Gerrymandering is a manipulation of the redistricting process, a 10-year adjustment of state and federal voting districts.
At the beginning of each decade in Indiana and 43 other states, the legislature redraws the districts that elect members of the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as state representatives, using the latest census data. The reason (at least the stated one) is to make sure each district contains a roughly equal number of voters.
Gaming the redistricting system is nothing new.
Almost since the dawn of the republic, state political parties that have held the majority have drawn boundaries in their favor. They dilute the strength of the rival party by splitting populations between multiple districts, called cracking. Another option is to jam voting blocs into only a few districts, cutting their influence in the rest of the state, i.e. packing. Either can account for gerrymandering’s hallmark: districts in weird shapes. In fact, the name comes from a district created in 1812 by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, which resembled a salamander. A cartoonist at the Boston Gazette gave it demonic wings and a beaked head, calling it a “Gerry-mander.” Here in Indiana, one of the most brazen instances occurred in 1852, when the Democrat-controlled legislature redrew the map so masterfully that 10 of the 11 congressional districts elected Democrats, even though the party earned just 53 percent of the popular vote.
The practice is especially entrenched in Indiana.
A recent analysis by Princeton University found that none of Indiana’s nine congressional districts are competitive. Election forecaster FiveThirtyEight calculated that the two U.S. House districts “packed” with Democrats have a 91 and 97 percent chance of staying blue, while the odds of Republicans hanging onto the seven seats they hold range from 94 to 99 percent. During the last two redistricting cycles, Republicans, who held supermajorities in the Indiana Statehouse, redrew the state districts with no input from the opposition party or anyone else. George Washington University political scientist Christopher Warshaw reports Indiana Republicans get around 56 percent of the statewide vote. Yet somehow the Republican Party occupies 70 of the 100 seats in the Indiana House of Representatives, a spread that’s remained more or less static for years.
Technology only makes matters worse.
Politicians bent on putting a thumb on the electoral scales can now use software—DistrictBuilder and Districtr are both open access—that combines voting data, demographic information, and other factors to generate hundreds of district designs that can be manipulated down to a single block.
Gerrymandering can promote extremism.
Theoretically, politicians seeking office in a district containing a relatively balanced voter base would be willing to compromise and temper their positions. In Indiana, with every district controlled by one party or the other, a candidate who doesn’t adopt a hardcore stance risks defeat during the primaries by a more middle-of-the-road opponent in their own party.
It suppresses candidate participation.
Of the 100 Indiana House seats that were up for grabs in 2024, 36 incumbents ran unopposed. Yes, the voters in those districts quite literally had no choice. In many cases, this happens because the district is tipped so heavily toward one party or the other that any potential opponents decide it isn’t worth their time to run.
And ultimately voter turnout.
Likewise, constituents understandably may be loath to take the time to vote when the end result seems preordained. Last year, only 13 percent of Marion County voters bothered. According to the Indiana Civic Health Index, Hoosiers’ participation in the most basic functions of a democratic society, registering to vote and then going to the polls, has declined every decade since the index began. Indiana’s voter turnout rate has fallen since the 1980s by as much as 14.5 percent; meanwhile, the national voter turnout rate rose to its highest level. “Indiana’s voting infrastructure and election laws contribute to that decline,” says Linda Hanson, president of the League of Women Voters of Indiana.
The fox guarding the henhouse is not prohibited.
There are no brakes at all on the existing system. The dominant party can redistrict any way it likes, and that’s that. “Since the task of redistricting rests with the legislature, the supermajority can create and pass maps without any of the superminority legislators’ support,” says Hanson.
Yet, reform could be possible.
Nine states, including Arizona, California, and Michigan, use independent commissions for redistricting. In most cases, the panel draws both state and federal districts, with elected officials typically barred from participating in the process. Indiana’s Citizens Action Coalition and two dozen partner groups formed the All IN for Democracy coalition to advocate for something similar here. During the 2020 Indiana General Assembly, the coalition attempted the quixotic task of developing legislation to create a bipartisan citizens redistricting commission. This went about as well as one might expect. Both the Indiana House and Senate refused to even give the reform a hearing. Local activist Sampson Levingston nevertheless counsels perseverance. “People think their vote doesn’t count, but that isn’t true,” says Levingston. “If your vote didn’t matter, politicians wouldn’t go to such lengths to try and control it. Doing nothing definitely isn’t the solution. The more people who understand what’s going on, the better the chances for change.”
