Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
If you’re a fan of “Fiddler on the Roof,” you’ll remember the hopeful refrain: “Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match.” In Indiana politics, we sing a slightly different tune: “Map maker, map maker, make me a map.”
And just like in the musical, everyone hopes the map maker produces something fair, something promising, something that won’t leave them stuck with a partner they have nothing in common with. But redistricting rarely delivers harmony.
The new congressional maps advancing at the Statehouse are less like arranging a marriage and more like arranging the seating chart at a wedding where half the guests don’t like one another and the other half are avoiding eye contact. Every choice shapes the future—who sits where, who gets a voice and which communities get pushed to the margins.
Republicans describe their proposal as faithful to “communities of interest.” Critics see something closer to Lazar Wolf’s butcher knife carving out the best cuts—districts shaved, stretched and contoured to maximize political advantage. If your child explained cheating on a test by saying, “But California and Illinois are doing it,” you’d recognize the tune.
Tevye’s wisdom applies here (with a slight paraphrase): “Would it spoil some vast, eternal plan … if we had a competitive district now and then?” Hoosiers aren’t demanding perfection. They just want districts that reflect the people who live in them.
Nowhere is that tension sharper than in Marion County. Indianapolis is roughly 35% to 40% Black, yet several proposed districts encroaching on the county dilute minority strength dramatically, reshaping what had been cohesive urban voting blocs into sprawling, rural-anchored territories.
After hours of testimony in committee last week, the bill advanced with its author, Rep. Ben Smaltz, R-Auburn, openly acknowledging: “These maps were specifically drawn for a political advantage.” When Democrats pressed him on whether the map constituted racial gerrymandering, Smaltz replied, “We didn’t look at that, at any of that.”
This isn’t Indiana’s first dance with creative cartography. After U.S. Rep. Steve Buyer’s role in the Clinton impeachment, the subsequent congressional map redesign from Democrats (merging two Republican-held districts into one) was something even Yente the matchmaker might have hesitated to arrange. No party is innocent; everyone has asked the map maker for a “special match.”
What has changed is the scrutiny. Hoosiers now expect transparency, logic and districts that don’t resemble spilled ink on parchment. And no one asked for these new maps—at least no one from Indiana.
Hoosiers also didn’t ask for mid-decade redistricting. Off-cycle map making is rare in Indiana and almost guarantees litigation. If a new map is enacted, expect both state and federal lawsuits examining whether minority voting strength has been diluted and whether the Legislature has the authority to redraw maps this far from the U.S. Census. The map maker might finish its work, but the judges might end up holding the pen.
And as we go to print, the bill’s fate is anything but certain. Depending on whom you talk to—and at what point in the day—support inside the GOP caucus appears split, with some lawmakers embracing the maps and others privately signaling discomfort. Add in unified Democratic opposition, and the proposal currently has about as much momentum as Cossacks trying to perform the bottle dance on a barn roof.
Still, Indiana is not a musical. What we do have are courts—and if this process lands there, as it almost certainly will, judges might prove far less forgiving of maps drawn with explicit partisan intent.
A blessing on the House …
Mazel tov! Mazel tov!•
__________
Shabazz is an attorney, radio talk show host and political commentator, college professor
and stand-up comedian. Send comments to [email protected].
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.