Q&A: Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Jennifer McCormick

Editor's Note
The interview in this article was conducted before Purdue announced their commitment to making voting locations on its campus.

Jennifer McCormick has a lot of labels attached to her.

Boilermaker. Doctor. Teacher. Principal. Superintendent of Public Instruction.

A Republican once. A Democrat now.

The Purdue Exponent sat down with the gubernatorial candidate and asked her about the campaign, issues facing Tippecanoe County and her history with the Republican party. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: Can you introduce yourself?

I'm a Boilermaker. My dad was a Purdue grad, and my (family is) from rural Indiana, Henry County, Newcastle, born and raised. (I) spent most of my professional life in Yorktown, in (the) Delaware County area. I was a teacher, I was a principal, I was a local superintendent and then the last elected state superintendent. I'm a mom of a West Point grad and so (I’m) awfully proud to be a military mom and my husband is an educator.

I'm running for one reason, (and) that's because Hoosiers deserve better. When I served at the state house for four years, I learned quickly that the balance is needed.

So that's why I'm running: to bring balance back to the State House (and) to bring some common sense and civility.

Q: Purdue currently doesn’t have any voting locations on campus. Do you think it should host a voting location, and if you are elected as governor, how are you going to protect voter rights?

Absolutely. Everybody that I've talked to is first of all shocked that there is none here, and kind of appalled by it. There absolutely should be access here and there (sic) should be the ease of access on campus. So yes, they should be a host.
When we say we're not qualified to do it, I think that bears a lot of questions. You know, I was a local K 12 superintendent, and … two schools were used (to vote). And yes, you have to go out of your way to do security and yes, you have to go out of your way to make sure that you have access. And there's a lot to it. But, I'm not sure where it all lands, but I do think there should be access here on campus. I think it's a shame.

As governor, though, for voter suppression, you know, we're 50 out of 50th on voter turnout (in Indiana), so the suppression is real. And every year they try to make it harder and every year, sometimes they accomplish it. So for us, it's about preserving democracy. We're not telling people who to vote for. We're just saying everyone should have easy access to vote and making that as simple as we can versus as complicated as we can. As governor, I'll champion for that and make sure that we use our agencies and our boards and our commissions as smart as we can and make sure we work with the Secretary of State's office to really push for that voting piece.

Q: You announced your policy on marijuana Thursday. Why should marijuana use be legalized?

So 86% of Hoosiers support some type of legalization (of marijuana). So it's time. We're an island of our own and every state around us is obviously legalized to some level, whether it's medical, whether it's recreational. Our common sense cannabis plan really starts out medical and then transitions into adult use, but during that medical piece, it gives Indiana time to do the well-regulated industry. Learn from those states who have done it well and those states who have not done it well. But we're missing out on a ton of revenue. Again, I've traveled the state, I've listened to people, whether they're saying, “Look, I got PTSD,” or “I'm a cancer survivor,” or “I'm under treatments for MS.” Many, many people are wanting it for different reasons. So it's just time. A lot of jobs (are) on the line. Hundreds, if not thousands (of jobs) which have been reflective in other states. It's time to go, so we're going to go medical first and then get it well regulated and go into adult use, which would be recreational.

Q: If you're elected as governor, you're going to be the first female governor in the state. Tell me a little bit about what that means for you?

It's huge. And how exciting will that be? That it'll be a Purdue Boilermaker? So it's a good thing. It's been interesting. I've had a lot of young women show up at events. I've had a lot of young, young girls that their parents are bringing them to events. I think the motivation is there that we understand the balance and women just bring some different ideologies and a different approach to things. It's good to have men and women (to) reflect the population of Indiana. Women make up over half of the population of Indiana, but we serve very few House and Senate seats. We certainly don't have any statewide. So it's time.

Q: We haven't had a Democratic governor in the state for the last 20 years. Do you think Indiana is ready for a Democratic governor?

I know they're ready for it. So as I travel, we're having a lot of town halls, like the one this evening, and it's usually standing room only. It's packed. And it's not just Democrats, it's Republicans, it's independent, it's Hoosiers, right? And they're ready to go. And it's young people, old people, middle age. It's everybody along the spectrum. It's been very well received, but they're ready. They want that balance, they want a different approach, they want new ideas, they feel like they can't trust what's going on in the government. 60% of Hoosiers poll after poll show very big distrust in the state house and I'm a firm believer (that it is) because of that super majority, where you don't have to follow rules (and) you don't have to let people testify. There's just no balance there. So (I am) winning that office, people are ready, we just need to bring back some common sense.

Q: Let's talk about that super majority. As governor, it's going to be up to work with the legislature to get your agenda passed. How are you going to be able to work with the legislature if we still have a Republican supermajority?

Hopefully we'll break the supermajority, but we will still have a majority regardless. So I know what I would be up against: either a majority or a supermajority. And those can be difficult. My lieutenant governor served 20 years in the General Assembly and he has a lot of friends on both sides of that aisle. He’ll be very, very handy and useful when it comes to that bipartisanship and making sure we're getting things done. He also knows how to run, how the General Assembly works and so day one, he can walk in and run that Senate with no problem. That bipartisanship will be hard, but we're going to be reaching over that aisle to extend that olive branch and making sure that we're bringing them to the table and doing our due diligence. We'll make sure that happens.

The other piece of that is how we staff. When we're looking at agencies and boards and commissions, I know when I was state superintendent, I ran as a Republican at the time, but when I did staff that, I staffed it with the best. I didn't ask them their political affiliation. They were the best. That competency piece was huge and I quickly learned from our state friends that that's not the way it worked and I’m like, “Well, that's the way it should work because at that point we're all serving Hoosiers.” So making sure that we're doing our due diligence in offering that reach and having that relationship across that aisle will be big.

Q: Today you’re running as a Democrat, but you weren't always a Democrat. In 2016, you ran as and won your bid for Superintendent of Public Instruction as a Republican. Why did you switch parties?

I was a teacher, I was a principal, I was a local superintendent, and then I was a superintendent. So for all that time, I taught kids that character mattered. I also believed in Hoosiers. I believed in opportunity, I believed in optimism, I believed in fiscal responsibility so I believed in the common good of public service. And what I found was that wasn't the way that the State House was working. I saw a lot of fiscal waste, I saw a lot of exclusionary practices instead of celebrating diversity, I saw the opposite happening, instead of including I saw excluding. I mean, it just wasn't me. For me, it was staying true to my values. I was watching the party really change. The party changed. It’s very, very extreme in my opinion. I think a lot of Republicans are struggling with it because they're coming to the events and saying, “I'm you,” “I switched parties,” or “I don't want to switch parties, I just don't want to be in a party anymore, but I'm you.” I think a lot of Hoosiers can relate to that from what I'm experiencing. But for me, it was just values. It wasn't worth me giving up my values for a political party.

Q: Education policies differ heavily between Republicans and Democrats, though. What do you say to voters who may be worried that you ran as a Republican, specifically on education, when the two are different?

Yeah, I think I've proven myself in that space. I have the good experience in that space from the local level, but also from the state level. I told people, you watch our actions more, because anybody can say anything. Rhetoric is rhetoric and messaging is messaging, but until you watch someone's actions, it tells the true story. I think I proved (sic) myself. A lot of people are very comfortable. They know where I stand on public education. 90% of our families choose public education. I believe in just the foundation of our Constitution in public education, but I also believe in education in general. So I'm not anti-private or anti-charter, it’s just I really firmly believe we must adequately fund our schools. The other piece of that is we have 3,300 teaching openings even today. And we'll never fill them. Part of that is a reflection of the rhetoric going on with school. My actions, my past actions, have proven that I am a champion for education. Education is the foundation to democracy. It's the foundation to our quality of life. It's the foundation to our economy, our workforce. I mean, it's so important. We have not had, for as long as I can remember, someone who would prioritize education as number one, and I have been committed to saying, “Okay, we're going to restore women's reproductive rights and freedoms, we're going to have education, and we're going to have good paying jobs.” Prioritizing those three things with the emphasis on education is huge.

Q: What is your policy on abortion?

So obviously, you know, (I have) been traveling, as I mentioned, and I'm hearing all kinds of stories. I am a mom. I have one pregnancy. I've given one live birth. What I will tell you as a female, it is complex. Pregnancy is complex. The birthing process is complex. Being a mom or being a parent is complex. I mean, there's nothing easy about it. So for me, it really is about trusting women. Are we going to trust women? Are we not, are we going to trust our health care providers, or are we not? It's so complex and so personal, the whole women's reproductive freedoms as far as family planning and the whole the whole piece of pregnancy throughout. It's so personal that it needs to be a decision between the female, anyone she chooses to pull in her family and friends with her own faith, because everybody's faith is different in this area as far as what's right and wrong based on their faith and obviously their medical providers. So I trust women. I trust our health care providers to make those decisions. This is one of those areas that I think the government needs to see their way out. They just have no business. When I was pregnant, I never worried about if I had complications, who was going to tell me what I was going to do? I knew I had that decision on my own and now it's so different. I'm also worried that I've heard “the bills written (and it’s) about birth control.” Access to birth control for women and for girls, (it’s there) for a lot of different reasons, not just family planning but also hormonal issues, some people use it for complexion issues, imbalance in chemicals. I mean, there's a lot of reasons. So to say we're going to take that away, to me, is just nonsense. I mean, it prevents unwanted pregnancies. It also serves a lot of different healthcare purposes. The birth control access is huge and then IVF, for my opponent to vote against protections of IVF at the federal level should say at all. So it's not just about an abortion conversation, it's about family planning, it's about women's reproductive rights and freedoms. It's about are we going to trust women or are we not? And I just continue to trust women.

Q: Do you think there’s a point where the government should step in?

No. I think the government needs to be out of it because it's such a complex health care decision. I'm talking to women that are in their first trimesters … they want the baby (and then) something goes really wrong and they have to have an abortion because the complications, the baby's not going to survive the mother's life in danger, fetal abnormalities, whatever the case may be. But something complex happens. Or the second trimester, things still happen. So even in that third trimester, where people like, there's live abortions or abortions up to the end or post birth, I mean all that. It's crazy talk. The whole point we need to be focused on is complications can happen at any point during that period of time and women need to have the authority and the right to make a healthcare decision. You have a healthcare provider that's looking at the totality of the situation, the woman's body, what's going on, what’s at risk, the lives at risk. And they're helping with their best advice in that. Part of it goes into the age of the person, it goes into the condition of the person. There's a whole lot to it, it’s so complex … The government needs to stay out of it.

Q: What is your stance on the LEAP Water Pipeline?

I'm very, very worried. We're one of the few states that doesn't have a water management plan. We're one of the few states that hasn't addressed the water supply. Mitch Daniels, when he was in office, started to address that, and then Mike Pence took all that away. There were steps that were being made, but I'm very concerned about our water supply and it's not just our water supply, it's the water quality and discharge that we're concerned about. So I don't think there's too many Hoosiers that (think) the intent of the project was (not) admirable, right? They're saying good paying jobs, high skill, high wage, development of the communities in that area. But without regard to the natural resources, the other part of that LEAP district is there's so many questions of the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability, we don't know how much money (has been) spent, we don't know what's going on. There's a lot of trust issues with that that need to be kind of rained in. So it's really turned into the IEDC as kind of a quasi-state agency (which) was not the intent, but at risk of that is our water. It's also (that) soil is being compromised too, from what I'm learning. So without having all the data we need, we need to rein it in, do a non biased review, make sure we know where we are and what's going on with it in order to make good decisions, but we have to protect our water. I mean, we got one shot at this. There are other states who know and who are in really bad situations because of similar projects, and so they're signaling to us, “learn from us. It wasn't good.” And so shame on us if we don't pump the brakes and learn. If we learn, and the data shows that it's doable? So be it. But that is not at all what I'm hearing.

Q: Who are you voting for in the Presidential election?

Well, I didn't vote for Trump the first time. I'm certainly not going to vote for him this time. For me, it's about character. I mean, it goes back to who can get things done with policy. Clearly, we have seen the difference in policy and I obviously cannot support what Trump is doing. You know, Kamala is doing an amazing job and (Tim) Walz, I think, is amazing. So I really appreciate the ticket having policies. They have a vision. They're also bringing high character and standards back to the office. For me, it's about needing (sic) to make sure that we're restoring faith in the world and internationally (sic) on who we are as a country. So making sure that we're being diligent in that.

Q: Why should Purdue students vote for you?

They should vote for me because I'm going to represent them and be a voice. I'm going to fight for their rights and their freedoms. So the choice is clear. I mean, this year, it's about democracy or not having our democracy. It's about rights and freedoms or not having our rights and freedoms. It's about protecting women or not protecting women. It's about education and prioritizing it or not prioritizing education. It's about good paying jobs, which a lot of Purdue students are getting ready to go into the workforce and I want them to stay here and be proud of our state and have a quality of life. So I am the voice for them and I am going to prepare to make sure that we have an Indiana they can be proud of and they want to live here, and they want to start a family and thrive.

Q: Do you have any message for our readers?

Yeah, well, we're ready for a really good remainder of the football season. Getting back into the basketball season. We're a wrestling family, so wrestling's gonna be tight and volleyball, so we're watching from afar. But I'm just proud of the university. I'm proud to be a Boilermaker. I have good memories of being here. I had a lot of fun on campus. I have good friends. My family was here. I'm just proud of Purdue and I think making sure that students are aware that there's so much promise and part of that is being part of the Purdue family. So I'm proud of the students that are here. I'm proud that we're here in Indiana. We need to preserve Purdue.