Stay ahead of the curve as a political insider with deep policy analysis, daily briefings and policy-shaping tools.Request a Demo
House’s new chief budget writer talks about his budget-crafting decisions
Rep. Jeff Thompson is one of the most powerful Hoosiers. As chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Lizton Republican leads the budget-writing process in the House and helps decide how the state spends billions of taxpayer dollars.
While Thompson is new to chairing the influential committee, replacing former Rep. Tim Brown, he’s no stranger to the Statehouse. Years before he was first elected in 1998, Thompson watched his father serve in the Statehouse for almost two decades.
Prior to his appointment as chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Thompson garnered little media attention due in part to his reserved nature.
State Affairs sat down with Thompson to talk about his new role, what he likes to do in his free time and how he decided what to spend money on in the budget. The budget bill recently passed the House chamber and now moves to the Senate for consideration. He also weighed in on property tax relief and a budget amendment prohibiting any funding from going to Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute, a sex, gender and reproduction research institute.
The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Q. Your dad was a state lawmaker too. Did you always know you wanted to be one yourself?
A. When he was about six months in, I thought someday I might want to do this. And 20 years later, it’s a different seat and not the one he represented because [the districts] move every time you redistrict, but I think being around it made me interested in doing it. So yes, but it's all timing, being at the right place at the right time, and knowing when the right time was.
Q. Did you know you wanted to be the House Ways and Means Committee chair or was that something that the speaker had to encourage you to take?
A. That would have never entered my mind [when I was first elected]. When Dr. Brown decided not to run again, [I thought] if I'm the best person, so be it; if I’m not the best person, so be it, too. I'd still be working and doing stuff, but the speaker thought [I should be chair].
Q. You just crafted your first budget. What was the most challenging part of that?
A. I’m going to answer what made it so nice. The staff is so good. We spent a lot of nights until 9 p.m. I knew that going into it. It’s just a very methodical process, and you may have heard me say it a couple of times even in committee, the hay is on the ground. I still bale hay some. You’ve got to bale it. It’s going to be difficult at times.
Q. Was it difficult to have to tell your fellow lawmakers “no” on some things?
A. Well, you don’t look forward to it. It isn’t the highlight of your day. That’s kind of the territory; you know it going into it. You try to have reasons and rationale. And no doubt the fact that we had some additional dollars that really were one-time dollars, made it more difficult, but again, I knew that when I showed an interest in being here.
Q. You don’t seem like a big talker. Do you think that’s helped or hurt you in this role?
A. Yeah, I don’t put my foot in my mouth quite as often. That’s one of my favorite sayings. It doesn’t hurt anything: You don't have to talk a lot. It’s the words you do say [that matter]. And obviously I’m not a natural one to get up and talk for hours on end. But, that’s part of the role, too, and I accepted that when I signed up.
Q. In what policy areas do you think you differ from your predecessor, Dr. Tim Brown?
A. I think we’re very, very similar, really similar, in a sense of what we have in a big picture. I would say that the difference is I know that [Brown, known as] Doc had a much better handle on the whole health care industry, his profession. And I probably have a better handle on education, my profession. That's going to happen regardless. We're a citizen Legislature and so what you’ve done [for work], you probably are more aware of.
So I’m not saying that Doc is better or Doc is worse, but Doc is just different. And Doc did a great job. I loved working with Doc. I encouraged Doc to run again. That was Doc’s call.
Q. You mentioned that you were a teacher. How does that inform how you approach the budget, especially because this budget is a pretty significant expansion of vouchers?
A. Well it’s a philosophy, more than being a teacher in some regards, that I want to treat children the same. And as I said on the floor yesterday, I’m OK if all the parents choose to send their children to public schools. But likewise, if parents believe it’s the best choice to have their child in a different school than a traditional public school, I’m very supportive of that.
I philosophically believe parents should be the one deciding and [it shouldn’t be] the way we fund that drives them to one side or the other. So really it’s a philosophy of do you put parents in a box or give them options. I want to give parents options. Let them be the ones to decide. I know that’s something that maybe my profession [doesn’t agree with], but there are some that agree with me, more than you might think.
Q. What do you think the main sticking points between the House and the Senate will be on the budget?
A. I suppose, it could be maybe the tax cuts. It could be the amount of the [contribution to the] pre-96 fund [Editor’s note: Lawmakers are working to pay off the unfunded liability of this teacher pension fund]. We obviously put $250 million in the second year. The governor's budget had $100 billion up front. We'll see. We'll find a spot to land.
I encourage [people to] find ways to make this budget better. I like to claim it's picture perfect, and the Senate should just take it and they just agree to it, no amendments, but that's probably not going to happen. We can improve things. Why should I stand in the way of that?
Q. Your budget contains some property tax relief items that were in House Bill 1499, but it only kicks in during future years. Why did you decide against doing something to provide relief this spring?
A. Well, that is extremely difficult — to do things to delay tax bills that will cause a massive disaster, and we have some things you can do next fall [to ease the burden]. But I can tell you local officials do not want [to delay tax bills]. They really pushed back and rightfully so. I would like to do something, but there's no option.
Q. Your budget doesn't provide as much money for public health as Gov. Eric Holcomb called for. Why did you land on the number that you did in terms of how much to contribute to that?
A. Well, I don't believe you'll have all counties opt in [to the program], for one thing. It's going to be a process and we also think that we're going to somehow engage the providers and the providers are going to be the key. This is a work in progress.
A. I think that was just a statement from people that voted for that, about just the idea, but it's not going to have any effect, I don’t think, in the end. IU receives about 15% of their revenue from the state, but we'll see what happens.
Q. Does that mean you think it won't be in the final budget or does that mean you just think it won't have an impact on IU if it is in the final bill?
A. I’m not sure at this point what is going to happen. Obviously the Senate will have their way, if they want to leave it in there or not, and we’ll go from there.
Q. What do you wish normal Hoosiers knew about the budget process or the budget?
A. Just how sound Indiana's fiscal state is. It is really, really sound.
And there's a reason why we have the highest growth in terms of population of any of our four surrounding states. We exceed all of them. People are coming here for a reason. People are speaking with their feet across this country, and you're seeing a move to certain select states and leaving others. Some states are extremely poorly managed in the fiscal sense, and some are just like Indiana, and we’re seeing those are the ones that are growing, and businesses are coming there. People want to be there.
Q. Are there any areas of the budget that you wouldn’t want to compromise on?
A. It’s probably premature to say that you won’t do something. You have to be really careful, because you’ve got to land at a spot. Yeah, there’s some things I feel pretty strong about in there, but I just don’t want to put a stake in the ground right now. It’s over two months away until we’re done with this process.
Q. What do you feel pretty strongly about then?
A. In education, the fact that we have parental choice. And obviously, I like the tax cuts. But to say it has to be identical to the letter, you can’t change a single word, I would want to be careful making that statement. I still feel strong about it. We’ll work with the Senate and we’ll find a spot to land.
Q. I want to use this Q&A to help people get to know who you are as a person, as well. What do you like to do for fun?
A. I love working in the garden. I’ve got four gardens. If you can imagine it, I grow it.
Tomatoes and potatoes and onions and peppers and green beans and kale and spinach and lettuce and cucumbers. I can't name them all right now. I have a list. It's in my car. It's that long, of all the stuff that I’ve got seeds for and am planting.
Q. How did you get into gardening?
A. I farmed before I got into politics, and so when I gave it up I kind of jokingly teased my wife: I could start playing golf now or I could have all these vegetables. It’s expanded quite a bit because a lot of our meals, [they’re] from the garden.
And I like to go to state parks. I love state parks. Go walk out in the woods.
Q. What’s your favorite if you had to name one?
A. I would probably say Clifty Fall in Madison. You haven’t been there? You’re really missing out.
Q. Last question: You've been in office for a while. How would you say the Statehouse has changed since you were first elected?
A. The biggest thing is probably the use of technology. I was probably slower than most to embrace it, but I have.
But you know how we get along. We have differences of opinions, but we still have good relationships between the members of the two respective parties and mutual respect. I just think that’s critical. Hoosiers should expect that.
Obviously, you look to the east a few hundred miles and we don’t see that, and we don’t want our state to become that way. We’re going to disagree, and that’s OK. We want to have it in a civil and respectful way. And just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that you can't treat them with respect and be a friend even.
In case you missed it: Budget 101: A look at how Indiana decides what money goes where
Indiana is probably the type of state that the Environmental Protection Agency had in mind when it proposed a new set of rules that target fossil fuel-fired power plants.
Not only is the state still reliant on fossil fuels for most electricity — more than two-thirds is generated by coal (47%) and gas (29%), data show — Indiana has some of the worst air quality and is one of the most polluted states in the country. The primary focus of the new EPA rules, though, is an attempt to significantly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released by those plants. Fossil fuel-fired power plants are responsible for about a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EPA, and for about a third of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions that are heating the planet.
Yet while Indiana has been slow to adopt renewable energy sources, the pace of the state’s transition away from fossil fuels has been picking up steam in recent years.
But not fast enough for the EPA.
President Joe Biden’s aggressive climate agenda would require states like Indiana to hasten their energy transitions considerably. The draft power plant rules, released in May, would broadly require utility companies to cut their dependence on coal and gas, and to adopt emerging technologies that would enable the use of carbon storage and hydrogen.
Now Indiana government leaders and electric utility companies are raising concerns. They say the plans would force Indiana power plants to retire early, which could substantially increase the cost of electricity for Hoosiers while risking the reliability of the electric grid. And they say the technology cited by the EPA is not ready for widespread adoption.
“For carbon capture, while this is a technology that the state is invested in, it is not yet at the scale needed to accommodate all the utilities in the state,” Brian C. Rockensuess, commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, told lawmakers during a committee meeting this month.
Environmental advocates, however, are characterizing the concerns as overblown. They point to two federal bills — the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — that contain grants and incentives for power plants to transition away from coal and gas. And they say the power industry always raises concerns about any new regulations but always finds a way to comply.
“They are like the boy who cried wolf,” said David Doniger, a former EPA official and current senior strategic director at the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council. “If you look at the track record, they say this every time and then, if the regulations are in fact adopted, the compliance goes smoothly.”
Indiana agency head raises concerns
Rockensuess voiced his concerns about the new EPA rules to Indiana lawmakers during an Interim Study Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Telecommunications meeting this month.
He didn’t dive into the pros and cons of the environmental impacts; rather, he focused on the difficulty for policymakers and regulators in Indiana who will be tasked with enforcing the final rules adopted by the federal government.
Among the difficulties, he said, are requirements for some power plants to use hydrogen to generate electricity or rely on carbon capture and storage to reduce emissions. Both technologies, he said, are not ready for wide use, yet the federal government would require Indiana to explain how the state would implement the new federal rules within 24 months.
“Bottom line is they are asking for a lot in too short of a time,” he said. “Indiana and other states are being set up to run afoul of that timeframe from the start.”
Those concerns were echoed in a joint letter sent to the EPA by his department, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor.
The study committee also featured an out-of-state speaker who shared fiery testimony in opposition to the EPA proposal. By the end of the presentation, Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, questioned whether the Republican leaders considered inviting anyone with a different viewpoint.
“I was just kind of curious as to whether the chairman attempted to invite testimony from anyone in support of the rules, such as the Clean Air Task Force or the Natural Resources Defense Council, people along those lines?” Piece asked.
Committee chair Sen. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, said that such viewpoints were already well-known because of the EPA’s plans, but he would consider Pierce’s request if lawmakers take up legislation on the matter when the legislative session begins in January.
Koch, who also leads the Senate utilities committee, later confirmed to State Affairs that he was unsure what actions the Indiana General Assembly might take in response to the federal rule, but he does not plan to file legislation this year.
The chair for the House utilities committee — Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso — told State Affairs he did not yet know if he would file anything.
Environmental advocates push back
While they were not invited to speak at the public meeting, many environmental advocates in Indiana are supportive of the president’s efforts to curb carbon emissions.
“Probably what you didn’t hear in the testimony at the Statehouse was the cost of mitigating and addressing issues related to climate change. And you probably didn’t hear the effects of air pollution and how that contributes to asthma and other diseases,” said Sam Carpenter, executive director of the nonprofit Hoosier Environmental Council. “In the big picture, all those things need to be considered.”
The Biden administration estimates up to $85 billion in environmental and public health benefits over the next 20 years.
Indiana once relied almost exclusively on coal for electricity. And while the state continues to be a top-five consumer of coal for electricity, the major utility companies have started shifting away from coal in recent years. They’ve largely replaced that fuel source, though, not with renewables but with natural gas. That’s because gas is relatively affordable, and it easily enables utility companies to both meet the daily electricity demands but also rapidly ramp up production during cold snaps and heat waves.
Some utilities are seeking state approval to build new gas plants even now. Indiana customers will be on the hook for whatever is constructed now — such as a gas plant — even if those plants are rarely used or even shut down because of federal regulations. And then Hoosiers will also have to pay for whatever the utility companies build next.
“This continued investment into fossil fuels is going to be a stranded investment,” Carpenter said. “Down the road that’s not going to be paying off. That’s just a bad path to take.”
If enacted, the new EPA rules are sure to draw litigation from Republican officials.
Attorney General Todd Rokita has already promised Indiana’s involvement: “Fortunately, the courts will almost certainly strike down these new EPA mandates — and on behalf of Hoosiers, I’ll do everything in my power to ensure that happens,” Rokita said in a statement about the proposed rules.
His comments align with those made by Indiana’s major utility companies. They accuse the EPA of overstepping — arguments that were at the center of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2021 that said the EPA lacked the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions.
Others aren’t as confident as Rokita and utility companies.
Rockensuess, the state environmental management department commissioner, noted in his testimony that the EPA does have the authority because of new language contained in the Inflation Reduction Act, which Congress passed after the Supreme Court decision.
“It clarified and granted them the authority to regulate greenhouse gasses,” Rockensuess told lawmakers.
Rockensuess said he expected to see the final EPA rule by next May.
Header image: A row of solar panels sits outside AES Indiana’s Harding Street power plant. (Credit: Ryan Martin)
Republican gubernatorial candidate Eric Doden is calling on the Indiana Chamber of Commerce to end its support for school district consolidation in rural Indiana.
In a letter sent today, the Fort Wayne businessman labeled the business group’s position as “damaging.”
“While the stated aims of this position are laudable, the message sent to our small towns and rural communities is damaging,” Doden wrote. “Proposing to do away with small public school districts through consolidation will be seen as a death knell for the millions of Hoosiers who live in small towns and rural communities.”
For years, the Indiana Chamber has advocated for fewer school districts across Indiana. A 2017 study commissioned through Ball State University identified worse educational outcomes for students in smaller districts in several categories, including scores for state standardized testing and the SAT, as well as the pass rates for Advanced Placement classes.
The Indiana Chamber re-upped its position last month when it released its long term economic development plan. Among the listed policies was a goal to “reduce by half the number of very small school districts with enrollments below 2,000 students to provide much stronger educational opportunities for rural students and communities.”
More than half of Indiana’s school districts have fewer than 2,000 students.
In a statement to State Affairs, Indiana Chamber President and CEO Kevin Brinegar said the state is providing a “two-tiered educational system” depending on income and ZIP code.
“Hoosier students should not be limited academically solely due to where they live. And that’s the case now in some of the smaller school districts where students are not afforded the opportunity to take a full array of STEM, Advanced Placement or college preparation courses,” Brinegar said in the statement. “The Chamber’s stance on smaller school district consolidation is rooted in wanting to lift up young Hoosiers in these rural communities, so they have a better chance at prosperity by properly preparing them for the state’s current and future job opportunities.”
The statement also contained a specific response to Doden’s criticism.
“We would be happy to sit down with Mr. Doden and go through the research and show him why we have adopted this position for the betterment of the academic and economic opportunities for our young people,” Brinegar said in the statement. “The status quo that Mr. Doden is championing has and will continue to leave small communities, schools and students behind. That’s not acceptable.”
But whereas the business group sees consolidation as one way to improve life in rural Indiana, Doden sees the opposite.
“Across our state it’s easy to see the remnants of a school consolidation push that began in the 1950s,” Doden wrote in his letter. “Too many towns that lost their local school to consolidation dried up and were virtually swept from the maps while other towns kept their schools and their identities. These communities had a better opportunity to survive.”
Doden also cited one of his policy proposals, which would redirect $100 million in state money toward small towns — in an effort to address declines in populations and quality of life.
“With local leadership and local control, we can revitalize our small towns and hometowns with a fraction of the investment we give away in the form of incentives,” Doden wrote.
Doden addressed the letter to Vanessa Green Sinders, who will replace Brinegar as the Indiana Chamber’s leader. Her tenure will begin in January, so she was unavailable to provide comment to State Affairs. Either way, the Indiana Chamber’s members are the ones who suggest policy positions for the board of directors to approve before each legislative session.
In addition to Doden, the crowded Republican field for governor includes U.S. Sen. Mike Braun, former Commerce Secretary Brad Chambers, Lt. Gov. Suzanne Crouch and former Attorney General Curtis Hill.
Jennifer McCormick, the former state superintendent of public education, has emerged as the leading Democratic candidate. Instead of school district consolidation, the state should reevaluate its expansion of school choice vouchers, McCormick has previously said.
Header image: Eric Doden, 2024 Republican candidate for governor of Indiana (Credit: Eric Doden for Indiana Governor/Facebook)
The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission today filed a formal complaint against state Attorney General Todd Rokita that alleges three violations of attorney professional conduct rules.
Rokita faces official allegations that he committed professional misconduct with his public comments about Dr. Caitlin Bernard after she provided an abortion to a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim last summer.
Rokita is defending his actions, saying that state confidentiality laws shouldn’t apply to him because Bernard was the first to talk in the news media about the girl’s treatment. It could take months before the state Supreme Court decides whether Rokita will face any punishment.
The commission didn’t ask for a specific punishment against Rokita, asking simply that he be “disciplined as warranted for professional misconduct” by the state Supreme Court.
Commission Executive Director Adrienne Meiring filed the complaint that focuses on actions by Rokita and his office between early July 2022 and Nov. 30, 2022, when the attorney general’s office filed a misconduct complaint against Bernard with the state Medical Licensing Board.
Bernard drew national attention in the days after a July 1, 2022, story by The Indianapolis Star quoting her about the young girl’s abortion just days after the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The complaint against Rokita highlights his July 13 appearance on a Fox News program, during which he said he would investigate Bernard’s actions and called her an “abortion activist acting as a doctor — with a history of failing to report.”
It also points to his office’s unusual action of publicly releasing on July 13 a letter to Gov. Eric Holcomb that named Bernard in seeking records from two state agencies and a July 14 press release from his office about the investigation.
The complaint alleges Rokita’s actions violated confidentiality requirements of pending medical licensing investigations under state law and by doing so Rokita “caused irreparable harm to Dr. Bernard’s reputational and professional image.”
Rokita responded Monday with a legal filing saying that the confidentiality requirements shouldn’t apply to him because Bernard had already gone public about the girl’s medical treatment.
Rokita also argued that “The Attorney General, an elected official who answers to the public, has a duty to keep the public informed of the Office’s actions and decisions.”
The state Medical Licensing Board voted 5-1 in May to reprimand Bernard and fine her $3,000 for violating patient privacy laws. The board, however, voted unanimously to reject allegations from the attorney general’s office that Bernard violated state law by not reporting the child abuse that led to the girl’s pregnancy to Indiana authorities and did not issue any restrictions on Bernard’s medical license.
Why It Matters
The Disciplinary Commission’s complaint carries the potential of forcing the Republican attorney general from office.
State law requires that the attorney general be “duly licensed to practice law in Indiana.” The state Supreme Court, which has the final say over attorney disciplinary matters, has wide discretion, with options all the way up to permanently stripping an attorney of his law license.
Rokita won the Republican nomination for attorney general in 2020 over then-Attorney General Curtis Hill after Hill faced allegations that he drunkenly groped four women at a party celebrating the end of the 2018 legislative session.
The Supreme Court suspended Hill’s law license for 30 days, saying that “by clear and convincing evidence that [Hill] committed the criminal act of battery.” The court rejected the hearing officer’s recommendation of a longer suspension that could have forced him from office. Hill is now seeking the Republican 2024 nomination for governor.
Rokita has sought to burnish his anti-abortion and national profile with the Bernard case. Besides challenging Bernard’s medical license, his office last week filed a lawsuit against the doctor’s employer, Indiana University Health, alleging it violated federal law by allowing Bernard to disclose information about the Ohio girl’s treatment. The girl’s mother brought her to Indiana to receive abortion drugs because an Ohio ban on abortions after six weeks had taken effect after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last summer.
Rokita is entitled to defend himself with a hearing before a judicial officer appointed by the Supreme Court, who would then submit a recommended punishment to the court.
In Hill’s case, it took about 14 months from the time that the disciplinary complaint was filed against him for the court’s five justices to receive the case and make their decision.
Rokita’s defense lawyers include two from the Washington, D.C., firm Schaerr-Jaffe. The firm also assisted the attorney general’s office with the case against Bernard under a contract allowing it to bill the state $550 an hour for work by the firm’s attorneys.
“This is a complaint against the official duties of the Attorney General and is an attack against his official capacity, so this is paid by the office,” Rokita’s office said.
Rokita isn’t backing down in the political battle, either, as he released a statement Monday calling himself “a passionate fighter” who “is beating back the culture of death, grievance and transanity being pushed by radicals in workplaces, schools, media and government.”
Democrats argue Rokita is using the Bernard case “to further his own personal political ambitions.”
“Todd Rokita’s actions toward Dr. Caitlin Bernard over the past year brought shame and ridicule upon our state,” Indiana Democratic Chairman Mike Schmuhl said in a statement. “Now, he is starting to see the consequences of making baseless claims regarding a medical professional on national television.”
Check out our summary on TikTok:
Header image: Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita speaks during the America First Agenda Summit organized by America First Policy Institute. (Photo by Oliver Contreras/SIPA USA)(Sipa via AP Images)
Republican Sen. Jon Ford of Terre Haute confirmed Friday that he is resigning from the Legislature to become leader of an association that promotes the coal industry and other fossil fuel producers in Indiana.
Ford told State Affairs that he will join Reliable Energy this fall after his Senate resignation takes effect Oct. 16.
“I’ll be running the association, the business side of it,” said Ford, who faces a one-year prohibition on being a paid lobbyist after leaving the Legislature.
What is Reliable Energy?
Reliable Energy was incorporated as a nonprofit corporation by prominent lobbyist Matt Bell in 2020 with the same downtown Indianapolis address as his Catalyst Public Affairs Group.
In testimony to a legislative committee last year, Bell described the group’s members as “fossil fuel producers and the Hoosier businesses supporting the fossil fuel industry.”
“Reliable Energy advocates for policies that ensure an abundant supply of available, affordable and dependable energy in Indiana and across the country,” Bell’s testimony said.
The organization is an offshoot of the Indiana Coal Council.
“I think it really grew out of that group and is really a group made up of membership of people involved in energy in a lot of different ways,” Ford said. “Many of the members are vertically integrated power companies. Some produce coal, some produce energy. Most are involved in alternative energies, as well.”
Ford’s reasons for resignation?
Ford, who was first elected to the Senate in 2014, won reelection last November to a four-year term. His resignation will result in a new senator serving for three legislative sessions without appearing on a general election ballot.
Ford cited personal reasons for deciding to resign less than a year after winning his new Senate term.
“Some things in my life have changed that made me think, you know, the passing of friends and other life events made me rethink what I wanted to do in my life and what I had achieved in the district,” Ford said. “I just felt it was time to move on.”
Ford said the Reliable Energy position didn’t prompt his Senate resignation.
“The job really came after the decision that it was time to move on,” he said.
Ford hasn’t specialized in energy-related issues while in the Legislature and hasn’t been a member of the utilities or environmental committees that consider most such legislation.
Ford has been business development director for the economic and community development group Thrive West Central, based in Terre Haute.
Will Ford become a lobbyist?
State law prohibits members of the General Assembly from lobbying former colleagues for one year after leaving office.
Ford said that even after that time he was not sure he would become an advocate for Reliable Energy in the Statehouse hallways.
“This group has had a hired lobbyist for a while that’s worked with them, so I don’t know,” Ford said. “I would see it playing a similar role to many other associations that are out there, but, you know, main focus will be to grow it and to focus on where Indiana goes forward with energy.”
Involvement in selecting replacement?
Ford was noncommittal on whether he would endorse a candidate to replace him ahead of the caucus of Republican precinct committee leaders who will make that decision in the coming weeks.
“I don’t know at this time, it really depends, I guess, on who steps up,” Ford said. “I don’t foresee myself being at the vote, to be quite honest. I think it’s a decision of the precinct committeemen.”
Check out our TikTok summary:
Header image: Republican Sen. Jon Ford speaks in the Indiana Senate chamber. (Credit: Indiana Senate Republicans)