Reasonable and unreasonable arguments for redistricting
A truly populist position would compel Indiana Republicans to gerrymander a map to give Democrats three seats instead of two.
There is a reasonable argument to be made for redrawing Indiana’s Congressional district map when the Indiana State Senate reconvenes this week. Unfortunately, Republicans have chosen the unreasonable argument.
First, the unreasonable argument: Governor Mike Braun has said that redrawing the maps would ensure “fair” districts, because President Trump won Indiana with 58.58% of the vote. But voters in Marion County overwhelmingly chose Andre Carson to represent them when he won with 68% of the vote, while voters in Lake and Porter counties chose a Democrat to represent them by a smaller but still solid 54% majority of the vote. There is simply no logical way to argue that carving up Indianapolis into several districts to split the Democratic vote multiple ways is a “fair” map for the people who have overwhelmingly voted for Democrats election after election.
Republicans have also resorted to calling other Republicans “weak” for opposing redistricting. This is anti-factual, because the last eight years have shown that there is no greater example of political courage in the Republican Party than standing against something that President Trump wants. There is immense pressure on Republicans from issue advocacy groups, from President Trump, and from other Republicans. Republicans who reject the demand to gerrymander Indiana’s Congressional districts are putting their seats in jeopardy from a primary challenge in 2026, and they know it. Standing against this pressure requires a great deal of political courage.
Now for the more reasonable argument, that sadly far too few Republicans have been willing to make. That argument is this: Democrats have gerrymandered their states and silenced Republican voters by denying them representation. In order to ensure that Republicans nationally have fair representation in the House, Republicans will need to engage in a mid-decade redistricting to counter what Democrats have done and are doing. Republicans could argue that the 2011 and 2021 maps made Indiana a model for the nation, and it would be great if every state followed Indiana’s example. Since Democratic states have not, Republicans cannot renounce the use of a tool that has been and is being used against them.
This is a far superior argument than an appeal to populism, because a truly populist argument would compel Indiana Republicans to gerrymander a map to give Democrats three seats instead of two. After all, if Democrats win 40% of the statewide vote, letting Democrats control 33% of Indiana’s Congressional seats is more “fair” than the 22% of Indiana’s Congressional seats they currently hold.
I am still opposed to redistricting, for the same reasons as before. It is a needless escalation and tossing aside of political and legislative norms. But Republicans would be far better off making a reasonable case for a mid-decade gerrymandering, rather than pretending that they are only seeking “fairness” for all Hoosiers.
See previous articles on redistricting: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.