Indiana Democrats elect Tallian, others as new leadership team
Karen Tallian, former Democratic state senator for Ogden Dunes. (Provided photo)
The Indiana Democratic Party's central committee on Saturday elected former state senator Karen Tallian as the next chair of the state party.
She defeated Destiny Wells by a vote of 18-14.
'I am honored and humbled by the State Central Committee's confidence in me to serve as Indiana Democratic Party Chair,' said Tallian, of Ogden Dunes. 'As we move forward, it is our job as Democrats to both reunite internally and reunite with the working Hoosiers who may feel left behind by the Party in recent years. I am ready to get to work electing Democrats up and down the ballot.'
She replaces Mike Schmuhl, who decided not to seek re-election to the post. Several other contenders dropped out of the race in the days before the vote, including former Allen County Democratic Party Chair Derek Camp and at-large Gary Common Council Member Darren Washington.
Tallian represented portions of Porter, LaPorte, and Lake counties in the Senate from December, 2005 through November, 2021. During her time in the Senate, she served as the Democratic Caucus Chair between 2016 and 2020.
While in the Senate she had strong relationships with labor leaders; fought for decriminalizing marijuana and sought to raise Indiana's minimum wage.
A press release said Tallian is looking forward to rebuilding the party, holding a town hall tour to hold Indiana Republicans accountable at the state and federal level, and preparing for the 2026 and 2028 elections.
Here are the other leaders who were elected at Saturday's meeting for the 2025-29 term: Alex Nyirendah, Vice Chair; Erin Retif, Secretary; and Michael Griffin, Treasurer.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Nevada GOP governor vetoes voter ID bill that he pushed for in a deal with Democrats
LAS VEGAS -- Nevada Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo unexpectedly vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have required voters in the swing state to show a photo ID at the polls — a conservative priority across the country and something that has long been on the governor's legislative wish list. The move brings a dramatic end to one of the legislative session's most surprising outcomes: A bipartisan deal that combined the requirement for voter identification with a Democratic-backed measure to add more drop boxes for mail ballots that Lombardo had initially vetoed. The bill came together in the final days of the session and passed mere minutes before the Democratic-controlled Legislature adjourned just after midnight on June 3. Lombardo had been expected to sign it. In his veto message, Lombardo said he 'wholeheartedly' supports voter ID laws but that he felt the bill fell short on addressing his concerns about ballots cast by mail, because such ballots could still be accepted 'solely on the basis of a signature match" under the bill. Because it 'would apply voter ID requirements unequally between in-person and mail ballot voters and fails to sufficiently guarantee ballot security, I cannot support it,' he said. The voter ID requirements in the bill mirrored a ballot initiative known as Question 7 that Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved last November. But voters would have to pass it again in 2026 to amend the state constitution. The requirement would then be in place by 2028. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, the Democrat who brokered the deal with Lombardo, said when he introduced the legislation that voters seemed poised to give the final approval, and that enacting a voter ID law would have given the state a head start on ensuring a smooth rollout before the next presidential election. In a scathing statement, Yeager called the governor's decision a 'breach of trust," saying that he believes Lombardo gave in to pressure around him to veto the bill, designated Assembly Bill 499. 'Lombardo was for AB499 before he was against it, encouraging all legislative Republicans to support it, which they did,' Yeager said. Voting rights groups condemned the legislation, saying it would have made it harder for some people to vote, including low-income or unhoused voters, people with disabilities and older voters. Let Nevadans Vote, which describes itself as a nonpartisan coalition, said Thursday in a statement that the governor's veto only temporarily stops what it called 'the misguided and ill-conceived implementation of voter ID in Nevada.' 'Come 2026, Question 7 will still be on the ballot," the group said while describing voter ID requirements as 'strict regimes' that 'decide who gets to exercise their constitutional right to vote and who cannot.' Polls have shown that most Americans support voter ID laws, and that has been consistent over the years and across party lines. A 2024 Gallup poll found 84% of Americans were in favor of requirements for a photo ID at voting places, consistent with Gallup findings from 2022 and 2016. That includes about two-thirds of Democrats, according to the 2024 survey. Voters are either required or requested to show ID when voting in person in 36 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Not all states require photo ID, though. Some accept documents such as a bank statement, and some allow voters without ID to vote after signing an affidavit. A few states allow poll workers to vouch for voters without an ID. Lombardo on Thursday also vetoed a bill that would have allowed the swing state's nonpartisan voters to cast ballots in Republican or Democratic primary races. The bill sought to include the more than 855,000 voters registered as nonpartisans — the state's largest voting bloc — in the process of nominating major-party candidates for congressional races and statewide offices. A ballot initiative to open up primaries for all registered voters was rejected by voters last November. The sweeping measure, which also attempted to implement ranked choice voting, faced intense opposition from party leaders on both sides who said it was too broad and confusing.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
‘Shut Up!': House Hearing Erupts Into Chaos After Dem Calls Out ICE Barbie
A congressional hearing quickly devolved into a shouting match between two Republicans and a Democrat who sought a subpoena for Kristi Noem over the forcible removal of Senator Alex Padilla from a Thursday press conference. During a Thursday hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) implored his fellow lawmakers to subpoena Noem over the incident, which saw her security team manhandle and handcuff the Democratic senator after he loudly questioned the Homeland Security Secretary about ICE raids that have led to nationwide protests. Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the committee chairman, quickly waved off Frost's concerns over the incident. 'Mr. Chair, also, we were just talking about this. I want to know if you can commit to working with us so we can subpoena,' Frost began to say, before Comer cut him off. 'You're out of order,' Comer replied. The two congressmen briefly spoke over each other until Comer recognized MAGA firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who entered the tense scene guns blazing. 'Oh, Democrats can't follow the rules, can't follow the law,' she said twice. 'We need to subpoena Kristi Noem,' Frost repeated. 'It's her staff, DHS federal officers, that threw a U.S. senator to the ground.' Greene continued to talk over the young Democrat: 'There's a privilege of the majority, and that means we're in charge. Not your side because you lost the election because you supported the invasion of our country.' Frost, Greene, and Comer all refused to back down until the chairman grew exasperated with the back-and-forth. 'Shut up. Just shut up,' Comer told Frost, who had repeatedly asked him to commit to subpoenaing Noem. 'No, you're not gonna tell me to shut up,' Frost hit back. 'He's been out of order six times,' Comer said of Frost. 'He is trying to get on MSNBC. You probably knocked somebody off MSNBC to get on there.' The chairman then handed the floor over to Greene, who lobbed a bizarre accusation at Frost without providing evidence. 'I think because he's been arrested as a former Antifa member, right?' she said of Padilla, referring to the far-left movement. 'He's a former Antifa member… Not surprised.' Frost appeared to be in disbelief as he asked for Greene's remarks to be taken off the record. The dramatic interaction ended when Greene turned her attention to New York Governor Kathy Hochul to ask questions. Several Democrats have rallied around Padilla following his wild takedown. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for an immediate probe into the 'un-American' incident: 'To look at this video and see what happened reeks—reeks—of totalitarianism," he said. 'This is not what democracies do.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries echoed Schumer in a post, stating that those behind 'the brazen and aggressive manhandling of Senator Padilla' must be 'held accountable.' Noem called Padilla's interruption 'inappropriate,' while Homeland Security official Tricia McLaughlin slammed the senator for choosing 'disrespectful political theater.' Noem and Padilla spoke for 15 minutes after the incident, McLaughlin said.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Lean budget threatens to spark public college turf war
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up At this May's meeting, after a presentation about an upcoming advertising campaign for state financial aid programs, Pedraja expressed concern that helping low-income students attend four-year schools would take money away from free community college. Advertisement 'We are very concerned that shouting from the treetops that our public four-year institutions are free for certain students based on income will further deplete very limited financial aid for the whole system,' Pedraja said. Advertisement Pedraja said that financial aid money is expected to be tight next year, and free community college is codified in statute, while the MASSGrant Plus expansion is not. 'Not to take away from the importance of marketing toward these students and making education available for all, which I do believe, we ought to be cautious about over-promising to students who are most in need of support,' Pedraja said. In a follow-up interview, Pedraja doubled down on his concern that the state is 'over-promising' by advertising free four-year college for low-income students. He again emphasized the distinction between free community college, which is codified in law, and other financial aid, which comes from a pot of money that can run out. Practically, however, this is a distinction without a difference — at least legally, if not politically. Pedraja is correct that free community college is codified in the Department of Higher Education spokesperson Nicole Giambusso confirmed that free community college and the MASSGrant Plus expansion are both subject to annual appropriations. The House and Senate budget proposals for fiscal 2026 both include money for all these programs, although the Senate's funding level is somewhat higher. State Senator Jo Comerford, Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, said lawmakers see these programs as coming from different pockets of money. 'One does not cannibalize each other,' Comerford told me. Advertisement When free community college was established, expanding aid for all low-income students was seen as key to ensuring that students who are qualified to attend a four-year university won't be channeled into community college just because it's free. After all, according to There are potential funding sources — like money collected from the surtax on income over $1 million — that could be tapped to keep both programs running. 'I don't think it should be either/or,' Bridgewater State University President Frederick Clark told me. 'I don't think the segments should be working at cross purposes. We should be leaning in to make sure funding is adequate for financial aid for all students.' It is true that in a tight budget year, lawmakers have to make choices. Policy makers should be honest in crafting their budget around what can realistically be funded. In our interview, Pedraja said he 'would love for everybody to have more access to higher education.' But the troubling implication of his statement is that if there is a Sophie's choice to be made, Massachusetts should prioritize aid for community college students, regardless of income, over low-income students at four-year schools. If the state wants to help the most students achieve their academic potential, that is the wrong approach. Instead, the guiding principle should be helping each student attend the college that's right for them. Advertisement As these financial aid programs continue, state policy makers should collect data to determine their impact. Which aid programs are boosting college enrollment and also college completion rates and postgraduation employment? Are other ways of improving college success working, like If hard choices have to be made about funding, they should be based on which programs most help students succeed. Shira Schoenberg can be reached at
