When Indiana adopted new U.S. House districts four years ago, Republican legislative leaders lauded them as \u201cfair maps\u201d that reflected the state\u2019s communities. <\/p>\n
But when Gov. Mike Braun recently tried to redraw the lines to help Republicans gain more power, he implored lawmakers<\/a> to \u201cvote for fair maps.\u201d<\/p>\n What changed? The definition of \u201cfair.\u201d<\/p>\n As states undertake mid-decade redistricting<\/a> instigated by President Donald Trump, Republicans and Democrats are using a tit-for-tat definition of fairness to justify districts that split communities in an attempt to send politically lopsided delegations to Congress. It is fair, they argue, because other states have done the same. And it is necessary, they claim, to maintain a partisan balance in the House of Representatives that resembles the national political divide.<\/p>\n This new vision for drawing congressional maps is creating a winner-take-all scenario that treats the House, traditionally a more diverse patchwork of politicians, like the Senate, where members reflect a state\u2019s majority party. The result could be reduced power for minority communities, less attention to certain issues and fewer distinct voices heard in Washington.<\/p>\n Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky fears that unconstrained gerrymandering would put the United States on a perilous path, if Democrats in states such as Texas and Republicans in states like California feel shut out of electoral politics. \u201cI think that it\u2019s going to lead to more civil tension and possibly more violence in our country,\u201d he said Sunday on NBC\u2019s \u201cMeet the Press.\u201d<\/p>\n Although Indiana state senators rejected a new map<\/a> backed by Trump and Braun that could have helped Republicans win all nine of the state\u2019s congressional seats, districts have already been redrawn in Texas, California, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Other states could consider changes before the 2026 midterms that will determine control of Congress. <\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a fundamental undermining of a key democratic condition,\u201d said Wayne Fields, a retired English professor from Washington University in St. Louis who is an expert on political rhetoric.<\/p>\n \u201cThe House is supposed to represent the people,\u201d Fields added. \u201cWe gain an awful lot by having particular parts of the population heard.\u201d <\/p>\n Redistricting is diluting community representation<\/p>\n Under the Constitution, the Senate has two members from each state. The House has 435 seats divided among states based on population, with each state guaranteed at least one representative. In the current Congress, California has the most at 52, followed by Texas with 38. <\/p>\n Because senators are elected statewide, they are almost always political pairs of one party or another. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are the only states now with both a Democrat and Republican in the Senate. Maine and Vermont each have one independent and one senator affiliated with a political party.<\/p>\n By contrast, most states elect a mixture of Democrats and Republicans to the House. That is because House districts, with an average of 761,000 residents, based on the 2020 census, are more likely to reflect the varying partisan preferences of urban or rural voters, as well as different racial, ethnic and economic groups.<\/p>\n This year\u2019s redistricting is diminishing those locally unique districts. <\/p>\n In California, voters in several rural counties<\/a> that backed Trump were separated from similar rural areas and attached to a reshaped congressional district containing liberal coastal communities. In Missouri, Democratic-leaning voters in Kansas City were split<\/a> from one main congressional district into three, with each revised district stretching deep into rural Republican areas. <\/p>\n Some residents complained their voices are getting drowned out. But Govs. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., and Mike Kehoe, R-Mo., defended the gerrymandering as a means of countering other states and amplifying the voices of those aligned with the state\u2019s majority.<\/p>\n All is `fair\u2019 in redistricting<\/p>\n Indiana\u2019s delegation in the U.S. House consists of seven Republicans and two Democrats \u2014 one representing Indianapolis and the other a suburban Chicago district in the state\u2019s northwestern corner. <\/p>\n Dueling definitions of fairness were on display at the Indiana Capitol as lawmakers considered a Trump-backed redistricting plan that would have split Indianapolis among four Republican-leaning districts and merged the Chicago suburbs with rural Republican areas. Opponents walked the halls in protest, carrying signs such as \u201cI stand for fair maps!\u201d<\/p>\n Ethan Hatcher, a talk radio host who said he votes for Republicans and Libertarians, denounced the redistricting plan as \u201ca blatant power grab\u201d that \u201ccompromises the principles of our Founding Fathers\u201d by fracturing Democratic strongholds to dilute the voices of urban voters. <\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a calculated assault on fair representation,\u201d Hatcher told a state Senate committee. <\/p>\n But others asserted it would be fair for Indiana Republicans to hold all of those House seats, because Trump won the \u201csolidly Republican state\u201d by nearly three-fifths of the vote.<\/p>\n \u201cOur current 7-2 congressional delegation doesn\u2019t fully capture that strength,\u201d resident Tracy Kissel said at a committee hearing. \u201cWe can create fairer, more competitive districts that align with how Hoosiers vote.\u201d <\/p>\n When senators defeated a map designed to deliver a 9-0 congressional delegation for Republicans, Braun bemoaned that they had missed an \u201copportunity to protect Hoosiers with fair maps.\u201d <\/p>\n Disrupting an equilibrium<\/p>\n