Indiana wades into debate over political map-making

Harder will be crafting details of a plan that could take the work of political map-drawing away from politicians inclined to bend boundaries in their favor.

“I can see reform in the distance,” said Vaughn, head of Common Cause Indiana. “What I can’t see is whether it will be window dressing or real reform.”

On Thursday, Indiana stepped deeper into what’s become a national debate over who should draw the maps of legislative and congressional districts.

A dozen-member study committee - reluctantly created by the Republican-controlled Legislature this year - met for the first time in what may be a two-year process toward change.

Much of the conversation among eight lawmakers and four non-legislators focused on whether Indiana needs reform at all.

As in most states, Indiana’s Constitution leaves it to lawmakers to adjust district boundaries, required every 10 years after the U.S. Census counts the population.

Tom Sugar, a Democrat and one of the non-legislators on the committee, likened the process to letting elected officials pick their own voters.

State Sen. Brent Hershman (Buck Creek), the committee’s Republican co-chairman, questioned that premise.

“My fear,” he said, “is that we’re making some assumptions, bolstered with some political rhetoric.

Whatever the committee does next, it won’t be in isolation. At least 20 states engaged in similar efforts this year, looking at various ways to reduce or remove politics from the work of crafting voting maps.

Another 23 states already have some sort of commission involved in redistricting, though the make-up and independence of those groups vary.

In Arkansas, for example, a commission composed of the governor, attorney general and secretary of state oversee redistricting. In California, a 14-member citizens commission of Democrats, Republicans and independents - and culled from thousands of applicants - works with university researchers to draw the lines.

Tim Storey, who’s spent 30 years studying the topic for the non-partisan National Council of State Legislatures, said he’s often asked which model works best.

“The answer is no one really knows,” he said. “There no definitive political science on it yet.”

However, it’s safe to say that reform gets messy.

In the past five years, maps drawn in 40 states, including those with redistricting commissions, have faced court challenges.

That includes Arizona, where voters approved an independent redistricting commission in 2000.

Earlier this June, the U.S Supreme Court ruled the Arizona commission is constitutional, clearing the way for other states to use similar groups.

But Arizona’s electoral maps are back in dispute with Republicans now arguing that they were drawn to give Democrats better odds of getting elected.

Storey said he isn’t surprised by the ongoing legal fight.

“Politics and redistricting are inseparable,” he said.

“The outcome of a line-drawing process -- whether you give it to legislature or an independent commission or a group of kindergartners with their crayons -- is always going to have major political implications,” he said.

In Indiana, supporters of reform make a similar argument for a more independent process. Map-drawing, they note, has long-term implications.

Study committee member Ted Boehm, a retired state Supreme Court justice, said leaving the work to legislators yields too much partisan power and and too little voter engagement.

Last fall, a University of Chicago School of Law study that followed redistricting after the 2010 census found Indiana’s districts to be among the most politically contorted in the country.

The study cited the 2012 state legislative races in which Republicans won 58 percent of all votes cast in House races but took control of 69 of the 100 seats to claim a super-majority. In 2014, Republicans took 71 of the 100 seats.

In addition, it’s up to lawmakers to draw lines for Indiana’s 50 state Senate districts and nine Congressional seats, that are now dominated by Republicans.

Critics of the process say they’re just as troubled by results of the 2014 general election, in which Indiana posted the lowest voter turnout in the nation, with just 28 percent of eligible voters participating.

Few races were competitive, giving voters little incentive to show up.

Political scientist Andrew Downs, director of the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics, said Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of map-making to protect incumbents and their partisan interests.

Downs said he’s skeptical that Indiana’s study committee will deliver major reform.

“I think what we’ll see is some tweaks around the edges,” he said.

To get much more than that, reformers will have to incite voters to push lawmakers.

“It’s hard to get people to care about redistricting,” he said. “It’s not sexy by any stretch of the imagination.”