Watchdog Indiana Home Page2011 Reapportionment
House Bill 1602 and Senate Bill 258 Indiana Congressional District Plan
The current Indiana Congressional Districts map can be found online at http://www.in.gov/legislative/senate_republicans/files/congress_dist.jpg.
The proposed Indiana Congressional Districts map can be found online at http://www.in.gov/legislative/senate_republicans/files/Proposed-Congressional.jpg.
Good government requires Congressional Districts that are compact and contiguous. Communities of interest are also protected when Congressional Districts respect the geographical boundaries of counties and other political subdivisions.
The current Congressional Districts are drawn in such a way that two counties have three Congressional Representatives and eleven counties have two Congressional Representatives. The proposed Congressional Districts are improved because no county would have three Congressional Representatives, and the number of counties with two Congressional Representatives would be reduced to nine.
The number of Marion County Congressional Representatives would be reduced from three to two.
The number of Johnson County Congressional Representatives would be reduced from three to one.
Porter, White, Elkhart, Allen, Shelby, Bartholomew, Dearborn, Fountain, Hendricks, and Monroe counties would be winners because they would have one Congressional Representative instead of two.
LaPorte, Kosciusko, Blackford, Boone, Morgan, Scott, and Crawford counties would be losers because they would have two Congressional Representatives instead of one.
Howard County would still have two Congressional Representatives. However, the two proposed Howard County Congressional Districts would be more compact because Kokomo would no longer be carved out and arbitrarily assigned to the 2nd Congressional District.
The proposed Congressional Districts would be significantly more compact and contiguous, especially the 4th and 5th Districts. It is perhaps unfortunate that the residence of the 4th District Representative would no longer be within the 4th District, but this outcome partly resulted from the good decision to reduce the number of Marion County Congressional Representatives from three to two.
The proposed 9th Congressional District might lose some of its identification as an Ohio River District with the removal of Spencer, Perry, Jefferson, Switzerland, Ohio and Dearborn counties, and the addition of Johnson and Morgan counties. It is a positive development that Lawrence County and all of Monroe County would now be included in the 9th Congressional District.
When everything is considered, the proposed Congressional Districts would be an improvement over the current Congressional Districts. Any improvements to further reduce the number of counties that are split into two Congressional Districts would be welcome.
HB 1602 was signed by the Governor on May 10, 2011.
Senate Bill 256 Indiana State Senate District Plan
The current Indiana State Senate Districts map can be found online at http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/3006.htm.
The proposed Indiana State Senate Districts map can be found online at http://in.gov/legislative/senate_republicans/images/photogallery/caucus/files/SenateProposedWithTownships.PdF.
Good government requires State Senate Districts that are compact and contiguous. Communities of interest are also protected when State Senate Districts respect the geographical boundaries of counties and other political subdivisions.
A county can be considered a reapportionment winner when its number of proposed State Senators is less than the number of its current State Senators. A reapportionment loser is a county that has more proposed State Senators than its current number of State Senators. Counties that have the same number of State Senators before and after reapportionment can be considered to have "held their own." Comparison of the proposed State Senate Districts (in the April 14 amended Senate Bill 256) with the current State Senate Districts reveals the conclusions listed next.
1. Twenty-one counties are reapportionment winners.
1.a. Washington County is a big winner because it is represented by one State Senator under the proposed districts instead of three State Senators under the current districts.
1.b. Allen and Johnson counties are big winners because they are represented by three State Senators under the proposed districts instead of five State Senators under the current districts.
1.c. The following 12 counties are winners because they are represented by one State Senator under the proposed districts instead of two State Senators under the current districts: Daviess, Greene, Howard, Jennings, Morgan, Orange, Pulaski, Steuben, Tipton, Vigo, Wabash, Warren.
1.d. Madison, Monroe, and Porter counties are winners because they are represented by two State Senators under the proposed districts instead of three State Senators under the current districts.
1.e. Kosciusko County is a winner because it is represented by three State Senators under the proposed districts instead of four State Senators under the current districts.
1.f. Lake and St. Joseph counties are winners because they are represented by four State Senators under the proposed districts instead of five State Senators under the current districts.
2. Fifty-eight counties "hold their own" under reapportionment.
2.a. The following 38 counties are represented by one State Senator under both the proposed and current State Senate districts: Adams, Benton, Blackford, Brown, Cass, Crawford, Decatur, Fayette, Floyd, Fountain, Fulton, Hancock, Harrison, Jay, Jefferson, LaGrange, Lawrence, Martin, Miami, Montgomery, Newton, Noble, Ohio, Parke, Perry, Pike, Posey, Randolph, Rush, Scott, Spencer, Sullivan, Switzerland, Union, Vermillion, Wayne, Wells, White.
2.b. The following 17 counties are represented by two State Senators under both the proposed and current State Senate districts: Clark, Clay, Clinton, Dekalb, Dubois, Franklin, Gibson, Hendricks, Jackson, Jasper, Knox, Marshall, Owen, Putnam, Tippecanoe, Vanderburgh, Warrick.
2.c. Elkhart and Grant counties are represented by three State Senators under both the proposed and current State Senate districts.
2.d. Hamilton County is represented by five State Senators under both the proposed and current State Senate districts.
3. Thirteen counties are reapportionment losers.
3.a. Bartholomew County is a big loser because it is represented by three State Senators under the proposed districts instead of one State Senator under the current districts.
3.b. Marion County is a loser because it is represented by nine State Senators under the proposed districts instead of eight State Senators under the current districts.
3.c. Boone and LaPorte counties are losers because they are represented by three State Senators under the proposed districts instead of two State Senators under the current districts.
3.d. Carroll, Dearborn, Delaware, Henry, Huntington, Ripley, Shelby, Starke, and Whitley counties are losers because they are represented by two State Senators under the proposed districts instead of one State Senator under the current districts.
When a county is located entirely within a State Senate District, its interests often carry more weight with the State Senator than if the county is divided among multiple State Senators. For this reason, it is desirable to have as few State Senators representing every county as possible.
When everything is considered, the proposed State Senate Districts would be an improvement over the current State Senate Districts. Any improvements to further have as few State Senators as possible representing every county would be welcome.
SB 256 became part of HB 1601, which was signed by the Governor on May 10, 2011.
House Bill 1601 Indiana State House District Plan
The current Indiana State House Districts map can be found online at http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/complete_house.pdf.
The proposed Indiana State House Districts map can be found online at http://www.in.gov/legislative/house_republicans/rd/pdfs/House_big.pdf.
Good government requires State House Districts that are compact and contiguous. Communities of interest are also protected when State House Districts respect the geographical boundaries of counties and other political subdivisions.
A county can be considered a reapportionment winner when its number of proposed State Representatives is less than the number of its current State Represenatives. A reapportionment loser is a county that has more proposed State Representatives than its current number of State Representatives. Counties that have the same number of State Representatives before and after reapportionment can be considered to have "held their own." Comparison of the proposed State House Districts in House Bill 1601 with the current State House Districts reveals the conclusions listed next.
1. Thirty-one counties are reapportionment winners.
1.a. Hamilton County is a huge winner because it is represented by six State Representatives under the proposed districts instead of nine State Representatives under the current districts.
1.b. DeKalb and Gibson counties are big winners because they are represented by one State Representative under the proposed districts instead of three State Representatives under the current districts.
1.c. Warrick County is a big winner because it is represented by two State Representatives under the proposed districts instead of four State Representatives under the current districts.
1.d. Henry, Marshall, Noble, Perry, Pulaski, Randolph, Scott, Shelby, Tipton, and Washington counties are winners because they are represented by one State Representative under the proposed districts instead of two State Representatives under the current districts: .
1.e. Brown, Dubois, Franklin, Greene, Jasper, Kosciusko, Miami, Parke, Ripley, Wayne, and White counties are winners because they are represented by two State Representatives under the proposed districts instead of three Representatives under the current districts.
1.f. Hendricks County is a winner because it is represented by three State Representatives under the proposed districts instead of four State Representatives under the current districts.
1.g. Vigo County is a winner because it is represented by four State Representatives under the proposed districts instead of five State Representatives under the current districts.
1.h. Elkhart and St. Joseph counties are winners because they are represented by five State Representatives under the proposed districts instead of six State Representatives under the current districts.
1.i. Lake County is a winner because it is represented by eight State Representatives under the proposed districts instead of nine State Representatives under the current districts.
1. j. Marion County is a winner because it is represented by fifteen State Representatives under the proposed districts instead of sixteen State Representatives under the current districts. The proposed House District 86 has a strange "horseshoe" shape. The proposed House District 99 has an odd "long skinny arm."
2. Thirty-nine counties "hold their own" under reapportionment.
2.a. Adams, Benton, Blackford, Crawford, Fayette, Huntington, Jay, Ohio, Putnam, Sullivan, Switzerland, Union, Vermillion, and Wabash counties are represented by one State Representative under both the proposed and current State House districts.
2.b. Dearborn, Floyd, Harrison, Jennings, Knox, LaGrange, Lawrence, Martin, Montgomery, Newton, Owen, Rush, Spencer, Warren, and Whitley counties are represented by two State Representatives under both the proposed and current State House districts.
2.c. Bartholomew, Boone, Clay, Daviess, Howard, Jackson, and LaPorte counties are represented by three State Representatives under both the proposed and current State House districts.
2.d. Clark, Johnson, and Vanderburgh counties are represented by four State Representatives under both the proposed and current State House districts.
2.e. Porter County is represented by five State Representatives under both the proposed and current State House districts.
3. Twenty-one counties are reapportionment losers.
3.a. Allen County is a big loser because it is represented by nine State Representatives under the proposed districts instead of seven State Representatives under the current districts.
3.b. Delaware and Tippecanoe counties are big losers because they are represented by five State Representatives under the proposed districts instead of three State Representatives under the current districts.
3.c. Jefferson County is a big loser because it is represented by three State Representatives under the proposed districts instead of one State Representative under the current districts.
3.d. Grant, Madison, and Monroe counties are losers because they are represented by four State Representatives under the proposed districts instead of three State Representatives under the current districts.
3.e. Cass, Fulton, Hancock, Morgan, Pike, and Wells counties are losers because they are represented by three State Representatives under the proposed districts instead of two State Representatives under the current districts.
3.f. Carroll, Clinton, Decatur, Fountain, Orange, Posey, Starke, and Steuben counties are losers because they are represented by two State Representatives under the proposed districts instead of one State Representative under the current districts.
When a county is located entirely within a House District, its interests are likely to carry more weight with the State Representative than if the county is divided among multiple State Representatives. Also, if there is a matter of public policy in the best interests of the county, it is generally easier to convince one State Representative to support the public policy than it is multiple State Representatives. For these reasons, it is desirable to have as few State Representatives representing every county as possible.
Some might conclude the proposed State House Districts were properly drawn "incumbent blind" because there are two districts with two incumbent Democrats (Jeb Bardon and Vanessa Summers, Chet Dobis and Vernon Smith), three districts with two incumbent Republicans (Jeff Espich and Dan Leonard, Tom Knollman and Jud McMillin, Don Lehe and Richard McClain), and four districts with an incumbent Democrat and an incumbent Republican (Kreg Battles and Bruce Borders, Scott Reske and Bob Cherry, Nancy Dembowski and Tom Dermody, Peggy Welch and Ralph Foley. It is certainly an interesting development that nine of the proposed State House Districts will have no incumbent!
Finally, it appears the proposed State House Districts do a better job of respecting township boundaries - fewer townships appear to be represented by more than one State Representative. All the proposed State House Districts are within 0.87% of the 64,838 target population. Perhaps an even better job could be done of respecting township boundaries if all the proposed State House Districts were allowed to be within 1.49% of the target population (like the proposed State Senate Districts).
When everything is considered, the proposed State House Districts would be an improvement over the current State House Districts. Any improvements to further have as few State Representatives as possible representing every county and township would be welcome.
The proposed Indiana State Senate districts in SB 256 became part of the proposed Indiana State House districts in HB 1601. HB 1601 was signed by the Governor on May 10, 2011.
This page was last updated on 05/11/11.
