Indiana Rejects Trump‑Backed Redistricting Plan Amid Rising Gerrymandering Debate

Indiana lawmakers have turned down a redistricting proposal backed by former President Donald Trump and Governor Mike Braun that would have split Indianapolis into four Republican‑leaning districts and merged Chicago suburbs with rural Republican areas. The decision comes as the state grapples with a national trend of mid‑decade redistricting that many argue erodes fair representation.

A Shift in the Meaning of “Fair”

When Indiana adopted new congressional districts four years ago, Republican leaders called the maps “fair” because they reflected the state’s communities. Now, Governor Braun has urged lawmakers to “vote for fair maps” while pushing a new plan that would give Republicans a 9‑0 delegation. The definition of fairness has shifted from representing communities to favoring one party.

The current plan is part of a broader wave of redistricting inspired by President Trump. Republicans and Democrats are using a tit‑for‑tat definition of fairness to justify districts that split communities in order to produce politically lopsided delegations. They argue that the practice is justified because other states have done the same and that it is necessary to maintain a partisan balance in the House that mirrors the national political divide.

Winner‑Take‑All House

The new approach treats the House like the Senate, where members reflect a state’s majority party, rather than the traditional diverse patchwork of politicians. Critics say this could reduce power for minority communities, lower attention to certain issues, and limit distinct voices in Washington. Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky warned that unconstrained gerrymandering could lead to civil tension and violence, saying on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that it would put the country on a perilous path.

Indiana’s state senators rejected the Trump‑Braun map, which could have helped Republicans win all nine of the state’s congressional seats. Districts have already been redrawn in Texas, California, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio, and other states may consider changes before the 2026 midterms.

Undermining Democratic Conditions

Wayne Fields, a retired English professor from Washington University in St. Louis and expert on political rhetoric, called the practice a “fundamental undermining of a key democratic condition.” He added, “The House is supposed to represent the people. We gain an awful lot by having particular parts of the population heard.”

Redistricting also dilutes community representation. The Senate has two members from each state, while 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 52 seats, followed by Texas with 38.

Senators are elected statewide and 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.

In contrast, most states elect a mix of Democrats and Republicans to the House. House districts, averaging 761,000 residents based on the 2020 census, tend to reflect varying partisan preferences of urban or rural voters, as well as different racial, ethnic, and economic groups.

Splitting Communities

California’s new lines separate voters in several rural counties that backed Trump from similar rural areas, attaching them to a reshaped district that contains liberal coastal communities. In Missouri, Democratic‑leaning voters in Kansas City were split from one main district into three, with each revised district stretching deep into rural Republican areas.

Some residents complained that their voices are drowned out. Governor Gavin Newsom (D‑CA) and Governor Mike Kehoe (R‑MO) defended the changes as a means of countering other states and amplifying the voices of those aligned with the state’s majority.

Indiana’s Delegation and the Debate

Indiana’s U.S. House delegation consists of seven Republicans and two Democrats—one representing Indianapolis and the other a suburban Chicago district in the state’s northwestern corner. The Trump‑backed plan would have split Indianapolis among four Republican‑leaning districts and merged the Chicago suburbs with rural Republican areas.

Opponents carried signs such as “I stand for fair maps!” in protest. Ethan Hatcher, a talk radio host who says he votes for Republicans and Libertarians, denounced the plan as “a blatant power grab” that “compromises the principles of our Founding Fathers” by fracturing Democratic strongholds to dilute the voices of urban voters. He called it “a calculated assault on fair representation.”

Others argued that it would be fair for Indiana Republicans to hold all nine seats because Trump won the “solidly Republican state” by nearly three‑fifths of the vote. Resident Tracy Kissel said at a committee hearing, “Our current 7‑2 congressional delegation doesn’t fully capture that strength. We can create fairer, more competitive districts that align with how Hoosiers vote.”

When senators defeated the map designed to deliver a 9‑0 delegation, Governor Braun lamented that they had missed an “opportunity to protect Hoosiers with fair maps.”

National Context

By some national measurements, the U.S. House already is politically fair. The 220‑215 majority that Republicans won over Democrats in the 2024 elections almost perfectly aligns with the share of the vote the two parties received in districts across the country, according to an Associated Press analysis.

However, that overall balance hides an imbalance that exists in many states. Even before this year’s redistricting, the number of states with congressional districts tilted toward one party or another was higher than at any point in at least a decade, the AP analysis found.

Kent Syler, a political science professor at Middle Tennessee State University, said the partisan divisions have contributed to a “cutthroat political environment” that “drives the parties to extreme measures.” He noted that Republicans hold 88% of congressional seats in Tennessee, and Democrats hold an equivalent share in Maryland. “Fairer redistricting would give people more of a feeling that they have a voice,” Syler said.

Rebekah Caruthers, who leads the Fair Elections Center, a nonprofit voting rights group, said there should be compact districts that allow communities of interest to elect the representatives of their choice, regardless of how that affects the national political balance. She added that gerrymandering districts dominated by a single party results in “an unfair disenfranchisement” of some voters and that “ultimately, this isn’t going to be good for democracy.” She called for “some type of détente.”

The Road Ahead

Indiana lawmakers continue to weigh whether to redraw the state’s congressional districts to boost Republican representation. The debate reflects a national conversation about the purpose of the House, the fairness of current maps, and the future of American democracy. Mary Ann Ahern reports on the evolving situation.

Key Takeaways

• Indiana rejected a Trump‑backed plan that would have given Republicans all nine congressional seats.
• The redistricting debate centers on a shifting definition of fairness that prioritizes partisan advantage over community representation.
• National trends show increased partisan tilt in many states, raising concerns about diminished minority voices and a more winner‑take‑all House.

The outcome of Indiana’s decision will influence how the state and others approach redistricting in the lead‑up to the 2026 midterms.

Closing

As states consider new maps, the tension between fair representation and partisan advantage continues to grow. The Indiana case exemplifies the broader national struggle over how best to balance the will of the electorate with the mechanics of political power.