News / Articles

Indiana’s leaders, including Governor Mike Braun, are being squeezed like something out of The
Godfather over redistricting. Just read the governor’s words:
“If we try to drag our feet as a state on it, probably, we’ll have consequences of not working with the
Trump administration as tightly as we should,” he said during to WOWO on Sept. 15. He said he wants
Republican state legislators to evolve towards redistricting and not to feel pressured.

When President Trump personally summoned Indiana lawmakers to the White House, pushing them to
redraw maps before the 2026 midterms, he wanted them to join a multi-state Republican effort to
maintain a U.S. House of Representatives majority. The governor keeps floating a special legislative
session for November to address redistricting.

The push involves more than polite persuasion. As the Indiana Capitol Chronicle reported, Braun publicly
tied state action to federal cooperation, as Braun’s use of the word consequences shows. -- The Trump
Administration has repeatedly threatened to withhold funding from other states and institutions if they
don’t cave.

Congressional district lines are traditionally re-drawn by the state legislature once a decade, in the year
after the U.S. Census is completed. Those district lines are then in place for ten years until the next
Census and its subsequent redistricting cycle.

But supporters of mid-decade redistricting, like State Rep. Andrew Ireland (R) say the national stakes are
too high to passively accept potential disadvantage. Ireland told NPR’s Steve Inskeep, “We can sit on our
laurels and say that we have this map… [that] Princeton election lab… rates as one of the least
gerrymandered in the country. Or we can get in the fight and level the playing field. And I think that’s
the conversation we’re having now.” Ireland went on to say redistricting was only fair game.
“Candidly, I would like to see a world where Congress steps in and does its job to rein in partisan
gerrymandering. But until Congress does its job, I think states have an obligation to really protect the
interests of the majority, and in particular [on an] aggregate and national scale. And right now, candidly,
states like Indiana kind of sat by and said, Even though Illinois is doing this, even though California,
Maryland [and] other states – that we're going to sit back and try to do it the right way. And I respect
that. I think there's something to be said for that. But at the same time, you can't put your partisan kind
of bend at a strategic disadvantage on a national level and really marginalize your own voters in the
process.”

He notes that certain other, bluer states are aggressive in redistricting—so why should Indiana play by
more principled rules? In short, he seems to make this into a national chess match, and suggests that if
one side plays dirty, so should the other.

While Indiana is a majority Republican state, about 40% of Indiana voters typically punch a vote for
Democratic candidates. Proportionally, this means that three Democrats of the state’s nine
congressional representatives would be a more accurate representation of the average Hoosier voter,
noted David Hadley, professor emeritus of political science at Wabash College. Instead, 2 out of 9
representatives represent the current minority. The GOP-majority map doesn’t perfectly reflect partisan
proportionality—but redrawing for partisan purposes would wipe out the recognition that current maps
are among the least gerrymandered in the country.

Opposing mid-decade redistricting is practical too. A special session will be on the taxpayer dime and
Indiana’s population hasn’t moved around, justifying a redraw at this point. Former Representative Phil
Boots (R) spells out the case against mid-decade redistricting, drawing on both practical and ethical
grounds:

“I see no positives to changing the current maps without new census data to consider. Redistricting is a
major undertaking, and extremely expensive, which is why it should be done only every ten years after a
census.” He went on to say that he objects to “the process known as gerrymandering.”
Here’s a textbook refresher of what gerrymandering is: “Manipulating district boundaries for political
gain,“ wrote Ronak Mohanty in the Purdue Exponent. “This often involves either splitting apart
opposition voters to ensure they don’t have the numbers to win in any individual district, or cramming
them all together so they can only win in one district.

“I don’t believe there will ever be a perfectly drawn map, but the current maps drawn by the state
legislature have been judged to be some of the fairest in the nation. There is no benefit to changing 
them now.” Boots indicated that the “win” would be negligible, resulting in maybe one additional
Republican seat in Congress, “hardly worth the effort and expense.”

“Changing district lines now, without proper vetting, will simply prompt several groups to challenge
them in court. That may well delay implementation.” Boots called cost of defending those lawsuits
significant. Additionally, he said, “I believe this redistricting proposal is purely political and a poor
precedent to set for the future. In my opinion, state leaders are responding to outside pressure rather
than to the citizens of Indiana.”

One of the first voices to make a stand against mid-decade redistricting was State Sen. Spencer Deery
(R). He objected to the process on similar terms. In an August press release, he criticizes the heavy-
handedness of the administration’s approach, and the danger of prioritizing national party strategy over
local norms and Hoosier independence.

Wabash College Professor of Political Science Shamira Gelbman, said: “I've not heard that any updated
population records are being used; just that district lines would be adjusted to benefit one particular
political party. It's hard to see any objective gain from that. Meanwhile, the losses can be
substantial—further erosion of civic morale and political trust.” Citing evidence from the Economist
Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, Gelbman called political trust an essential component of
democracy that “has been tanking in the United States in recent years.” She is especially troubled by the
“chess game” rhetoric: “the chess game analogy is especially distasteful because it conceptualizes
people—constituents, citizens—as pawns. It's dehumanizing and it makes it hard to argue seriously for
citizens; meaningful participation in their own governance.”

Isaac Saul, journalist and founder of The Tangle News, paints the consequences in vivid terms: “Instead
of us choosing our representatives by vote, our two major political parties are choosing the voters they
want.” Saul warned in August that parties are undermining voters voices “it in broad daylight, using
sophisticated computer systems to draw up the perfect, serpentine, totally self-motivated maps.”
Common Cause Indiana’s recent polling shows that the public is not fooled. A clear majority of
Americans, 64%, oppose mid-decade redistricting; 81% support balanced maps, and nearly two-thirds
want gerrymandering outlawed nationally. Why? The costs are paid by everyone. Financially, lawsuits
and redraw efforts stretch state budgets for dubious benefits—Boots estimates just one seat gained,
hardly justifying the expense.

The Trump administration’s highly coordinated pressure exposes two fundamental questions: Should
Indiana march to Washington’s tune, or defend its traditions, its voters and its sovereignty? And what
happens to Founding Father James Madison’s concern in Federalist Paper #10: that “the superior force
of an interested and overbearing majority would make decisions to advance its own ambitions at the
expense of the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party?”

For independent-minded Hoosiers, the answer may be clear. As Gelbman noted, “Arguing that a state
legislature should work to advance the presumed interest of a partisan majority seems counter to the
spirit of the Constitution and the representational framework it established.”
It is a corrosive influence—destructive to faith in democracy and bad for local self-government. The
question isn’t just whether new maps help Republicans win one more seat; it’s whether Indiana party
leaders are committed to representing their constituents,