By Leslie Bonilla Muñiz and Tom Davies , OIndiana Capital Chronicle
Capital city’s clerk says 4-district split will sow ‘chaos’ for her office and for voters.
The author of Indiana’s new congressional redistricting bill acknowledged the maps are “politically gerrymandered” during committee questioning Tuesday but defended the proposal against accusations of illegal racial gerrymandering.
The maps, released Monday morning, were drawn “purely for political performance” of Republicans, Rep. Ben Smaltz told indignant Democratic colleagues on the House Elections and Apportionment Committee.
It was the House’s only public hearing on the maps — and was held with less than a day’s notice.
Over about three hours, 43 Hoosiers spoke against the proposal and two in favor, excluding several state lawmaker witnesses. The meeting featured ominous testimony from Marion County’s Democratic elections chief and Republican former Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann.
The committee voted 8-5 to advance Smaltz’s House Bill 1032 to the floor, with one Republican joining Democrats in opposition.
Legal arguments
The current districts, drawn by the GOP in 2021, are 7-2 in favor of Republicans.
The House and Senate GOP worked with the National Republican Redistricting Trust to engineer a likely 9-0 sweep of the districts — as sought by President Donald Trump ahead of the 2026 midterms.
“They’re politically gerrymandered, if you’d like to say that,” said Smaltz, R-Auburn.
He was adamant that no racial information was used in crafting the bill.
The targeted districts now held by Democratic Reps. André Carson and Frank Mrvan are by far Indiana’s most racially diverse. The maps split Carson’s district, which largely overlaps Marion County borders, four ways, and halves Mrvan’s.
“You’re okay with … racially gerrymandered maps if you get your desired outcome for … politically gerrymandered maps?” asked Rep. Cherrish Pryor, D-Indianapolis.
“We didn’t look at that, at any of that,” Smaltz replied.
Rep. Matt Pierce, an attorney, said Smaltz’s emphasis on partisanship is legal strategy.
“You’re not used to hearing (that) around here, because even when people are being partisan, they don’t like to admit it,” Pierce said. But, he noted, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled political gerrymandering is up to state lawmakers and beyond the judiciary, as opposed to racial gerrymandering.
‘Chaos’ incoming, clerk says
Local election officials typically have a year before an election to make redistricting-related adjustments, Marion County Clerk Kate Sweeney Bell told the committee.
If approved next week as planned, clerks would have just four months before early voting starts April 7, ahead of the May 5 primary elections.
She detailed the complex updates required to reassign the likely hundreds of thousands of impacted Indianapolis voters, retrain thousands of poll workers, update public communications and more — all on a smaller budget amid cuts to local revenue.
“If any of this is done incorrectly, voters are going to feel the impact when they come to vote,” the clerk said.
She urged lawmakers to reject the proposal, adding, “If it passes, there will be chaos. Chaos in clerk’s offices around the state. Chaos when candidates file at the election board. … That’s exactly what election administrators want to avoid.”
The bill includes more than maps.
It expressly legalizes mid-census redistricting, and allows precincts to be split between congressional districts for just the 2026 election cycle.
It would also restrict state-level lawsuits by banning temporary restraining orders against the maps. Injunction-related appeals would go directly to the Indiana Supreme Court.
Opponents have vowed to challenge the approved version, although they’re still assembling their legal strategies.
Wide range of Hoosiers testify
Ellspermann, the retired Ivy Tech Community College president, was among the dozens who spoke in opposition to the proposal. The Republican previously served as lieutenant governor under former Gov. Mike Pence, and as a House lawmaker.
“We have fair maps. The ones we have performed — some might say over-performed — for the Republican majority,” she said. “The plea to redraw Indiana’s map is coming out of Washington, D.C. Some may argue that they have the right to ask, and in that case, we certainly have the right to answer, ‘No.’”
She reminded lawmakers — including former colleagues amid 2011 redistricting — that they pledged to “serve all Hoosiers, not just those who voted for us or the current president” in their oath of office.
Hoosiers “have a reputation for standing up to political pressure,” Ellspermann added, lauding Pence for his refusal to overturn the 2020 election.
Several who testified denounced GOP legislators for bowing to Trump’s demands and accused them of “cheating” in order to win elections.
“Dividing natural constituencies is immoral and wrong,” Indianapolis resident Jane Alexander said. “Disenfranchising populations or communities of interest in Indiana is wrong. Just because other states take certain steps doesn’t mean we should.”
Numerous Hoosiers accused Republicans of taking representation away from Democrats in Indiana since the state is not only red. In the 2024 presidential election, Trump took nearly 59% of the votes cast, or 1.7 million, while Democratic nominee Kamala Harris took almost 40%, or 1.1 million.
Just two witnesses spoke in favor of the maps: Allen County Council member Paul Lagemann, who is a lobbyist with D.C.-based Heritage Action, and Marion County resident Nathan Roberts.
Lagemann pushed legislators to advance the maps, saying they “reflect the will of Hoosiers and ensure that Hoosier voices are not diluted in Congress.”
California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Utah have already heeded — or countered — President Donald Trump’s call for more GOP U.S. House seats.
Split concerns
Smaltz said the proposed new map divides fewer counties than the current: seven instead of eight. But Marion County, the state’s largest, would be splintered four ways.
Pryor, the Indianapolis Democrat, said residents’ representation would suffer.
She noted that 7th District Rep. Carson is the only Black federal officeholder in Indiana.
He represents the state’s most racially diverse congressional district, with the latest U.S. Census Bureau figures showing its population as 49% white, 33% Black and 12% Hispanic or Latino of any race.
The district is entirely within Marion County and includes almost 80% of the population of Indianapolis.
Carson’s office is also a one-stop shop for Indianapolis and its residents.
“My congressman has been there to focus on bringing back money, (which) we send to Washington, back to Marion County,” Pryor said. She feared the four representatives overseeing their respective chunks of Indianapolis — alongside huge, largely rural swaths of the state — would be less responsive to the city’s residents.
“I’m not sure that that’s an advantage or disadvantage,” Smaltz said, to have “four voices in Congress versus essentially one.”
Of the districts given a slice of Indianapolis, the 4th would run east and north, bordering Chicago-area counties. The 6th appears more compact, while the 7th would hook into central Indiana before stretching south along Ohio and Kentucky. The 9th would be concentrated in southern Indiana with a thin finger into Marion County.
The four districts would all be about 11% Black and 4% or less Hispanic, according to an analysis of the proposed maps by the nonprofit group PlanScore.
Smaltz said the redraw would also split fewer townships: nine instead of 13. Three of them appear in Marion County.
Up by Lake Michigan, Mrvan’s current district would be cleaved in half.
His 1st District has a population makeup of 63% white, 17% Black and 17% Hispanic. The proposed new 1st District would have a population that is 16% Black and 12% Hispanic, according to PlanScore.
Committee Republicans defeated several Democratic amendments along party lines before voting to advance the bill.
Rep. Tim Yocum, R-Clinton, was the sole GOP lawmaker to vote in opposition.
He declined to comment, telling reporters, “My vote is my answer.”
The bill heads to the House floor for second reading, when any representative can offer an amendment. That is scheduled for Thursday.
“This isn’t the process any of us would prefer or the timeline we would choose, but it’s the process before us,” Smaltz said.
