By Marilyn Odendahl
The Indiana Citizen
January 17, 2025
Under an order from federal court, the Anderson Common Council adopted a new district map at its meeting this week in a unanimous vote, but one councilor is threatening to continue to fight against redistricting.
The common council, which has not redrawn its districts since the 1980s, approved so-called Map H, which was created by a consultant recently hired by the council to help with the redistricting process. Tuesday’s vote came after the U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana set a Jan. 17 deadline for council members to file their proposed remedial map.
In 2023, Common Cause Indiana, the League of Women Voters of Indiana, the Anderson-Madison County NAACP Branch 3058 and two city of Anderson residents sued the common council and the Madison County Board of Elections for failing to reconfigure the six council districts following the release of the 2020 U.S. Census as required by federal law. The plaintiffs asserted in their complaint that the council districts are so malapportioned they are violating the equal protection guarantees under the 14th Amendment.
Now, the plaintiffs have until Jan. 31 to submit their response to the council’s map and file their own alternative remedial map.
However, the legal battle may not be over.
William Groth, the plaintiffs’ attorney, noted a potential problem with the council’s redrawn districts. In an email to The Indiana Citizen, he said that while the plaintiffs are satisfied Map H complies with the equal protection provision in the U.S. Constitution, the corresponding ordinance does not include adequately detailed descriptions of the district boundaries as required by state law.
Also, Ollie Dixon, 4th District councilor and a vocal opponent of the redistricting process, said he is trying to find a lawyer to file an appeal in federal court, claiming Map H violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Representing the city’s only majority-minority district, Dixon said the council’s new map dilutes the Black vote.
“We had those groups come in here, in my opinion, to take away the voice and vote of the Black community,” Dixon said, referring to the plaintiffs who filed the redistricting lawsuit.
The councilor acknowledged he did vote for Map H, but said he did so to prevent further action by the court. If the council had not submitted a map by the deadline, the federal judge could have selected one of the plaintiffs’ proposed maps or had a third party draw a new district map, which the council would have had to accept.
“I went along with it because I didn’t want the judge to let Common Cause divide my district up,” Dixon said.
An analysis by the plaintiffs founds the current council districts had a total population deviation of 46%, well exceeding the 10% total deviation limit the federal courts have established. Anderson Common Council District 3 is the most populous with 11,644 residents, while District 4, Dixon’s district, is the least populated with just 7,490 residents.
Plaintiffs explained in their complaint that the malapportionment prevents voters across the city from having an equal voice. The current districts dilute the vote of District 3, the plaintiffs asserted, because the overpopulation of that district means the residents have less voting strength than residents in the underpopulated Districts 4, 5 and 6.
Dixon believes the redistricting is part of an effort to prevent Blacks from being elected to city and county offices. He pointed to the 2023 Democratic mayoral primary, when Rodney Chamberlain came within 41 votes of defeating incumbent Anderson Mayor Thomas Broderick Jr. and claimed that the near upset, “amplified efforts to get rid of the Black district.”
Also, Dixon said that although District 4 would be 54% minority under Map H, the percentage of Blacks would actually be less than what is now present in the 4th District’s current boundaries.
“I think it’s unfair,” Dixon said of the redistricting process. “I intend to appeal.”
As part of his opposition to redrawing the council district, Dixon has made several unsubstantiated allegations against Groth, openly questioning whether he is being paid by Mayor Broderick or Council President Lance Stephenson.
In his email, Groth called Dixon’s accusations “false and slanderous.” Groth said he and his co-counsel Daniel Bowman have not been “paid a dime for the now hundreds of hours we’ve expended on this case.” Also, Groth said he and his co-counsel have not discussed the case with the council president or the mayor “as doing so would plainly be prohibited by the rules of professional responsibility.”
Dwight Adams, an 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.