Hoosiers get their first look at a map that redraws congressional districts.

A new state policy allows infants at work and voters citizenship questions.

From the television studios at WFYI Public Media, it's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending December 5th, 2025.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting Stations.

A bill that would redraw Indiana's congressional map to benefit Republicans was passed through committee this week.

After hours of testimony.

As Ben Thorpe reports, the map is the result of months of pressure from President Donald Trump and Governor Mike Braun to help maintain Republican control of Congress.

Republicans were clear that their proposed map was made to politically advantage their party specifically designed to flip the state's two Democratic congressional districts.

Representative Ben Smaltz authored the bill.

He says Democrat led states like California have been redrawing congressional boundaries for political gain, and that Republicans in Indiana need to fight back.

We're doing the same thing now with the hope of maintaining political balance.

Democrats repeatedly asked if the new map constitute racial gerrymandering, sometimes citing the fact that it would split Marion County into four congressional districts.

Small said no consideration was given to that.

Reiterating that the maps were drawn purely for political advantage.

Is this proposed map to extreme?

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

Political strategist Elise Schrock, Republican Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers.

And Niki Kelly, editor in chief at Indiana Capitol Chronicle.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

So, Elise, what should Hoosiers make of this map that is vastly different than the map that we have currently?

Well, I think it's been made clear by a lot of folks that it's purely political.

Redistricting in itself is something that we're supposed to do to respond to population changes.

It is, done in response to the census, not to the political whims of a leader.

And that's what we're seeing now.

and that's why I think you're seeing a lot of bipartisan opposition.

In the last week, we saw former Mayor Greg Ballard come out strongly against this.

We saw a former lieutenant governor Ellspermann, Sue Ellspermann come out against this.

Both Republicans, both leaders in their parties saying this is political posturing.

It's bad for both Indianapolis and rural areas, both, who could represent both constituencies and do it well.

and, you know, it it is responding to political pressure and not a reflection of representative democracy.

It is diluting democracy.

So, I think Hoosiers see it for what it is.

That's why we're seeing, the proponents of this fail to really, a campaign really fail to take hold here.

The opposition to it is really building momentum.

Those for it are really failing to really dig in and find find momentum.

And Mike, I think we've heard, you know, many lawmakers say this week that this is for political gain.

And we've heard that term again and again.

We've seen it in the headlines.

is that a legal move?

Do you think around these maps?

What's that?

I don't think they're worried about the legal side of it.

I think they're I think they're running the ball here.

I did appreciate Ben Small's.

It was also kind of funny to watch the hearing, because the Democrats came in locked in a little bit to prove this was political.

First thing Ben Simmons said was, this is political.

What it was like kind of took the air out of the room, right.

which rhetorically was and politically was it was a smart way to approach the hearing.

You know, in my personal experience, way back in my career.

I grew up in the South Side of Chicago.

My parents I remember going to voting with my dad at my parents polling place, was in the garage of the Democratic Precinct Committee in our neighborhood.

I don't think a lot of Republican votes made it out of that garage.

but I started my career working in Illinois politics, and it was not unusual at all to have.

I mean, it, even the Democrats redistricted each other out of districts.

So other Democrats could run.

So when the governor and others say this is what Democrats are doing in other places, they're not wrong.

But it's also why I don't work in Illinois politics, because I want to do it that way.

And I think that's what Republicans in Indiana are struggling with.

We've hung our hat on doing things differently than in those other places for a long time.

and I think that's why I campaigned and didn't take hold.

At some point, you the pressure so immense, you just begrudgingly go, we're just going to do it.

And if you listen to the testimony, it is so blatantly, overtly political that you do have to wonder, you know, do they take that as evidence in the what lawsuit will surely follow whatever action if a final action is taken in this?

What I thought was very interesting was the house started today with a motion that they can come back next Friday.

which kind of foreshadows the Senate might amend this into a redistricting study commission or something, you know, to like or some lesser version of whatever they receive.

And the House will have to come back and try to restore it or go to conference committee.

You know, this could not be this like, you know, compact two week process of getting this done.

I thought so, and I thought that I thought that procedural motion kind of kind of was a nod to we might not be done with this.

Like soon.

Right?

but we have to be done with that soon because January 7th, some pretty hard deadline when people start running for Congress.

and we got a lot of work to do as well as they get underway, too.

They're like.

Oh.

What chaos is, Right, and we had a lot of people testifying.

Niki, you know about that.

Exactly.

You know what kind of chaos could we expect?

You know, around elections if we, you know, did adopt a map that looks like the one that's proposed?

Yeah.

I mean, it's obviously going to take a lot of explanation to voters.

I think the number I saw is that if this map becomes law, 2.3 million Hoosiers will be in a different district than they were, two years ago, or one, one more than one year ago.

And so and someone also pointed out, like Indiana lost will Marion County will be part of basically in the media market of like eight of the nine congressional districts.

So they're going we're going to see ads for all of this.

And this poor voter out there is like, which one is mine?

I don't know.

So there will be a lot of confusion.

It's going to be a lot of work on, the clerk's to get this done.

But and a lot of people disenfranchised you dilute Marion County like that, you're running into issues with cracked communities of color, which is illegal.

So we'll see.

How that so.

Well, Jon, I mean, you know, we're talking about chaos, possibly in Sumy around a map like this, you know, and Mike said as well, you know, what other states are doing this?

but if everybody just does it, you know, when we're left with these maps that are, you know, a little harebrained, where where will we be?

Well, there's a great formula for democracy if everybody is doing it.

Let's just jump.

You know, you asked the initial question.

Is the map too extreme?

I think most Hoosiers would say it's not the map that's extreme.

It's an ugly map for the reasons that have been discussed or an unfortunate map, at least for the reasons that have been discussed.

But the problem what's extreme is the process or the lack of process that got us to this point.

If you go back and look at the last maps, the Republicans drew after the last census, whether it was Eric Holcomb, the governor, or leadership of both caucuses in the House and Senate, said, you know, as they always do take great pride in our maps.

and the thing we like most, it was done after all this transparent, methodical, procedural process.

That's the way these things should be done.

They also touted, of course, that you kept together communities of interest.

These maps do not keep together communities of interest.

I grew up in Indianapolis, born and raised here.

My first job in journalism was working for the Columbus Republic, covering Nashville, covering Seymore covering, basically the area that knew Indianapolis downtown's new neighbors to the southeast.

The interests are not the same.

The challenges are not the same.

You're looking at an urban, a rural.

It's it really diminishes everybody's interests.

So the whole notion of community, of interest, to say that it was so great and such an overriding factor before, but not now, it seems to be problematic.

The other thing about everybody saying it's political, it's just saying what we've known for 200 plus years since the first gerrymandering goes back.

But it used to be kind of a joke, you know, hey, it's, you know, it's political.

The only reason they're doing it now.

A because it'd be silly to deny it, but be if it's political and they say up front it's political and banging that drum again and again, they think they're insulating themselves from the US Supreme Court because the US Supreme Court had said the only thing that we will ever at least a precedent is a guide to fault, gerrymandering for is if it's done for racial reasons.

So you're seeing people going out of their way to say this is political, political, political.

Because as recently as this week, if you look at the shadow docket, where the Supreme Court sort of waved a green flag, at least temporarily, to the the maps coming out of Texas, which were challenged on racial lines.

one of the justices actually made some comment, along the way that this is all politics on both sides and basically saying, we love that.

That's okay.

So that's why you're seeing so much of the acknowledgment of politics.

I think.

I don't think we're getting, you know, a lot of, input about Marion County in general, you know, because it is such a stark, division among those lines.

But a lot of communities in Indiana are experiencing, you know, a divide.

I think Lafayette is pretty clear as well.

I understand that Purdue is pretty much cut into two districts.

do.

You think it's weird that if I go for a bike ride in my neighborhood, I ride through three congressional districts I live in, like the one spot?

It's like it's like standing in four states at once.

Like how it's like I'm like, right at that red spot.

Hearing a congressperson with someone in Jeffersonville.

Right.

You get more steps on your fitness Odometer that way, though, I think it.

Was like very low.

I didn't anticipate.

So when the map came out, it became tangible.

It came real for everybody.

Right?

Yeah.

and there were like Republican local officials, county lawmakers were here from like county chairs, local officials, which I didn't expect, who were like, we don't want to be in the same congressional district like county vote against it.

You know, if you're in Miami County and you've now all of a sudden you're lumped in with Gary, you're like, get me out of here.

What am you what are you talking about?

I'm in the same district is Sheriff Bill and you know, so all right.

So that's a variable that.

Is really I. Don't think is gonna affect the vote ultimately.

But all eyes for the vote next week will be on Indiana.

And we do have a lot of national attention.

And and you know, what can we expect from the Senate.

Has the vote yet?

I think the House certainly will wave it through.

But I know about counting.

Let's just.

Say right now the House is literally debating and voting right now as we.

Speak.

The not the question.

Right.

The question is the Senate certainly will.

So certainly an issue that we've been talking about for months and months, and that we will continue to follow because it is extremely important.

Governor Mike Braun is launching a pilot program that allows some state employees to bring their infants to the office.

Eric Weddle reports.

The move comes after months after he ordered workers back to their desk full time.

And as the state faces a severe childcare shortage.

The infants and work policy took effect this week for employees in the governor's office, the Department of Health and the state Personnel Department.

It allows parents to bring babies aged four weeks to six months into the office until the child becomes mobile.

Governor Braun frames the initiative as a family first strategy.

The policy requires participants to recruit a coworker to serve as an alternative care provider.

If the parent is busy or the infant becomes disruptive.

The pilot follows Braun's executive order earlier this year that ended most remote work options.

Meanwhile, access to professional care remains difficult for many Hoosiers.

The state has frozen new childcare vouchers until 2027 following a budget shortfall.

So, Mike, does this make sense for Indiana families?

It's incremental.

I think it builds on when the governor expanded to 12 weeks, the paid, parental leave, which was a new move and a great and a great one for for new moms.

I, you know, for me in my office, I got a bunch of young guys.

We've got a lot of young kids, and daycares.

Even if you have it, it's a nightmare.

You know, one kid coughs, and they send her body home.

and so, like, oftentimes we have guys in the office for, like, I got to go pick a kid up.

Yeah.

And a lot of times they bring it back, you know, stuff like.

So it's not unusual in our in our office, we actually keep a couple toys on hand just for this purpose.

so I can see it.

I can see it plugging a hole here or there for, you know, family.

It's not a comprehensive solution.

You know, but it is good that we're trying to move towards one, or at least highlight the issue, you know, towards a more comprehensive.

Yeah, solution.

Just keep building towards it.

And I think that's what the other is trying to do here.

Well, I mean, a lot of us are lucky to have workplaces where we've been able to bring infants, you know, throughout the years.

I did as well here at WFYI with my son.

But I do have a traumatizing experience where I remember, you know, trying to record an interview with a with a crying infant.

I mean, it is sometimes, could be a difficult thing to implement as well.

What are your thoughts on this policy?

Yeah.

And I think there are several ways where this isn't going to work.

And those, you know, and this is ironic in many ways, where folks are asking for better day care, more affordable childcare, longer time actually out of the office where bonding with your child, for all parents, all families is really important.

They're not asking to be back in the mines quicker with their child, and their coworkers aren't asking for that either.

So this seems, a bit out of touch.

It for many reasons that I'm sure others around this table will, could talk about, and definitely have been talked about in the public sphere since this was launched.

But what what's glaring to me, and a bit shocking to me, is that this proposal was that made it to the governor's desk and was ruled out so ceremoniously.

This makes me wonder about the decision making around the governor who is making decisions, the lack of perspectives.

this is why, having diverse perspectives of different types of families, inclusive perspectives honoring the merit of all state employees, because this sounds a lot like it's geared towards desk workers when there are so many state employees that make our government work, whether they're in facilities, whether they're salting the steps of the statehouse for the governor to walk into the building every day.

and I don't know how they would, grapple with a policy like this.

So I think there is some serious, decision making and lack of perspectives that may have gone into this.

Yeah, maybe we didn't completely think it through.

I mean, I can't wait till I go to the BNB and the workers, you know, got their kid on their lap.

Look, I mean, the fact is, is that you could do this simply if you want them to bond more with their child than just let them work remotely for six months.

Right.

but that's not what we're doing.

We're instead making you're not making this voluntary, but you're asking your coworkers to agree to watch your kid up to one hour a day.

They have to sign something for that.

I love my colleagues.

I'm not watching your kid at work.

And, you know, you can either get a little less productivity from that employee while working in a home with the child, or you're going to affect the productivity for everyone in that thing.

And then, you know, if you got a cranky kid, then you're not allowed to do it.

so it's I mean, it's interesting, but I mean, I think there are the practicalities of how it works is going to be pretty rough.

What do you think, John?

I mean, is this, you know, common sense solution.

I'm just amazed it went all the way around the table.

Nobody make a joke.

I made a joke about colicky babies crying at the state house, being a familiar sound.

there.

but I had to make it, you know.

All right, that seems like a I thought it was a novelty.

And so I looked at this and proving my theory.

There's an association or a group dedicated everything.

There is one for this to, And through that research, I don't know if they have a lobbyist.

There's an association.

But, you know, a. Friend.

Because you have toys already on premises, so that's good.

But I think there are 8 or 9 states.

and they're not all R. They're not all D controlled.

It's Washington, it's California, and yet it's North Dakota, it's Kansas, Arizona.

And so, lots of states have tried it.

And apparently, I don't know, I couldn't find data saying, you know, how successful, successful it was.

But a lot of the anecdotal types of things, basically revolved around it was an oddity for the first 24 hours, 48 hours.

But then everybody got used to it.

It sort of stopped ooing and awing and looking at the kid and kind of got back to normal, which but at least raises a good point.

If you look at lists of things, around the country that are areas where kids are not allowed, it's via state owned vehicles, it's stairwells, it's loading docks.

It's basically a lot of the things aside from your desk in your cubicle, there's a lot of stuff that's on the no, no list, where your kids can or can't go.

Well, maybe we won't have babies in for the tapings.

Only in emergency.

Sorry.

Stay calm under there.

That's, No time for viewer feedback.

Each week, we pose an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question, will having infants at work help Hoosier families?

Oh, yes or no?

The last question posed to viewers, will the rift among Indiana Republicans last?

51% saying yes and 49% saying no.

If you would like to take part in the poll, go to wfyi.org/iwir and look for the poll.

Attorney General Todd Rokita and Secretary of State Diego Morales say a federal agency review found 21 noncitizens have cast ballots in Indiana elections, along with 165 non-citizens who registered to vote in the state.

Zak Cassel brings us this story from our reporting partners at the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

The announcement came as part of a lawsuit settlement where Indiana wanted to force the US Department of Homeland Security to verify the citizenship of more than 585,000 registered Hoosier voters.

It was not clear how many of those voter registrations DHS reviewed or when the voting may have occurred.

The secretary of state's office told the Capital Chronicle the data included elections before 2024.

Last year, Indiana had 4.8 million registered voters and just under 3 million voted in the general election.

True voter fraud is rare.

The 21 non-citizens who cast ballots represent a fraction of a percent of all Indiana voters who cast ballots in 2024.

So, Niki, do you think these numbers are significant for Indiana's voter rolls?

I mean, look, at any illegal vote is bad.

And that, you know, we should obviously care about that.

But you got to remember, we have 4.8 million people enrolled.

And so we're talking about a very small number of people.

And I think a lot of those 121 are probably people who are here legally, on various programs or whatever, and they might not even know they weren't allowed to vote.

So I don't think there is probably a lot of, you know, ill will or intentional.

You know, I guess messing with things.

But, you know, it's good to know, I guess.

But now we can stop acting like there's this rampant problem with voting fraud.

There's just not.

I think, you know, the tallies for recent years have been pretty low, you know, on this issue, you know, is this something that Rokita and Morales need to be spending more time on?

Probably not the amount of time or money that's been spent on it already.

I mean, litigation and whatnot and agreements that have been hammered out.

you're right, I agree with Niki.

You don't want any, buddy voting who shouldn't be voting.

Let's stipulate that.

But if you do look at the percentage that is a rate of cheating or improper voting, you put the decimal and then you put five zeroes after that decimal before you get to the nick of fours.

The next number I did the comparable rate, the homicide rate for the state of Indiana and extrapolate it to 4.8.

It's ten times the homicide rate is ten times essentially, or more than ten times more than, than the cheating rate.

If you do.

And there also were questions about this data, because it's based in part on Social Security data, which doesn't reflect, for instance, if naturalized citizens have ever or people who gain naturalized citizen, status have ever actually, that doesn't show up in the records until they become beneficiaries or recipients of Social Security dollars.

So we don't know necessarily that all 21 of those individuals weren't in that category.

Do you think, Mike, maybe we should spend more time just trying to get more Hoosier voters that are registered and out to the polls?

I think we want to know why or how does this happen, right?

I mean, there's the the implication is that these were illegal voters, which has been the rhetorical, the political argument now for however many, five years, six years that they're all illegals voting.

So you have you have non-citizens voting for presumptively here legally.

And when you say they have certain rights, they have a right to get a driver's license.

They have rights to interact with the government, to get services and to do other things.

and a lot of times when you interact with the government, they also give you the opportunity to register to vote.

So if you're if, if you're a, if you're here on a work visa or you've got a green card or you're, you know, seeking asylum or you know, any name, you're anywhere on the list, you can go do any of those things.

they need to handle a voter registration form.

They're like, I don't know, I just had a government agent hand me a voter registration form, and now I'm.

Now I'm registered, and here's my driver's license.

so let's think of, like, if we're gonna spend time on this thing, let's figure out the that process.

Do we put do we put some something in place that says, you know, what is your legal status before I, before we process this, to try to solve that, but it's such a minor issue.

I don't know if this works.

Fine.

Any time on the.

Well, we're going to move on to our next issue today.

The city of Indianapolis here is at risk of losing about $10 million in federal money that's designated for long term housing programs.

Samantha Horton reports that could significantly challenge current efforts to end homelessness.

Indianapolis has hinged much of its plans to end homelessness on permanent housing strategies, like Housing First programs with sustained funds for rent.

The U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development recently notified state and local organizations that the majority of federal funding for those strategies will shift to transitional housing and supportive services.

Chelsea Haring-Cozzi is the executive director of the coalition for Homelessness Intervention and Prevention, and says the change will have a major impact.

Now it is possible Indianapolis could lose a significant portion of our funding because it is much more at risk and much more highly competitive.

The federal funding request will be delayed due in part to the government shutdown.

So Elise, Indianapolis and communities around the state have spent a lot of money, you know, with this model trying to have permanent housing solutions for people.

Is this going to be a big hit, do you think, for communities?

Yes, and I think a lot of nonprofits are really struggling to figure out how to grapple with, a massive loss of federal, funds dedicated in the past to help, our communities.

And in this situation, especially in Indianapolis, I think, we rely probably too much on federal funds.

And locally, we have, you know, a philanthropic community that's looking to the city for leadership in the city who we, you know, a mayor that doesn't generally stick their neck out to be too brazen looking at the philanthropic community.

And so until they end that kind of circular argument, we need them to, to, to pony up and invest a little bit more.

We've seen great, strides with, streets to Home, but it's going to take more to offset what's happening federally.

It certainly will disrupt any efforts, though, as we, you know, and come into the, you know, the winter season.

And it is an issue that's top of mind.

But that's Indiana Week in review for this week.

Our panel has been political strategist Elise Shrock.

Republican Mike O'Brien.

Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers.

And Niki Kelly, editor in chief at Indiana Capitol Chronicle.

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.