The Indiana House Elections and Apportionment Committee’s recent vote to advance a controversial new congressional redistricting bill has thrown the state’s political landscape into turmoil, drawing fierce criticism from both sides of the aisle and igniting a heated public debate about representation, fairness, and the very nature of democracy in the Hoosier State.
On December 2, 2025, after a tense, nearly six-hour meeting, the committee voted 8-5 to move House Bill 1032 to the House floor, with one Republican, Rep. Tim Yocum of Clinton, joining four Democrats in opposition. The bill, authored by Rep. Ben Smaltz, R-Auburn, would allow lawmakers to redraw Indiana’s congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections—well before the next decennial census, which is the usual trigger for redistricting. According to Indiana Capital Chronicle and TheStatehouseFile.com, the maps were released just a day before the hearing and described by Smaltz himself as “politically gerrymandered.”
“We have drawn these maps to create a Republican political advantage,” Smaltz told the committee, repeatedly emphasizing that the sole focus was to secure all nine of Indiana’s congressional seats for the GOP. The current district lines, drawn in 2021, already favor Republicans 7-2, but the new proposal seeks a likely 9-0 Republican sweep—a goal openly supported by former President Donald Trump ahead of the 2026 midterms. Smaltz further stated, “We did not look at any other information than what created a political advantage.”
This open admission of partisan intent stunned many in attendance. As Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, observed, “You’re not used to hearing (that) around here, because even when people are being partisan, they don’t like to admit it.” Yet, as Pierce noted, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that political gerrymandering is a matter for state legislatures and not the judiciary, unlike racial gerrymandering, which remains subject to federal oversight.
The process itself has come under fire for its secrecy and speed. The hearing, which lasted about three hours according to Indiana Capital Chronicle and nearly six hours by TheStatehouseFile.com, was the only public opportunity for Hoosiers to voice their opinions before the bill advanced. Forty-three citizens spoke against the proposal, with just two in favor. Democrats on the committee and members of the public lambasted the lack of transparency and the compressed schedule. “Everything has been done in secret and at the last minute,” said Rep. Sue Errington, D-Muncie, whose district would be dramatically altered under the new map.
One of the most contentious aspects of the bill is its impact on Marion County, Indiana’s most populous and racially diverse area. The proposed map would split Marion County into four separate districts, effectively diluting the influence of its minority communities and threatening the seat of Indiana’s only African American representative, Rep. André Carson. The current 7th District, which Carson represents, is 49% white, 33% Black, and 12% Hispanic or Latino, according to the latest census figures. The new configuration would reduce each of the four districts containing parts of Indianapolis to about 11% Black and 4% or less Hispanic, based on analysis by the nonprofit PlanScore.
Rep. Cherrish Pryor, D-Indianapolis, pressed Smaltz on whether he was comfortable with the racial implications of the new map. “So you’re OK with having racially gerrymandered maps because your priority is for political advantage?” she asked. Smaltz insisted that racial data was not considered, replying, “That will be something the courts will decide, if we’ve done this appropriately.” Still, Democrats and civil rights advocates warned that the new map could violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Denise Abdul Rahman of the Indiana NAACP called the bill “racist,” stating, “Racial gerrymandering is a foundational step in ensuring minority voters are left without representation and disenfranchised by a system that reports to be free and fair.”
Beyond the political and legal arguments, local election officials raised practical concerns about the chaos the bill could unleash. Marion County Clerk Kate Sweeney Bell warned that splitting precincts and redrawing lines with just four months before early voting would create an “administrative burden like you wouldn’t believe.” She described the complex updates required to reassign hundreds of thousands of voters, retrain poll workers, and update communications—all with no additional funding. “If it passes, there will be chaos. Chaos in clerk’s offices around the state. Chaos when candidates file at the election board. … That’s exactly what election administrators want to avoid,” Sweeney Bell testified.
The bill also includes provisions to expressly legalize mid-census redistricting and allow precincts to be split between congressional districts for the 2026 cycle. It further restricts the ability of state courts to intervene by banning temporary restraining orders against the maps and routing any injunction-related appeals directly to the Indiana Supreme Court. Opponents have vowed to challenge the measure in court, though their legal strategies are still being developed.
Former Republican Lt. Gov. Sue Ellspermann joined the chorus of opposition, reminding lawmakers of their oath to “serve all Hoosiers, not just those who voted for us or the current president.” She argued, “We have fair maps. The ones we have performed—some might say over-performed—for the Republican majority. The plea to redraw Indiana’s map is coming out of Washington, D.C. Some may argue that they have the right to ask, and in that case, we certainly have the right to answer, ‘No.’”
Public testimony reflected a broad cross-section of Indiana society—teachers, veterans, retirees, poll workers, immigrants, LGBTQ community members, and political activists—most of whom opposed the bill. Megan Robertson of Indiana Conservation Voters pointed out the absurdity of the new lines, noting that the Statehouse and a popular local café would fall into different districts. Julia Vaughn, executive director of Common Cause Indiana, accused national organizations of treating Indiana voters as “pawns in their political games.”
Still, a handful of supporters defended the proposal. Allen County Council member Paul Lagemann, a lobbyist with Heritage Action, argued that the maps “reflect the will of Hoosiers and ensure that Hoosier voices are not diluted in Congress.” Marion County resident Nathan Roberts also spoke in favor.
Before the final committee vote, Democrats proposed five amendments aimed at increasing transparency, tying redistricting more closely to the census, and requiring public hearings. All were defeated along party lines. As the bill now heads to the House floor for a second reading, scheduled for December 4, 2025, the debate over Indiana’s political future and the integrity of its democratic process shows no sign of abating.
With legal challenges looming and public trust at stake, Indiana’s redistricting battle has become a flashpoint for broader questions about power, representation, and the responsibilities of those elected to serve.
