in Indiana

Fiscal Budgets Indiana state budget and finances Tax policy in Indiana Finance Financial regulation in Indiana Pensions Public pensions in Indiana Pension health in Indiana Civil liberties Affirmative action in Indiana Campaign finance requirements in Indiana Campaign finance requirements for Indiana ballot measures Nonprofit regulation in Indiana Education Charter schools in Indiana Higher education in Indiana Public education in Indiana School choice in Indiana Elections Ballot access Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Indiana Ballot access requirements for political parties in Indiana Political parties in Indiana Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Indiana Redistricting in Indiana Voting in Indiana Energy andEnvironment Energy policy in Indiana Fracking in Indiana Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Indiana Endangered species in Indiana Environmental policy in Indiana Healthcare Healthcare policy in Indiana Medicaid spending in Indiana Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Indiana Immigration Immigration in Indiana

Redistricting
State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2020 census Select your state:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit
General information
State-by-state redistricting procedures •Majority-minority districts •Gerrymandering
The 2020 cycle
United States census, 2020 •Congressional apportionment •Redistricting committees •Deadlines •2022 House elections with multiple incumbents •New U.S.House districts created after apportionment •Congressional maps •State legislative maps •Lawsuits •Status of redistricting after the 2020 census
Redrawn maps
Redistricting before 2024 elections •Redistricting before 2026 elections
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Indiana's nine United States Representatives and 150 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. United States Senators are not elected by districts, but by the states at large. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.^[1][2][3][4]

Indiana was apportioned nine seats in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2020 census, the same number it received after the 2010 census. Click here for more information aboutredistricting in Indiana after the 2020 census.

TheIndiana General Assembly approved new congressional district maps on October 1, 2021, which were signed into law by Gov.Eric Holcomb (R) on October 4, 2021.^[5] The Indiana House Republican caucus released draft congressional boundaries on September 14, 2021. The Indiana state Senate approved the new district plans by a vote of 36-12, with all votes to approve by Republicans. Eleven Senate Democrats joined State Sen.Ron Grooms (R) in voting against the maps. The Indiana House of Representatives approved the new district boundaries by a vote of 64-25. All votes in favor were by Republicans and 22 Democrats and three Republicans voted against.^[6][7] This map took effect for Indiana's 2022 congressional elections. Indiana was thefourth state to enact congressional redistricting after the 2020 census.

The Indiana General Assembly approved new state legislative district maps on October 1, 2021, and Gov.Eric Holcomb (R) signed the new district boundaries into law on October 4, 2021. The Indiana Senate Republican caucus released its first draft of state Senate districts on September 20, 2021, and the Indiana House Republican caucus released its first proposed state House district maps on September 14, 2021. The Indiana state Senate approved final legislative district boundaries by a vote of 36-12, with all votes to approve by Republicans. Eleven Senate Democrats joined State Sen.Ron Grooms (R) in voting against the maps. The Indiana House of Representatives approved final district maps by a vote of 64-25. All votes in favor were by Republicans with 22 Democrats and three Republicans voting against.^[8][9]Click here for more information on maps enacted after the 2020 census.

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Background: A summary of federal requirements for redistricting at both the congressional and state legislative levels
2. State process: An overview about the redistricting process in Indiana
3. District maps: Information about the current district maps in Indiana
4. Redistricting by cycle: A breakdown of the most significant events in Indiana's redistricting after recent censuses
5. State legislation and ballot measures: State legislation and state and local ballot measures relevant to redistricting policy
6. Political impacts of redistricting: An analysis of the political issues associated with redistricting

Background

This section includes background information on federal requirements forcongressional redistricting,state legislative redistricting,state-based requirements,redistricting methods used in the 50 states,gerrymandering, andrecent court decisions.

Federal requirements for congressional redistricting

According to Article I, Section 4 of theUnited States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections.^[10][11]

Article I, Section 2 of theUnited States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives beapportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in theUnited States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, theUnited States Supreme Court ruled inWesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."^[13][14][15]

The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According toAll About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."^[15]

Federal requirements for state legislative redistricting

TheUnited States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, theUnited States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. InReynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of theUnited States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According toAll About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."^[15]

State-based requirements

In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below.

1. Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be physically adjacent. A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous (Nevada has no such requirement, imposing no requirements on redistricting beyond those enforced at the federal level). A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.^[15][16]
2. Compactness refers to the general principle that the constituents within a district should live as near to one another as practicable. A total of 37 states impose compactness requirements on state legislative districts; 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.^[15][16]
3. Acommunity of interest is defined byFairVote as a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.^[15][16]
4. A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account forpolitical boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities, and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.^[15][16]

Methods

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:^[17]

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed into law a state Senate district map that, according to theEncyclopædia Britannica, "consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans." The wordgerrymander was coined byThe Boston Gazette to describe the district.

See also:Gerrymandering

The termgerrymandering refers to the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party, individual, or constituency over another. When used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of a particular district map, the term has a negative connotation but does not necessarily address the legality of a challenged map. The term can also be used in legal documents; in this context, the term describes redistricting practices that violate federal or state laws.^[1][18]

For additional background information about gerrymandering, click "[Show more]" below.

Recent court decisions

See also:Redistricting cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States has, in recent years, issued several decisions dealing with redistricting policy, including rulings relating to the consideration of race in drawing district maps, the use of total population tallies inapportionment, and the constitutionality ofredistricting commissions. The rulings in these cases, which originated in a variety of states, impact redistricting processes across the nation.

For additional background information about these cases, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024)

See also:Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP — This case concerns a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that theSouth Carolina legislature enacted after the 2020 census. In January 2023, a federal three-judge panel ruled that the state's 1st Congressional District was unconstitutional and enjoined the state from conducting future elections using its district boundaries. The panel's opinion said, "The Court finds that race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1...Defendants have made no showing that they had a compelling state interest in the use of race in the design of Congressional District No. 1 and thus cannot survive a strict scrutiny review."^[22]Thomas Alexander (R)—in his capacity asSouth Carolina State Senate president—appealed the federal court's ruling, arguing: :In striking down an isolated portion of South Carolina Congressional District 1 as a racial gerrymander, the panel never even mentioned the presumption of the General Assembly’s “good faith.”...The result is a thinly reasoned order that presumes bad faith, erroneously equates the purported racial effect of a single line in Charleston County with racial predominance across District 1, and is riddled with “legal mistake[s]” that improperly relieved Plaintiffs of their “demanding” burden to prove that race was the “predominant consideration” in District 1.^[23] TheU.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on this case for October 11, 2023.^[24]

Moore v. Harper (2023)

See also:Moore v. Harper

At issue inMoore v. Harper, was whether state legislatures alone are empowered by the Constitution to regulate federal elections without oversight from state courts, which is known as theindependent state legislature doctrine. On November 4, 2021, theNorth Carolina General Assembly adopted a new congressional voting map based on 2020 Census data. The legislature, at that time, was controlled by theRepublican Party. In the caseHarper v. Hall (2022), a group of Democratic Party-affiliated voters and nonprofit organizations challenged the map in state court, alleging that the new map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the state constitution.^[25] On February 14, 2022, theNorth Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state could not use the map in the 2022 elections andremanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court adopted a new congressional map drawn by three court-appointed experts.TheUnited States Supreme Court affirmed theNorth Carolina Supreme Court's original decision inMoore v. Harper that the state's congressional district map violated state law. In a 6-3 decision, Chief JusticeJohn Roberts wrote that the "Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.^[26]

Merrill v. Milligan (2023)

See also:Merrill v. Milligan

At issue inMerrill v. Milligan, was the constitutionality of Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan and whether it violated Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act. A group of Alabama voters and organizations sued Secretary of State John Merrill (R) and the House and Senate redistricting chairmen, Rep. Chris Pringle (R) and Sen. Jim McClendon (R). Plaintiffs alleged the congressional map enacted on Nov. 4, 2021, by Gov. Kay Ivey (R) unfairly distributed Black voters. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to invalidate the enacted congressional map and order a new map with instructions to include a second majority-Black district.The court ruled 5-4, affirming the lower court opinion that the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood of success concerning their claim that Alabama's redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.^[27]

Gill v. Whitford (2018)

See also:Gill v. Whitford

InGill v. Whitford, decided on June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the plaintiffs—12 Wisconsin Democrats who alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been subject to an unconstitutional gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments—had failed to demonstrate standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring a complaint. The court's opinion, penned by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts, did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Associate JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer,Samuel Alito,Sonia Sotomayor, andElena Kagan. Kagan penned a concurring opinion joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Associate JusticeClarence Thomas penned an opinion that concurred in part with the majority opinion and in the judgment, joined by Associate JusticeNeil Gorsuch.^[28]

Cooper v. Harris (2017)

See also:Cooper v. Harris

InCooper v. Harris, decided on May 22, 2017, theSupreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of theUnited States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, finding that two of North Carolina's congressional districts, the boundaries of which had been set following the 2010 United States Census, had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander in violation of Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act. JusticeElena Kagan delivered the court's majority opinion, which was joined by JusticesClarence Thomas,Ruth Bader Ginsburg,Stephen Breyer, andSonia Sotomayor (Thomas also filed a separate concurring opinion). In the court's majority opinion, Kagan described the two-part analysis utilized by the high court when plaintiffs allege racial gerrymandering as follows: "First, the plaintiff must prove that 'race was the predominant factor motivating the legislature's decision to place a significant number of voters within or without a particular district.' ... Second, if racial considerations predominated over others, the design of the district must withstand strict scrutiny. The burden shifts to the State to prove that its race-based sorting of voters serves a 'compelling interest' and is 'narrowly tailored' to that end." In regard to the first part of the aforementioned analysis, Kagan went on to note that "a plaintiff succeeds at this stage even if the evidence reveals that a legislature elevated race to the predominant criterion in order to advance other goals, including political ones." JusticeSamuel Alito delivered an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part with the majority opinion. This opinion was joined by Chief JusticeJohn Roberts and JusticeAnthony Kennedy.^[29][30][31]

Evenwel v. Abbott (2016)

See also:Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel v. Abbott was a case decided by theSupreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality ofstate legislative districts inTexas. The plaintiffs, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, argued that district populations ought to take into account only the number of registered or eligible voters residing within those districts as opposed to total population counts, which are generally used for redistricting purposes. Total population tallies include non-voting residents, such as immigrants residing in the country without legal permission, prisoners, and children. The plaintiffs alleged that this tabulation method dilutes the voting power of citizens residing in districts that are home to smaller concentrations of non-voting residents. The court ruled 8-0 on April 4, 2016, that a state or locality can use total population counts for redistricting purposes. The majority opinion was penned by JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg.^{[32][33][34][35]}

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2016)

JusticeStephen Breyer penned the majority opinion inHarris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

See also:Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by theSupreme Court of the United States in 2016. At issue was the constitutionality of state legislative districts that were created by the commission in 2012. The plaintiffs, a group ofRepublican voters, alleged that "the commission diluted or inflated the votes of almost two million Arizona citizens when the commission intentionally and systematically overpopulated 16 Republican districts while under-populating 11 Democrat districts." This, the plaintiffs argued, constituted a partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs claimed that the commission placed a disproportionately large number of non-minority voters in districts dominated by Republicans; meanwhile, the commission allegedly placed many minority voters in smaller districts that tended to vote Democratic. As a result, the plaintiffs argued, more voters overall were placed in districts favoring Republicans than in those favoring Democrats, thereby diluting the votes of citizens in the Republican-dominated districts. The defendants countered that the population deviations resulted from legally defensible efforts to comply with theVoting Rights Act and obtain approval from theUnited States Department of Justice. At the time of redistricting, certain states were required to obtainpreclearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before adopting redistricting plans or making other changes to their election laws—a requirement struck down by the United States Supreme Court inShelby County v. Holder (2013). On April 20, 2016, the court ruled unanimously that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that a partisan gerrymander had taken place. Instead, the court found that the commission had acted in good faith to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The court's majority opinion was penned by JusticeStephen Breyer.^[36][37][38]

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)

See also:Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was a case decided by theSupreme Court of the United States in 2015. At issue was the constitutionality of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, which was established bystate constitutional amendment in 2000. According to Article I, Section 4 of theUnited States Constitution, "the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The state legislature argued that the use of the word "legislature" in this context is literal; therefore, only a state legislature may draw congressional district lines. Meanwhile, the commission contended that the word "legislature" ought to be interpreted to mean "the legislative powers of the state," including voter initiatives and referenda. On June 29, 2015, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, finding that "redistricting is a legislative function, to be performed in accordance with the state's prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the governor's veto." The majority opinion was penned by JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg and joined by JusticesAnthony Kennedy,Stephen Breyer,Elena Kagan, andSonia Sotomayor. Chief Justice John Roberts and JusticesClarence Thomas,Antonin Scalia, andSamuel Alito dissented.^{[39][40][41][42]}

Race and ethnicity

See also:Majority-minority districts

Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."

States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of theVoting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups compose a majority of the district's total population. As of 2015, Indiana was home to zero congressional majority-minority districts.^[2][3][4]

Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice ofcracking, which occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.^[2][3][4]

Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts can result inpacking, which occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to voteDemocratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage toRepublicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.^[2][3][4]

State process

See also:State-by-state redistricting procedures

In Indiana, thestate legislature is responsible for drawing both congressional and state legislative district lines. The legislature must approve a redistricting plan by the close of the first legislative session occurring after completion of the United States Census. Thegovernor may veto the lines drawn by the state legislature.^[44][45]

In the event that both chambers of the state legislature do not approve a congressional redistricting plan, abackup commission must draw the lines. The commission comprises the following members:^[45]

1. Speaker of theHouse
2. President Pro Tempore of theSenate
3. Chair of theElections Committee, Indiana State Senate
4. Chair of theElections and Apportionment Committee, Indiana House of Representatives
5. A gubernatorial appointment

TheIndiana Constitution mandates that state legislative districts be contiguous. There are no such requirements for congressional district lines.^[44]

How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

See also:How incarcerated persons are counted for redistricting

States differ on how they count incarcerated persons for the purposes of redistricting. In Indiana, incarcerated persons are counted in the correctional facilities they are housed in.

District maps

Congressional districts

See also:United States congressional delegations from Indiana

Indiana comprises nine congressional districts. The table below lists Indiana's current U.S. Representatives.

State legislative maps

See also:Indiana State Senate andIndiana House of Representatives

Indiana comprises 50state Senate districts and 100state House districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2020 redistricting cycle, clickhere.

Redistricting by cycle

Redistricting after the 2020 census

See also:Redistricting in Indiana after the 2020 census

Indiana was apportioned nine seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. This represented neither a gain nor a loss of seats as compared to apportionment after the 2010 census.^[46]

Redistricting proposal ahead of the 2026 elections

Indiana considered mid-decade congressional redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections. On October 27, 2025,Gov.Mike Braun (R) called a special session for mid-decade congressional redistricting to begin November 3, 2025.^[47] Indiana legislative leaders announced the legislature would meet in December 2025 to consider redistricting.^[48] On November 14, 2025, Indiana Senate President Pro TemporeRodric Bray (R) announced the Indiana Senate would not meet in December, lacking the votes for redistricting.^[49] On November 25, 2025, Indiana House SpeakerTodd Huston (R) announced the state house would meet on December 1, 2025, to consider redistricting. Bray announced the state senate would consider any resulting house proposals on December 8, 2025.^[50]

On December 1, 2025, the Indiana House Republicans released a draft congressional map aimed at netting two Republican districts.^[51] On December 5, 2025, the Indiana House voted 57-41 to approve the new map.^[52] The Indiana Senate voted 31-19 against the new map on December 11, 2025, with 21 Republicans joining 10 Democrats voting against.^[53]

Enacted congressional district maps

See also:Congressional district maps implemented after the 2020 census

TheIndiana General Assembly approved new congressional district maps on October 1, 2021, which were signed into law by Gov.Eric Holcomb (R) on October 4, 2021.^[5] The Indiana House Republican caucus released draft congressional boundaries on September 14, 2021. The Indiana state Senate approved the new district plans by a vote of 36-12, with all votes to approve by Republicans. Eleven Senate Democrats joined State Sen.Ron Grooms (R) in voting against the maps. The Indiana House of Representatives approved the new district boundaries by a vote of 64-25. All votes in favor were by Republicans and 22 Democrats and three Republicans voted against.^[54][55] This map took effect for Indiana's 2022 congressional elections. Indiana was thefourth state to enact congressional redistricting after the 2020 census.

In a statement issued after signing the maps, Gov. Holcomb said, "Today I signed HB 1581, completing this once-in-a-decade constitutionally required process. I want to thank both the House and Senate for faithfully following through in an orderly and transparent way. And, a special thanks to every Hoosier who participated in the process by sharing their local perspective and input." Kaitlin Lange of theIndianapolis Star wrote that the "congressional map also likely will enable Republicans to keep seven of the nine congressional seats in Indiana and make the 5th District, which contains suburban Hamilton County, a more reliably Republican district.”^[56]

Below are the congressional maps in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

2020 presidential results

The table below details the results of the 2020 presidential election in each district at the time of the 2022 election and its political predecessor district.^[57] This data was compiled byDaily Kos Elections.^[58]

2020 presidential results by Congressional district, Indiana
District	2022 district		Political predecessor district
	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Joe Biden	Donald Trump
Indiana's 1st	53.4%	45.0%	53.6%	44.8%
Indiana's 2nd	37.8%	60.4%	38.9%	59.3%
Indiana's 3rd	34.0%	63.9%	34.0%	63.9%
Indiana's 4th	34.3%	63.4%	34.0%	63.8%
Indiana's 5th	41.0%	57.0%	47.9%	50.1%
Indiana's 6th	33.0%	64.9%	29.1%	68.8%
Indiana's 7th	70.3%	27.9%	62.9%	35.3%
Indiana's 8th	32.7%	65.5%	33.1%	65.1%
Indiana's 9th	35.4%	62.7%	37.2%	60.8%

Enacted state legislative district maps

See also:State legislative district maps implemented after the 2020 census

The Indiana General Assembly approved new state legislative district maps on October 1, 2021, and Gov.Eric Holcomb (R) signed the new district boundaries into law on October 4, 2021. The Indiana Senate Republican caucus released its first draft of state Senate districts on September 20, 2021, and the Indiana House Republican caucus released its first proposed state House district maps on September 14, 2021. The Indiana state Senate approved final legislative district boundaries by a vote of 36-12, with all votes to approve by Republicans. Eleven Senate Democrats joined State Sen.Ron Grooms (R) in voting against the maps. The Indiana House of Representatives approved final district maps by a vote of 64-25. All votes in favor were by Republicans with 22 Democrats and three Republicans voting against.^[59][60]

After the General Assembly approved the maps, House SpeakerTodd Huston said, "We're incredibly grateful for the work of RepresentativeGreg Steuerwald and SenatorEric Koch who tirelessly and thoughtfully led the way on drawing these maps. Redistricting is a complex and important process that impacts all Hoosiers. We're thankful for the hundreds of constituents who shared their feedback along the way, and I'm confident we delivered fair maps that ensure every Hoosier vote counts."^[61]

The full legislative history of Indiana's redistricting proposals, including House and Senate committee reports and proposed amendments, can befound here at the Indiana General Assembly's website. These maps took effect for Indiana's 2022 legislative elections.^[5]

State Senate map

Below is the state Senate map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

State House of Representatives map

Below is the state House map in effect before and after the 2020 redistricting cycle.

Reactions

Senate President Pro TemRodric Bray (R) issued a statement saying, "We have said all along that we were committed to drawing fair maps in a transparent way, and I believe we have done that. We prioritized keeping communities of interest together and drawing districts that make sense for the Hoosiers who live there, while maintaining nearly equal populations in each district. I believe these maps reflect feedback from the public and will serve Hoosiers well for the next decade."^[62]

State Sen. Eddie Melton (D) released a statement after the legislature approved the new district plans which said, in part, "I’m very disappointed by the partisan nature of the redistricting process as well as the actions by the supermajority to deliberately dilute minority voices. In Northwest Indiana, two of my colleagues were drawn into the same district, and in West Lafayette and Lafayette, communities of interest were inexplicably split up. The supermajority’s intent to secure complete political control by drowning out certain voices seems clear from their actions, and it’s truly a disservice to our residents."^[63]

Redistricting after the 2010 census

See also:Redistricting in Indiana after the 2010 census

Following the 2010 United States Census, Indiana neither gained nor lost congressional seats. TheIndiana State Legislature released proposed district maps on April 11, 2011. At the time,Republicans held majorities in both chambers of the legislature. On April 20, 2011, both theIndiana State Senate and theIndiana House of Representatives approved their respective redistricting proposals. Concurrence votes followed, and on May 10, 2011, GovernorMitch Daniels (R) signed the legislature's redistricting plan into law. Indiana completed its redistricting process sooner than the majority of states (Iowa andLouisiana completed their maps before Indiana).^[64][65][66]

State legislation and ballot measures

Redistricting legislation

Seestate election laws

The table below includes bills related to redistricting introduced during (or carried over to) the current session of theIndiana state legislature. The following information is included for each bill:

• State
• Bill number
• Official bill name or caption
• Most recent action date
• Legislative status
• Sponsor party
• Topics dealt with by the bill

Bills are organized by most recent action. The table displays up to 100 results. To view more bills, use the arrows in the upper-right corner. Clicking on a bill will open its page onBallotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker, which includes bill details and a summary.

Redistricting ballot measures

See also:Redistricting policy ballot measures andList of Indiana ballot measures

Political impacts of redistricting

Competitiveness

There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. In 2012, Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."^[67]

In 2006, Emory University professor Alan Abramowitz and Ph.D. students Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."^[68]

In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of non-legislative approaches (e.g., independent commissions, politician commissions) to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."^[69]

In 2021, John Johnson, Research Fellow in the Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education at Marquette University, reviewed the relationship between partisan gerrymandering and political geography in Wisconsin, a state where Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 2010 while voting for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election but one since 1988. After analyzing state election results since 2000, Johnson wrote, "In 2000, 42% of Democrats and 36% of Republicans lived in a neighborhood that the other party won. Twenty years later, 43% of Democrats lived in a place Trump won, but just 28% of Republicans lived in a Biden-voting neighborhood. Today, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to live in both places where they are the overwhelming majority and places where they form a noncompetitive minority."^[70]

State legislatures after the 2010 redistricting cycle

See also:Margin of victory in state legislative elections

In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010, the last year in which district maps drawn after the 2000 census applied, and 2012, the first year in which district maps drawn after the 2010 census applied. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, seethis article.

In Indiana, there were nine competitive races for theIndiana House of Representatives in 2012, compared to 12 in 2010. There were 12 mildly competitive House races in 2012, compared to 10 in 2010. This amounted to a net loss of one competitive election.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the termsRedistricting Indiana. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

See also

• United States census, 2020
• Redistricting in Indiana after the 2010 census
• Redistricting
• State-by-state redistricting procedures
• Majority-minority districts
• State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
• Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections

External links

• All About Redistricting
• Dave's Redistricting
• FiveThirtyEight, "What Redistricting Looks Like In Every State"
• National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
• FairVote, "Redistricting"

Footnotes

v • e Election policy Election legislation Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker •Ballotpedia's The Ballot Bulletin •Election legislation tracking: list of sub-topics •Absentee/mail-in voting •Early voting •Election dates and deadlines •Election Day voting •Ranked-choice voting •Redistricting •Voter registration Election administration Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •Washington, D.C. •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Voting policy Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Electoral systems policy Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Primary elections policy Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Redistricting policy Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Recount laws Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Ballot access for political candidates Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Ballot access for presidential candidates Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Ballot access for political parties Alabama •Alaska •Arizona •Arkansas •California •Colorado •Connecticut •Delaware •Florida •Georgia •Hawaii •Idaho •Illinois •Indiana •Iowa •Kansas •Kentucky •Louisiana •Maine •Maryland •Massachusetts •Michigan •Minnesota •Mississippi •Missouri •Montana •Nebraska •Nevada •New Hampshire •New Jersey •New Mexico •New York •North Carolina •North Dakota •Ohio •Oklahoma •Oregon •Pennsylvania •Rhode Island •South Carolina •South Dakota •Tennessee •Texas •Utah •Vermont •Virginia •Washington •West Virginia •Wisconsin •Wyoming Electoral systems Single-winner system •Multi-winner system •Block voting system •Plurality voting system •Majority voting system •Top-two primary •Blanket primary •Open primary •Closed primary •Semi-closed primary •Top-four primary •Ranked-choice voting (RCV) •STAR voting •Approval voting •Fusion voting

	v • e State ofIndiana Indianapolis (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? |Elections in 2026 |How to vote |How to run for office |Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? |U.S. President |U.S. Congress |Federal courts |State executives |State legislature |State and local courts |Counties |Cities |School districts |Public policy