It is a political reality that no redrawing of electoral district maps by the party in power will please the other party. Nor will such maps even please all members of the dominant party.
In that respect, the proposed district maps put forward by Indiana Republicans last week are true to form: lots of people, mainly Democrats — aka, the party out of power — aren’t happy because they see, or think they see, political bias at work in the drawing of the new districts.
We’re not so sure we see much partisan bias in the new maps. Especially in the case of the proposed nine congressional districts, there’s a good deal of common sense in this exercise required by the U.S. Constitution after each decennial census. The goal of redistricting is to attempt to equalize districts by population shifts — areas that have grown get more representation; areas that have shrunk lose representation. Not a bad theory.
Democrats in the House argue they were shut out of the process. Their being out of the state for five weeks didn’t help that situation. But even if they had been at the Statehouse every day, their role would have still been secondary. Republicans will say that’s what also happened in 2001 when Democrats had control of redistricting after the 2000 census. Another reality: The party in power controls drawing the lines. To the victors go the spoils. Again, not a bad theory.
What incumbents may feel — especially those thrown into new geography that may contain more voters of the other party — is a bigger challenge to re-election. One of the goals of redistricting — both by the dominant-party Republicans and the more neutral Indiana Citizens Redistricting Commission — was to make elections more competitive, which really means that incumbents of either party not be given a free ride into office. Despite the political odds, that, in the long run, is good for our system of representative government.
Candidates should have to stand against good opponents in truly competitive campaigns, even if that opponent is of the same party and even if the race is in the primary election. If that can occur in both parties, the potential exists for producing a better race in the general election. Truly, no one, even the best officeholders, should run unopposed. Not a bad theory.
Much more troubling than political influence on the redistricting is timing. The maps were revealed Monday, which was April 11. By law, at least the congressional maps have to be approved by the time the legislature adjourns at midnight April 29.
Eighteen days is not enough time for the public — OK, which may mean only those who take enough interest to have an informed view — to decipher the lines.
This is especially the case in Indiana House and Senate districts. The lines are so fine that only party professionals and academics can quickly assess them.
And there are problems that should be addressed. Our colleagues at the Herald-Times in Bloomington, for instance, believe their city has been ravaged. In an editorial headlined “Republicans must not consider Bloomington part of state,” the paper writes: “The Republicans took the opportunity afforded them when the last election put them in control of the House and Senate to carve up the state’s most Democratic city like the centerpiece of a hog roast.” The paper’s valid complaint: Monroe County was split among five representatives. If that had been done to Vigo County, we’d be yelping, too — with good reason.
That kind of situation — and there will be more, as anecdotal accounts emerge — gives us pause. And a pause is what this process needs. As we understand it, the law requires that the congressional district maps be approved by the time the legislature adjourns. The House and Senate maps don’t have to be.
Given the short timeline, we would like to see the legislature do just that: hold back, in the name of public input, the House and Senate maps so they can be dissected by people other than those who drew them and those who would lose control because of them. The House and Senate maps, after revision, could then be considered in either a one-day special session of the legislature, or, lacking that, at the legislature’s organizational day in November. The former is better than the latter because it would afford would-be candidates more time to learn their new districts, which should mean more competitive races.
If the Republicans decide to go ahead with approving all of the maps by April 29 — which we fully expect them to do — then they have the extra responsibility to listen and legislate in ways that are best for the public rather than for their party. Not a bad theory.
© 2024 Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.