Will logistics and the courts stand in the way of Indiana’s redistricting efforts?

11 thoughts on “Will logistics and the courts stand in the way of Indiana’s redistricting efforts?”

1. Shut it down.

   Log in to Reply

2. No.

   “Betteridge’s law of headlines is an adage that states: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.” It is based on the assumption that if the publishers were confident that the answer was yes, they would have presented it as an assertion; by presenting it as a question, they are not accountable for whether it is correct or not.”

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines

   Log in to Reply

   1. While Betteridge’s law of headlines offers an appealing shortcut — assuming that any headline ending in a question mark means a negative answer — the evidence does not bear it out.

      Empirical studies show that a large share of question‐headlines are answered positively or with nuance. Moreover, the logic behind the law relies on idealised editorial behaviour that may not hold across formats, genres or media contexts. Instead of treating question‐headlines as inherently suspect, a more constructive stance is to treat them as flags for extra vigilance: to check whether the article backs up the headline claim, offers sources, and delivers substance.

      In short, end‐of‐headline question marks do not automatically imply “no” — they imply an unresolved question, which may indeed be addressed positively or negatively, but demands reading, not dismissal

   2. Valid points, John. In this case, the article in question features a legal expert throughout who pretty well states the courts aren’t likely to rule in favor of those opposed to redistricting. Hence my sarcasm towards the headline. The headline could have well been:
      Legal expert: Courts unlikely to rule against Republican congressional redistricting

      And it seems likely they’re going to just pass the maps they’ve had drawn for months on November 18th. It’s not like they are going through the charade of public input, so why draw it out unless they just want some free dinners from lobbyists?

3. Only in the State ‘s gerrymandered legislature are Republicans ? A super majority . In Indiana’s general population Republicans ? Are not even a majority ! They cheated and lied their way into a false super majority status .

   Log in to Reply

   1. Like it or not, the Indiana Democratic Party shares a large chunk of the blame for the situation they find themselves in. Yes, they got walloped in the 2010 election like Democrats in a lot of states, but it’s not like they had any alternate ideas or vision to offer an alternative to what Mitch Daniels and Republicans were proposing. Everything was Pat Bauer yelling NO a lot. Like the Toll Road – we could have made a boatload more money if we’d kept that ourselves. Did Democrats propose anything other than “just don’t lease it out?” Nope.

      The real shame of the redistricting is that it’s the final straw in Indiana’s Congressional representation actually representing where people want to live. Any decent population center will be broken up and diluted. It will be a map drawn to represent the areas of Indiana that are being abandoned and have no future… and it will hence attract legislators who don’t think Indiana has a future worth investing in. Unless, of course, you count the future as the no-job data centers that our legislators crave.

4. I would hope morals, consciences and doing the right thing would stand in the way of this ridiculous dishonest redistricting effort.

   Log in to Reply

   1. So our trustworthy Attorney General or upstanding Secretary of State would stand up and say no?

      How would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as well?

   2. Hahahaahaha. Have you paid any attention to the GOP supermajority led General Assembly for the past couple of decades? They care not whatsoever what their constituents think or want because they know that they are untouchable in the next election due to… drum roll please… gerrymandering.

5. I would argue the state constitution makes mid-decennial redistricting illegal. Since the state is responsible for redistricting for both state and federal Senators and Representatives, and the constitution does not specify that federal redistricting can be treated differently, than I would assume the original intent of this was to make Article 4, Section 5, apply to all redistricting the state is responsible for, which is crealy Federal and State. It clearly states this can only be done in “the year in which a federal decennial census is taken”.

   “The General Assembly elected during the year in which a federal decennial census is taken shall fix by law the number of Senators and Representatives and apportion them among districts according to the number of inhabitants in each district, as revealed by that federal decennial census.”

   Log in to Reply

   1. Agreed. The language is clear that those members elected in 2020, the year of the last census, determine the maps. This General Assembly was elected in 2024.