As I travel the state of Indiana and talk about rethinking redistricting, I’ve noticed that once Hoosiers are made aware of our “wild west” type of redistricting process, they tend to agree it needs to be reformed.

A productive discussion is under way, and the campaign is being adopted by others.

I expect that as we continue this discussion over the next year, the initial interest will build into strong demand for the General Assembly to use specific criteria in the redistricting process — like keeping communities of interest together, utilizing compactness in their design and eliminating the use of political data to draw partisan districts. Already Gov. Daniels has made the discussion all the more real by stating he looks forward to signing a bill based on these principles.

The Web site, rethinkingredistricting.com, shows what could have been done at the beginning of the decade and what could be done in the future if the General Assembly follows an agreed-upon — preferably statutorily prescribed — set of criteria that puts people and communities before politics. This is a simple exercise that would dramatically increase competition in our elections, and competition is healthy and absolutely necessary if our republic is to be maintained. Like we have done in other areas of the election process, as well as with broader issues in our state, this reform would move us directly to the front of the pack. But it will take leadership.

Having said all that, a few misconceptions have emerged. Some glum-like characters found around the Statehouse and quoted in newspapers have concluded that redistricting reform is “doomed” and “will never work.” For the purpose of furthering the discussion, allow me to offer some counterpoints to some issues that have been raised.



Misconception: That “rethinking redistricting” calls for an independent commission or otherwise takes the job of redistricting away from the General Assembly.

Our proposal, in fact, recognizes the constitutional duty of the legislators to do their job, so long as they put the people before themselves. If they can’t or won’t do this, an independent commission would be needed. Even with a commission, the criteria I’m proposing should still be used by commission members. It is, however, too late to change the Indiana constitution as would be required to have an independent commission in place for this upcoming round of redistricting.



Misconception: Simply requiring districts to follow county and township lines is no solution.

If you go to rethinkingredistricting.com, you’ll see that the proposal has quite a bit more to it than simply following existing community boundaries like county and township lines. But this is a very important part of the process. In addition, we should “nest” two house districts into every senate district, and prohibit the use of political data for partisan gain. When combined, these suggested criteria would drastically improve Indiana’s voting process and lessen voter confusion.



Misconception: You must use vote history data to draw maps so that they comply with federal law.

It’s true that some demographic data, not necessarily vote history, could at some point be needed to review the maps to ensure their constitutionality and compliance with certain federal laws, but political data used for partisan purposes can and should be kept completely out of the process. The Indiana Supreme Court specifically did not use vote history when drawing the current Marion County City-County Council lines in 2003.



Misconception: It doesn’t matter to voters.

So far, the data shows tremendous interest. More than 3,500 people have come to rethinkingredistricting.com and more than 500 letters have been sent to legislators to let them know Hoosiers don’t want politically driven redistricting in 2011. This is a threshold issue that impacts all other issues, from roads to health care to taxes. If you agree, please lend your voice and go to www.rethinkingredistricting.com to contact your legislators now.