Stay ahead of the curve as a political insider with deep policy analysis, daily briefings and policy-shaping tools.
Request a DemoFormer Sen. Tim Lanane on why he retired and what else he wanted to accomplish
This interview is part of a series of Q&As from outgoing lawmakers as they reflect on their time in the Statehouse.
Tim Lanane was a constant in the Indiana General Assembly for 25 years. The former state senator became a leading voice for Democrats in that time, even serving as the minority leader for eight years.
Then came his decision to retire.
As the legislative session begins this week, the 70-year-old Lanane is not there. He is one of 19 state lawmakers, according to a Capitol & Washington database, who will not be returning.
In 2021, Lanane announced he wouldn’t run for reelection to serve District 25. The district’s shape has changed a few times over the years, but most recently Lanane represented parts of Madison and Delaware counties. Redistricting this year switched the boundaries to encompass Madison County plus a little bit of Hamilton County, pushing its makeup toward Republicans.
In the week before Christmas, State Affairs spoke with Lanane about his decision and asked him to look back at his more than two decades in the Legislature.
The conversation is edited for clarity, brevity and length.
Q. Why did you decide to retire?
A. People have asked me that many, many times. Basically, it felt like it was the right time. Twenty-five years, six elections. The district was always competitive enough that it really took, as far as the politics of it and the election goes, you really had to give it 110%. And I just in my own mind felt like I wasn't quite there. I was maybe 75% or 80% there in terms of really what was needed to run a proper campaign. And that wasn’t fair. I didn’t think that was a way to go out. So it just seemed like the right time.
I’m 70 years old and I’d like to have some more time to do things within the community and to dedicate more time to my family. Those types of things.
Q. What were you most proud to accomplish or witness during your time in the Legislature?
A. There's certainly some individual bills that I was very happy to work on and to actually be a major author on some bills, like the telemarketers Do Not Call list. We were able to, in a bipartisan way, work together. I know that’s changed with technology and we still get all these calls on our cell phones. So that’s still an issue. But that was a real good bipartisan bill.
Also, here locally in Madison County and Anderson, we have Hoosier Park and it was a horse race track for a long time, but we were able to get the legislation passed to allow it to become a casino, too. That brought a lot of jobs into Madison County and to Anderson, so I felt really good about that.
There’s many other bills. One bill that I really felt like was something that could be helpful was the work I did on concussion injuries by student athletes. That was an example of a bill that was brought to me by a constituent over in Muncie, who was very interested, and still is interested, in the treatment of student athletes who sustain concussions. We had a bill which put into place some protocols that the schools have to follow when those types of injuries occur.
I'd say the most satisfactory thing was being able to work with both sides of the aisle to get something done that was an improvement for the state of Indiana.
Q. When you look back, what else do you wish you could have accomplished?
A. I had a bill for a long time which said that when it comes to legislative redistricting, it should not be done by the legislators themselves but there should be a commission that handles that, like some other states do, to hopefully try to minimize the gerrymandering that goes on. I've never been able to get that to go anywhere.
It's too bad we've not been able to get some reasonable gun safety legislation passed in Indiana. It was very disappointing when we passed the bill last year on permitless carry that endangers the public and law enforcement. But now we’ve gone too far. We spend too much time on those issues now, it seems like to me.
It just sort of seems like the NRA sets the policy at the General Assembly and unfortunately that’s the way it is.
Q. In what ways has the Indiana Statehouse evolved during your 25 years?
A. Because of the overwhelming discrepancy in the balance of power, I think it's taken on a little bit more of an extreme approach to the issues. Look at what we did this special session with this abortion bill — one of the most restrictive abortion bills in the country. Anti-choice.
When I first came into the General Assembly, the numbers were a little bit more even. I think there was more of a middle-of-the-road type of approach to things back then. Now, just because of the very few competitive districts, the competition is more in the primary. And it seems like that promotes more extreme positions than when I first came in.
Q. How has Indiana as a state changed in those 25 years?
A. It seems like in some ways we have changed. If you look at the polling on things such as LGBTQ rights, it seems like there was some evolution there. When I first came into the General Assembly there was no idea or thought that there would be equality when it came to those issues. Some of that, of course, was due to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, but it just seems like there was a lot of movement even in conservative Indiana on the issue of same-sex marriage and equal rights.
And interestingly enough, I think there’s pretty much been a wholesale change, too, on reasonable marijuana reform. If you believe the polling that’s done on it, there's overwhelming support for some sort of modification of Indiana's policies on that.
So there has been some change, but in other ways we seem to elect a lot of people that don't support those policies, too. Of course it's remained still a very conservative state, if not even more conservative than it was in many other ways, at least politically, it seems like.
In other ways we’re still stuck. Indiana’s health standings have not improved that much since when I first came in back in 1997. We’re still towards the bottom, at least, when it comes to our overall health. Wages have increased some, but still we have many places in Indiana where there’s a lot of poverty. And the environment hasn’t improved that much over time. So that’s disappointing, too. So in some ways we make progress and in other ways we just seem to stay the same.
Q. What do you wish more Hoosiers understood about what’s happening at the Statehouse?
A. I do wish people understood the importance of fair redistricting. I know that’s a very specific issue, but it’s led to these supermajorities, which I don’t think are good. It stifles debate. It encourages extremism. It certainly makes the idea of a bipartisan approach to a lot of things just irrelevant. There’s too much of a concentration of power in the Republican Party, to be honest with you. That’s just the way it is, and that’s the result of the gerrymandering.
I wish people realized and insisted more on things that they do feel strongly about because most people don’t think gerrymandering is good and they think we should have reforms in that regard.
People need to really get beyond the cult personality politics that exists and really start paying attention to the issues and voting accordingly.
Q. What suggestions would you give to the incoming lawmakers who are new to the Statehouse?
A. A couple things. You're not going to change the world overnight, number one. Number two, work on issues that really do have an impact on people's incomes, their health, their education, and stop spending all this time on some of these hot-button issues.
We spent more time in the last couple sessions dealing with who can carry a gun and making sure there’s free access to guns in the state and also taking away a woman's right to choose to control their own health care choices. I wish legislators would really find out what's on the minds of people and listen to them and really try to work with that, then we can see more progress in our state.
Q. What’s next for you?
A. I am still a lawyer, so I still practice law here in Madison County. And there’s a bicentennial project going on here and we’re going to have celebrations over the next year, so I’m heading that up and doing a lot of work on that. And hopefully Cindy (Lanane’s wife) and I will be able to spend time with our family and maybe get some travel in too.
Q. Anything else you wanted to add?
A. I spent some time there griping, but overall I really enjoyed my time in the General Assembly. And, for the most part, overwhelmingly got along well with the other side of the aisle. We disagreed on politics a lot, but there’s only 50 members of the Senate and you get to know the people pretty well. And so it’s been really rewarding and I’ve enjoyed working on the issues and helping the constituents.
Have questions or comments about the upcoming legislative session? Contact Ryan Martin on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook or at [email protected].
Twitter @stateaffairsin
Facebook @stateaffairsin
Instagram @stateaffairsin
LinkedIn @stateaffairs
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.
3 takeaways from Wednesday’s gubernatorial debate
Three Republicans vying to be the state’s next governor ramped up attacks on the gubernatorial front-runner, U.S. Sen. Mike Braun, during a televised Wednesday debate.
Five of the six Republican candidates — Braun, Lt. Gov. Suzanne Crouch, former Commerce Secretary Brad Chambers, Fort Wayne businessman Eric Doden and former Attorney General Curtis Hill — qualified for the debate, hosted by WISH-TV. Jamie Reitenour was the lone GOP candidate to be excluded from the event. Her campaign said she was disqualified for not meeting a $300,000 fundraising stipulation by December.
Here are three takeaways from the face-off.
Attacks on Braun increase
Braun, who touts a large lead in recent polls and former President Donald Trump’s endorsement, was the subject of many pointed attacks from Chambers, Doden and Hill. Crouch, however, mostly abstained from criticizing Braun directly during the debate.
Hill lambasted Braun for the latter’s claim of being a political “outsider,” saying the senator has “been in the system long enough.” Chambers similarly lobbied skepticism of Braun’s claim, arguing that a candidate who has been on the ballot as often as Braun couldn’t hold the title. Braun, a state lawmaker from 2014 to 2017 and a U.S. senator since 2019, said he still considered himself a political outsider, choosing to define the term by “what you have done for most of your life.” He added that the “ultimate outsider” had endorsed him.
In addition, Chambers ribbed Braun for his record on his taxes, claiming the senator “touched 45 tax increases” during his time in the Indiana General Assembly. Doden again questioned Braun’s stances on qualified immunity and Black Lives Matter.
Immigration
The candidates’ pursuit of Braun continued throughout the night, especially when discussing the nation’s southern border and their stances on migrants.
“Sen. Braun used the word[s] ‘lie’ and ‘distort.’ I think that’s applicable to his role on the border,” Chambers said. “There’s 7 million people that have come in on his watch. … So he’s done literally nothing to stop the flow of illegal aliens over our border.”
Braun blamed President Joe Biden’s administration for what he believes are its failures at the border. All of the other candidates expressed similar sentiments but also blamed Congress.
“President Biden needs to do his job. Congress needs to do their job, and that includes Sen. Mike Braun,” Doden said. Doden’s policy proposals on the matter include stricter sentences for drug dealers and more resources for people with addictions.
Hill said Hoosiers sent Braun to find solutions to a range of issues, including immigration. “I don’t want to hear blame — ‘it’s the Democrats; we couldn’t get that done,’” the former attorney general said. Hill also said Gov. Eric Holcomb “relented” to his calls to send Indiana’s National Guard to the southern border days after he suggested it.
Blaming “illegal immigrants” for “bringing deadly fentanyl into our communities,” Crouch said she would send them to sanctuary cities outside of Indiana.
Chambers claimed migrants are “taking jobs away from Hoosiers” and suggested they are causing increased crime. He, like all of the other candidates, committed to maintaining a Hoosier presence at the southern border.
Braun said his opponents “need to get Government 101 down” and shifted blame to the Democratic Senate. He added that it was “easy” for the other candidates to suggest immigration policies when they “had never been in the position of doing it.”
Education
The candidates also addressed their thoughts on education, with some showing slight differences from Republican state lawmakers over policy priorities.
Asked whether they supported the recently passed Senate Enrolled Act 1, which could see some third graders who are not reading on grade level held back, only Crouch and Chambers raised their hands.
Chambers, echoing Republican state lawmakers, said it is unacceptable for third graders to not have learned to read. He suggested the state spend less money on building costs and put more money into teachers’ salaries.
Crouch envisioned consolidating several state agencies that deal with education topics into one overarching agency, passing the estimated savings on to classrooms.
Braun wanted “more choice, more competition and something completely different.” However, he did not specify why he disagreed with the new law.
Hill said the state should weigh students’ needs individually rather than enforcing a “one size fits all” approach. “We need to provide individual assessments to make sure we are doing the right thing by these children,” he said. He also suggested the state “shrink the size” of the Indiana Department of Education.
Doden proposed a teacher investment program to address Indiana’s “teacher shortage.” The program, he said, would attract more teachers to the profession by ensuring they do not pay property and income taxes.
Regarding higher education, Hill said too many students are enrolling in college for a “worthless” degree. All of the candidates praised work-force development efforts — apprenticeships, internships, military programs, vocational programs — and said they would be key to improving Hoosiers’ outcomes.
“Higher [education] has stigmatized those pathways,” Braun claimed. “Our guidance counselors won’t mention them.”
Wednesday’s debate followed another televised debate hosted by Fox59/CBS4 on Tuesday, when four of the candidates — Braun, Chambers, Crouch and Doden — debated time zones, embryos and leadership styles (Hill and Reitenour did not qualify). They also graded Gov. Eric Holcomb’s tenure. Holcomb has yet to endorse any of the candidates, saying he awaits more policy specifics from their campaigns.
Previously, all of the candidates sparred at a March 19 business forum and a March 11 debate hosted by Current Publishing at the Palladium in Carmel.
Each of the candidates has been invited to participate in the Indiana Debate Commission’s April 23 debate, the last before the state’s May 7 primary. The winner of the Republican primary will face Democratic candidate Jennifer McCormick and Libertarian Donald Rainwater in the November general election.
Contact Jarred Meeks on X @jarredsmeeks or email him at [email protected].
X @StateAffairsIN
Facebook @stateaffairsin
Instagram @stateaffairsin
LinkedIn @stateaffairspro
Statehouse memorial service for Sen. Breaux set for next week
Memorial services for the late state Sen. Jean Breaux will include a public program at the Statehouse Rotunda next week.
Breaux, who died March 20 at the age of 65, will be honored with a public viewing in the Rotunda set for 4-7 p.m. April 5, the Senate Democratic Caucus announced Wednesday. An official memorial program is planned for 5 p.m.
A Celebration of Life for Breaux is scheduled for 11 a.m. April 6 at Mount Carmel Baptist Church, 9610 E. 42nd St. in Indianapolis. Viewing is planned for 9-11 a.m. at the church.
Breaux, a Democrat, had represented District 34, which covers much of northeast Indianapolis, since 2006 and was the Senate’s assistant minority leader from 2012 until 2020.
She was absent from the entire 2024 legislative session because of health problems.
Breaux died two days after releasing a statement saying she planned “to focus on enjoying the time I have left surrounded by my loved ones.”
“I want to express my sincerest gratitude to everyone who has reached out, to my Statehouse colleagues and team, and to the community I have been so incredibly grateful to represent for nearly two decades,” Breaux said in the statement.
Breaux’s family asked that in lieu of flowers, donations be made to the National Kidney Foundation in her memory.
Tom Davies is a Statehouse reporter for State Affairs Pro Indiana. Reach him at [email protected] or on X at @TomDaviesIND.
X @StateAffairsIN
Facebook @stateaffairsin
Instagram @stateaffairsin
LinkedIn @stateaffairspro
How does voting by political party work in Indiana?
Indiana does not restrict voters by partisan affiliations during primary elections. The state uses an “open primary” system, meaning every voter may select either a Democratic or Republican ballot. In odd years, voters participate in a municipal primary election for local offices such as mayor or city council. In even years, state and federal leaders …
Here’s when to register, how to vote early in the Indiana primary election
The general election may be seven months away, but thousands of Hoosiers will begin making important civic decisions in April. A deadline looms for anyone looking to register to vote in the state’s May 7 primary election, which is used to select which candidates will represent their respective political parties in the Nov. 5 general …