Controversy has erupted over a plan to redraw the boundaries of City-County Council districts in Indianapolis.
The plan was filed last week by council Republicans, who will hold a majority on the council until Jan. 1, when Democrats, who won more seats during last month’s election, take control.
Every 10 years, following the release of updated data on voters by the U.S. Census, new boundaries are drawn for the 25 districts of the council (which also has four at-large seats that are elected countywide.)
“The redistricting process is simply designed to ensure that our citizens are represented fairly,” said current council President Ryan Vaughn, a Republican from District 3.
Democrats, however, say Republicans are trying to be sneaky and quickly redraw districts in their favor while they still have the majority.
“What they’re doing is putting some items on the fast track, and they are not going through the proper process,” said William “Duke” Oliver, a council Democrat from District 10. “It is both improper and unethical.”
Oliver noted that during the last redistricting process 10 years ago, both Republicans and Democrats had a chance to present proposals about redrawing districts. The two sides then came together and developed a plan that everyone could live with.
“Now the maps are being constructed without any input from the Democratic minority,” Oliver said. “We just want the opportunity to present our own districtmap.”
So, what is keeping the Democrats from doing that?
They say council Republicans paid election attorney David Brooks $225,000 to organize the information used to draft redistricting plans. Since taxpayer money was spent, Democrats say, they should also be able to use the information for their district proposal.
“Since they developed a plan on their own and it goes for a vote soon, we don’t have the resources or the time to come up with a counter proposal,” said Joanne Sanders, an at-large council member who currently leads the Democratic minority.
Maggie Lewis of District 7 will assume leadership of the Democrats as council president next month, when they will officially have the majority.
Sanders said Democrats are also concerned that possible changes in precinct boundaries under another Republicans plan will have some voters discovering that they are farther away from a polling place.
“We have no idea whether the new precincts under this plan are actually in compliance with the policies of the Indiana State Election Board,” Sanders said. “They haven’t had a chance to see it or conduct an independent review to make sure voting will remain convenient for all residents.”
Vaughn doesn’t understand what all the fuss is about, saying that every issue of concern, from the location of polling places to recent demographic changes in districts, has been considered.
“The introduced ordinance meets the statutory requirements for geographic compactness, population deviation and adherence to precinct boundaries,” he said. “Additionally, the districts are politically competitive and designed to reflect the community which they serve.”
Republicans claim that ironically, the political strength of African-American incumbents on the council, nearly all of whom are Democrats, wont be threatened by their plan. Vaughn described criticism from Democrats as “a stall tactic” and said Republicans have actually been transparent about their plan from the beginning.
“We are offering a series of public meetings around Marion County for the purpose of taking public input on this process. Having their insight is very important,” Vaughn said.
Two upcoming meetings will be held on Dec. 6 at the Sterrett Center in Lawrence and at the City-County Building on Dec. 8.
The Republican plan will be officially introduced to the full council during its next meeting on Monday, Dec. 5.
Sanders and other Democrats believe there is no harm in waiting to pass a redistricting next month. After all, even if the Democrats pass a plan when they have the majority, fairness will still be involved because the plan would have to be signed by Mayor Greg Ballard, a Republican. Mayors can sign or veto legislation passed by the council.
“Either way, bipartisanship and compromise will be necessary,” Sanders said. “So what’s the rush? Could it be because this is political and not in the best interest of citizens?”
Both sides agree that they want residents to come out and be heard during the public meetings.
“We just want an opportunity to present our plan and for citizens to have a real say over this issue as taxpayers and voters,” Oliver said. “If we can’t work this out, it could wind up in state court.”
For commentary on this topic, see Just Tellin’ It on page A8.
