Q&A with Rodric Bray: Indiana Senate’s top leader talks legal experience, decriminalizing marijuana

Being a third-generation attorney and Republican politician was not Indiana Senate Pro Tempore Rodric Bray’s intention growing up in Martinsville.

His grandfather, William Bray, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1951 to 1975, and his father, Richard Bray, served in the Indiana House of Representatives from 1974 to 1992 and then the Indiana Senate from 1994 to 2012.

But as Bray crept closer to graduation at Indiana University Bloomington, where he studied history, he realized he wanted to go to law school.

“I just kind of wandered through doing things that interested me, and I tried to do them well, and that’s created opportunities,” Bray said.

He said he didn’t have a specific plan to engage in politics but watched his family be involved and was interested. As he entered his 30s, his law practice flourished, and he got married and started a family. It wasn’t until he was in his 40s that he was first elected to public office.

“I was looking for maybe another challenge. And so this presented itself, and turns out I just really enjoy it,” Bray said.

Bray succeeded his father in the Indiana State Senate in the 2012 election.

Bray sat down with The Indiana Lawyer to talk about his career and influence in the Indiana General Assembly. Here is a condensed and edited version of that conversation:

Does being a lawyer help you in your role as Senate President Pro Tempore?

I think it does help. I don’t think we want to populate the entire General Assembly with lawyers. But having some is beneficial. What I found when I just started is that because I spent my days working and reading statutes and code, I could digest bills relatively quickly and figure out what they were doing and the impact they might have, and in particular, in things that I was familiar with, of course, but I found that that was beneficial. My legal experience made that really beneficial.

And outside of that, there are still some things I don’t have expertise on that I relied on other people, if it’s whether it’s insurance or agriculture, or what other aspect of the state’s business that I wasn’t familiar with but I did have a little bit of an advantage that I could read those bills and maybe digest them fairly quickly.

How have things changed since you were first elected?

From my perspective, there’s a lot of change in the personalities of the people. There are people who have retired. One of the things that surprised me when I got here, I was elected in 2012 started in January 2013, by the time I finished my first four year term, I believe there were 18 people that were newer than me, and I had no idea that the Senate would churn as quickly as that.

We kind of have a reputation of being old nostalgia and being here for a long time, and that just isn’t the case. And so that change has continued at that pace since I’ve been in office. And in fact, was it two years ago? It wasn’t even an election year. We had three new people come in, one because Senator (Jack) Sandlin passed away, unfortunately, but two other people resigned and retired. And so new people come in. And so we’ve got a lot of changes in personnel all the time. And that is, in a way, a great thing, because you’re always getting fresh blood and fresh ideas.

It’s also a challenge, at least from my perspective as the president pro tempore, to make sure that we’re passing on the culture to the new people that come in and they understand how we work, how this institution functions, how important it is for civility and dialogue. We work hard on making sure that those pieces of culture are passed on.

Do you have a favorite or proudest moment of being in the General Assembly?

I’ve got a handful. Maybe the most honored moment was when I was selected as president pro tempore. It’s the honor of my life that I don’t ever think they’ll surpass, frankly, so I’m grateful for that.

With regard to legislation pieces, there are a couple of things I’ve been able to work on over the years prior to being president pro tempore. Now, I work on policy at 10,000 feet. I never really authored a bill, and I enjoyed and miss a little bit the granular work of crafting a bill and getting everyone convinced it’s a good idea, getting it across the finish line.

But there were two things really, just before I became president pro tempore that I was working on that I think were pretty controversial issues. One was some reform on civil forfeiture, and the other was creating a policy that we had never had before on body cameras.

Both of those were being done at a time when there was some racial tension going on. Things were pretty stressful, some heightened emotions, and we had, in particular with the body camera bill, a long summer study committee that I was fortunate enough to chair, and we took a lot of input from anybody who was interested to come and talk to us. And some of those hearings were hard and emotional, because there were some African American folks whose family members were killed. … Body cameras, if done right, could help provide some answers in those circumstances.

I worked through both of those with lots of other people who deserve more credit than I do, but both of those kind of controversial issues ended up passing the House and the Senate without a single no vote. And that was probably one of my finest days here.

Why don’t you author bills anymore?

I think the first answer, which is not an adequate answer, is because the president pro tempore just historically, hasn’t done it. I could do it. You saw the speaker author a bill this year, which was a little unique, but he did.

But the real answer is that I spend most of my time trying to help guide our priority issues and some of the tougher hot-button issues, both through this chamber, but also negotiate what those bills will look like when they go through the House chamber, and also negotiate it with the governor. And so I spend my time at a higher level on those bills, trying to make things move forward. It takes enough time to do that that I probably can’t get into that granular piece of bills on my own.

Do you see yourself as a gatekeeper to more extreme views and controversial policies, like the expansion of gambling and marijuana legalization?

I don’t see myself as dictatorial at all. I’m a consensus builder, which is my style of leadership. We work when we deal with priorities. We work for months figuring out what those are, figuring out what the policy should be, and trying to move forward.

Those aren’t just me at all. That’s our whole group trying to put that together. There are some things I do have strong opinions on. I don’t know that moving a huge expansion of gaming is necessarily good for the state of Indiana, and so I’m entitled to my opinion, and it has some influence around here. I voice that. I’m just not sure that that’s a great policy piece to continue to advance here; there are things we need to do to tweak and change it, to make it work better, but I hesitate to make big expansions in that space.

When is the right time for gaming or marijuana?

I don’t know that I have an idea on that at all. With regard to marijuana, it’s important that we acknowledge that we are now essentially surrounded as a state. We can’t exist in a vacuum. More than 30 states have legalized marijuana in some capacity, including those states around us.

I still am unconvinced that legalizing marijuana and saying this is an okay product is good for the state of Indiana. I think in particular, there’s an awful lot of studies that have a lot of veracity to me that suggest that it’s not healthy, in particular, for the mental health of young minds, and so I don’t feel like we need to weigh in on that and legalize it very quickly. I know that it’s becoming more and more popular, of course, across the state of Indiana, and also in this building.

There are some changes I would suggest that we make, like, for instance, this is just Rod Bray talk and not our caucus. I think that it would be a smart move, based on where we are in that space right now, that we decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. I don’t think that needs to be criminal at this point. Maybe it’s an infraction or something like that, because people are obviously buying it legally in other parts of the country, can’t possess it when you come back here. But, should that be a jailable offense at this point? Maybe not. That’s something I would consider. But we have to do that as a body. Obviously, the other thing you’ll see us work on that we’re working on hard this year is a distinction from marijuana and the Delta nine part, but Delta eight are some of those other cannabinoids that are out there that are being sold today to people who are 12, 14 years old. We’ve got an option to make those things illegal. About eight states across the country have made them illegal.

But the other option, that is that we’ve chosen to tread down the path of trying to regulate that, making sure that people under 21 don’t get it, putting some marketing restrictions on it, things like that. You saw us in the first half of session, pass that out and send it over to the House. They’re working on it now, and whether that comes to fruition or not, I don’t know, but I think it’s a good idea to regulate that space. … Some of those products absolutely have a high (and) they can be dangerous. People need to understand what they are, have some reliability as to what is in them, so they understand the impact it’s going to have on them. That regulation is important.

Do you see yourself ever again being involved in a court battle with a sitting governor, as you were with former Gov. Eric Holcomb during COVID over who has the authority to call a special legislative session?

I never see myself filing one against (Gov. Mike) Braun or any others. I mean that whole thing was a challenge. That was a really tough time. We were going through an unprecedented time with COVID, and the governor was doing everything he thought best for the state of Indiana, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him and the work he did in that space.

here was just a difference of opinion in the branches of government between the executive and the legislative about how the legislature’s role was there, and frankly, we needed the Supreme Court to weigh in and tell us what that was.

I can say with a decent bit of pride that that never tarnished the relationship between Gov. Holcomb and I. It was something that needed to be done. We did it, we talked about it. We did have some challenging conversations from time to time, but it never impaired our ability to continue to function for Indiana and craft policy and work together, and I still think the world of Gov. Holcomb, so it was just a weird time that I hope that never happens again.

Do you see yourself running for another office?

No, I like where I’m at. This is a neat spot that is a huge honor for me, and I have a pretty good thumbprint on policy for the state of Indiana, so I’m very happy here.•