an opinion. It’s probably not going to be very good, but as technology improves, it’s going to be. We’re kind of leery of that.
But at the same time, from a research standpoint, it’s been a very valuable tool. We’ve been using AI in that regard for researching for some time now, with Westlaw and Lexus as they’ve come out with those kinds of tools.
Q. There have been changes in how the world views mental health. How has that impacted the court?
A. I see it primarily in the sentencing arena. Before every defendant is sentenced by a trial court, a pre-sentence investigation is prepared on them. And so that’s where you see a lot of that because it discusses their entire background, and the number of people with mental health issues coming through has really increased greatly.
I think the pandemic had a lot to do with that as well. But again, the mental health issues are very much creeping into the system, and one of the things that we’re constantly working on trying to be aware of and trying to, to the extent we can with alternatives to incarceration, assist people.
Q. Are there any other challenges facing today’s judiciary?
A. I guess not necessarily my court, but courts in general. It appears to me that Congress is broken. They’re not passing laws.
So, what are we doing? We have to rely on the other two branches of government to kind of take up the slack, and that’s why you’re seeing tons of executive orders.
That’s not traditionally their job, and then you’re seeing the courts being called upon to determine whether or not those regulations are enforceable.
I see that as a long-term problem that we’ve got to get corrected.
Contact Rory Appleton on X at @roryehappleton or email him at [email protected].
How McCormick, Braun view abortion, taxes and other key issues
A Democrat-turned-Republican and Republican-turned-Democrat will soon face off in the race to become Indiana’s next governor.
Sen. Mike Braun, who voted as a Democrat prior to 2012, captured the Republican nomination in Tuesday’s primary. Jennifer McCormick, formerly a Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction, will represent the Democrats.
Voters will decide the state’s next chief executive in November.
A State Affairs analysis of the candidates’ campaign platforms and public statements found key differences — and a few similarities — in their planned approaches to a variety of issues impacting Hoosier voters.
Here is how they match up.
Abortion
Braun: As a senator, Braun has long supported abortion restrictions.
In 2020, he called for the Supreme Court to re-examine Roe v. Wade.
In 2023, he proposed federal legislation that would have required parental notification before any unemancipated minor could seek an abortion. He said at the time: “Hoosiers put their trust in me to stand up for the unborn, and that’s what I’ve been proud to do every day in the Senate.”
He has since signaled support for the state’s abortion ban. His platform reads: “State lawmakers must work to ensure the gains we have made to protect life are secured and strengthened.”
McCormick: In a Tuesday interview with State Affairs, McCormick said her candidacy represented a referendum on reproductive rights.
“I’m going to fight to restore those rights under any authority I can, working in a bipartisan fashion, using our committees, board and our agencies. I also know, too, what everybody’s fear is: that they’re [Republicans] not going to restore those rights and will take [restrictions] further.”
From her platform: “Indiana’s Republican-led extreme abortion ban has taken away the right of women to make deeply personal decisions regarding their own health care.”
Marijuana
Braun: At a March 26 Republican primary debate, Braun suggested an openness to legalizing medicinal marijuana.
“It’s gonna hit all of us. I’m gonna listen to law enforcement — they have to put up with the brunt of it,” he said. “Medical marijuana is where I think the case is best made that maybe something needs to change. But I’ll take my cue from law enforcement there as well. … I hear a lot of input where [medical marijuana is] helpful, and I think that you need to listen and see what makes sense.”
McCormick: The Democrat’s platform also addresses medical marijuana legalization, while speculating on possible recreational use.
“We will fight for the legalization of medical marijuana as a source of state revenue established on a well-regulated marketplace and monitored by a Cannabis Task Force in order to study the issues, opportunities and potential obstructions associated with recreational marijuana legalization.”
McCormick said she would also support expunging low-level marijuana-related convictions.
Taxes
Braun: At a March 19 National Federation of Independent Business forum, Braun said the state’s property tax system “went out of whack because it couldn’t respond to inflation like we’ve never seen before.”
“The way you finance any lower taxes would be to bank on the government being run more efficiently,” he said.
His platform also calls for government spending cuts to finance lower taxes: “Reducing the size of government is the key to cutting taxes, and Mike Braun will work through every state agency to find ways to save money while delivering high-quality services to taxpayers.”
McCormick: McCormick also spoke about taxes at the March 19 forum.
“I agree with a revamp of our taxing system,” she said. “But also it’s about not just how we’re getting our revenue, it’s about our expenditures. Yes, we need to fix our gas tax. Yes, we need to look at the income tax. But here’s the thing: There are hidden taxes we’re not having a conversation about.”
Her platform also references the possibility of combining state agencies as a way to save money.
Education
Braun: In his platform, Braun supports broadening school choice and parental rights.
“As a former school board member, Mike Braun knows parents are the primary stakeholders in their children’s education and every family, regardless of income or zip code, should be able to enroll in a school of their choice and pursue a curriculum that prepares them for a career, college or the military,” the platform reads.
Braun also pledged to ensure critical race theory and discussions about gender are banned in public schools.
McCormick: Education is one of McCormick’s primary issues, according to her platform.
She calls for the elimination of statewide testing, increased early childhood reading and child care options and a minimum base salary of $60,000 for all K-12 teachers.
McCormick also addresses the state’s school choice movement.
“We will call for a pause in the expansion of school privatization efforts while requiring fiscal and academic accountability and transparency for all of Indiana schools that receive public tax dollars,” her platform reads.
U.S.-Mexico border
Braun: Braun’s television ads have touched on border security, and his platform calls for increased focus on the area.
“Joe Biden and the left have created a humanitarian and national security crisis on our southern border,” the platform reads. “As governor, Mike will continue to support and enact the America First policies that were working. Otherwise, every town will become a border town.”
McCormick: McCormick’s border-related plans are more focused on facilitating legal immigration.
“We will work with local, state and federal officials in supporting an immigrant system that creates a safe, timely, orderly and humane pathway for those seeking legal immigration while keeping our communities and those responsible for border security safe,” her platform reads.
Contact Rory Appleton on X at @roryehappleton or email him at [email protected].
Spartz, Shreve, Stutzman win Republican congressional primaries
A central Indiana congresswoman successfully fought off eight primary challengers, while crowded races for three other Republican-leaning congressional districts began to clear in Tuesday’s primary election. And in northeastern Indiana, a former congressman held on in a tight race as he seeks to return to Congress. All of the state’s nine U.S. House of Representatives …
Mike Braun wins the Indiana Republican nomination for governor
U.S. Sen. Mike Braun was declared the winner of the Republican gubernatorial nomination shortly after polls in Indiana’s Central Time Zone closed. With 98% of votes counted as of Wednesday morning, Braun had 39.6%, followed by Lt. Gov. Suzanne Crouch with 21.8%, Brad Chambers with 17.5%, Eric Doden with 11.9 %, Jamie Reitenour with 4.8% …