26

By Marilyn Odendahl

The Indiana Citizen

April 26, 2024

The Anderson Common Council’s latest maneuver to skirt a redistricting lawsuit has been denied by a federal court, potentially forcing the city to redraw its six districts that are believed to have remained unchanged since the 1980s.

In a ruling issued April 24, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana agreed with the plaintiffs that the city council and the Madison County Board of Elections have not shown why a stay of more than a year was warranted in this case.

The council and election board had filed a motion for a stay on April 22, asking the federal court to halt the legal proceedings until July 1, 2025. They pointed to a new state law, Senate Enrolled Act 135, which extended the redistricting deadline to June 30, 2025, for municipalities and school boards, and claimed since they had additional time to redraw the districts, there was nothing to litigate.

However, the plaintiffs, which include Common Cause Indiana and the Anderson-Madison County NAACP Branch 3058, countered the harm inflicted by the “severely malapportioned” districts is continuing.

Even though districts for congressional representatives, state legislators, and city and county officials are supposed to be redrawn every 10 years when the updated U.S. Census data is released, the Anderson Common Council voted 6 to 3 against redistricting after the 2020 census. The (Anderson) Herald Bulletin has cited to public officials who say the city has not redrawn the council district maps since the 1980 census.

The result, according to the plaintiffs, is malapportioned districts that deprive constituents of their constitutional rights. According to the plaintiffs, the “ideal population” of each of the six districts should be 9,130 persons but the current district populations swing from a low of 7,490 to a high of 11,644. Consequently, the votes from residents in District 3, the most-populated district, are not equal in weight to votes cast by residents of the other districts.

In urging the district court to reject the motion for a stay, the plaintiffs argued that the case has been pending for more than 10 months and that granting the defendants’ request would be rewarding the city council for dragging its feet on redistricting and violating the Constitution.

“The Council has not redistricted its malapportioned districts and provides the Court with no firm timetable for when this will occur, only that it hopes to redistrict at some point in the next 14 months,” the plaintiffs asserted in their response in opposition.

What will happen in this case now that the district court has rebuffed the motion to stay is unclear. The court could find for the plaintiffs and, possibly, appoint a special master to draw new council districts.

Repeated attempts to delay

The city council told the district court in its motion for a stay that it is moving forward with the redistricting process, but it did not provide any deadlines for when the work would be completed. Instead, the council said it is reviewing proposed maps for the six districts for the purpose of redistricting said districts” and will present the maps to the public for “comment, discussion and potential revision.” The council will then discuss and vote on the new maps.

“Staying this proceeding until the Defendant, Anderson Council, votes to approve a map redistricting its six districts … would allow (the council), the legislative body empowered to adopt such maps, to address the issues raised by Plaintiffs in this matter which seeks judicial intervention prior to July 1, 2025, the deadline set by the Indiana legislature in Senate Bill 135,” the defendants said in their motion for a stay.

In their complaint filed in June 2023 in the district court, the plaintiffs claim the malapportioned districts violate the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  The remedies they are seeking in this case – Common Cause Indiana, et al. v. City of Anderson Common Council and the Madison County Board of Election (1:23-cv-1022) – include having the federal court order a remedial plan and requiring the council members elected in 2023 to serve shortened terms and, once the new maps are ready, run in a special primary and general election.

Since the case started, the plaintiffs noted, in its response, the city council has not directly responded to any of its motions.

The first filing by the council in the case was a motion to dismiss. After the district court denied the motion, the parties tried to reach a settlement agreement, but when those talks broke down, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment. In response, council filed a motion to stay the briefing, and followed that a few months later by filing a motion for an extension for more time to complete its depositions and respond to the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.

The court, the plaintiffs pointed out, granted the council’s first motion to stay and gave an extension of time. However, when the council was scheduled to submit its response brief, it filed the current motion to stay.

In its response opposing the council’s latest motion for a stay until 2025, the plaintiffs asserted their “motion for partial summary judgment does no more than ask this Court to declare those districts in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus placing the Council under an obligation imposed by the judiciary to timely remedy this ongoing violation, (or else face) the prospect that the Court will do so.

“Delaying such a judicial declaration would work a substantial tactical and financial disadvantage on Plaintiffs while rewarding the Council for its dilatory litigation tactics and ongoing failure to perform its constitutional duty,” the plaintiffs concluded.

Dwight Adams, a freelance editor and writer based in Indianapolis, edited this article. He is a former content editor, copy editor and digital producer at The Indianapolis Star and IndyStar.com, and worked as a planner for other newspapers, including the Louisville Courier Journal.

The Indiana Citizen is a nonpartisan, nonprofit platform dedicated to increasing the number of informed and engaged Hoosier citizens. We are operated by the Indiana Citizen Education Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) public charity. For questions about the story, contact Marilyn Odendahl at marilyn.odendahl@indianacitizen.org