Eighteen local students decided to study voting redistricting this spring, answering a prompt to an essay contest sponsored by the League of Women Voters Brown County.
The contest, which carried cash prizes, took place in April for junior high and high school students in Brown County public or home schools. The question was: “Do current districts and the redistricting process in Indiana reflect democratic principles? Why or why not?”
Home school student Simone Smith won the high school contest and $200. Sophie Mathis, an eighth-grader and member of the BCJHS We the People civics education team, won first place in the junior high contest and $200. Entries were judged anonymously by members of the Retired Teachers Association.
A tie was awarded for second place in the junior high division: Adahlaid Gredy and Taylor Lucas, both for $100; and third place went to Owen East for $75. All three are also We the People students, as were 11 of the other 12 entrants.
No other awards were given in the high school division, as there were only two entries. “There were conflicts with timing at the high school, such as AP tests, and we hope to find a better time for an essay contest next year,” said League member Judy East.
Teachers Michael Potts and Emily Lewellen for helped to develop the prompt.
All entrants will receive certificates of recognition and the League was to honor the winners and their families at a Zoom event.
“I loved being able to learn about redistricting,” Mathis told the League. “Without doing this I would have probably never even have known about this issue.”
[sc:pullout-title pullout-title=”FIRST PLACE: HIGH SCHOOL DIVISION” ][sc:pullout-text-begin]
The Redistricting Process: Where Democracy Lacks
By Simone Smith, 11th grade, home school
Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not a power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.”
America is a country founded upon the radical idea that a people can govern themselves. Inspired by the works of philosophers such as John Locke, the Constitution was crafted to be a document by and for the people. Its framers envisioned a nation unmarred by the tyranny of a monarch. But our society now faces challenges. The redistricting process, specifically in Indiana, doesn’t reflect democratic principles. In order to achieve truly democratic election of our state representatives, there must be change.
First, we must define the term “democratic principles.” The Merriam Webster online dictionary defines democracy as “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation.” Principle is defined as “a rule or code of conduct.” Therefore, we can interpret the term democratic principles as “rules that ensure the supreme power of government is still vested in the people.”
With that in mind, here is an overview of the current situation. Districts in Indiana are determined based on the state’s population. Every 10 years, following the U.S. Census, the districts are redefined. Indiana’s districts contain an average of 700,000 people.This regular redistricting ensures Indiana’s congressional and legislative districts are up to date and accurate.
But the current system of determining district borders is not without its flaws. For Indiana, state legislators are in charge: the very same people running for reelection. This is a huge problem because legislators can suggest district borders that encompass large partisan areas. When a district is designed to prominently contain one party, local election results become skewed. This process of determining districts based on an area’s voting trends is known as “gerrymandering.”
So what is to be done? Many concerned voters’ leagues suggest alternative options. The nonpartisan Common Cause Indiana has promoted the idea of a voters’ group drawing district borders. Ideally, this would mean a league of unbiased Hoosiers working together for democracy. Another organization, FairVote, champions a system where specially selected civil servants create a plan and submit it to the voters for approval. These are a few of the many viable options for Indiana redistricting.
America is still a nation of liberty. But in an age of ever-changing ideals, it’s up to us, the citizens, to preserve democracy. The current system of apportioning electoral and congressional districts doesn’t reflect democratic principles because it allows legislators to skew districts to their advantage. As Indiana voters, we must urge elected officials to pursue change. It is our job to ensure our government is truly “by and for the people.” John Adams says it best: “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone. You may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
[sc:pullout-text-end][sc:pullout-title pullout-title=”FIRST PLACE: JUNIOR HIGH DIVISION” ][sc:pullout-text-begin]
The Democratic Principles of Redistricting
By Sophie Mathis, eighth grade, Brown County Junior High School
Redistricting is the key component of helping to guarantee equity to our electoral system. Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Every 10 years following the completion of the United States Census, redistricting occurs. The objective is to equalize the population in each district. In Indiana, the state legislature is accountable for drawing both the congressional and state legislative district lines. There are nine United States Representatives and 150 Indiana state legislators elected from these districts.
The redistricting process has become a very controversial topic, due the fact many people believe it does not demonstrate democratic principles. The redistricting concept is to keep elections fair and organized but when it’s done poorly, like in Indiana, it divides communities and makes it difficult for voters to find a representative who advocates their causes.
Due to the fact the Indiana state legislature redraws the districts, they are able to choose their constituents and protect themselves. This is commonly referred to as gerrymandering. This creates “safe districts” which produce less competitive elections. In 2014, in the Indiana House of Representatives, 44 of 100 seats were uncontested in the general election. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions. In a 2014 study by the University of Chicago Law Review, Indiana’s state house districts were found to be the fifth-most partisan districts in the country when the “efficiency gap” is applied. The efficiency gap is used to measure partisan gerrymandering.
A common argument against redistricting reform is that the Indiana constitution requires the Indiana General Assembly to conduct redistricting. Even though this is true, they have the power to create a redistricting commission through legislation to take responsibility of the redistricting process. This means that the General Assembly will still be involved in redistricting; they will have to vote on the maps that the redistricting commission creates. They can deny the maps and get the commission to redraw them and if they vote those down again, the responsibility is back to the legislature.
In 2015, the Indiana General Assembly formed a study committee of legislators and citizens to invest 15 months examining how other states handle redistricting and to introduce reforms for Indiana. When the study committee issued its recommendations, they promoted the establishment of a nine-member, bipartisan redistricting commission, with the members appointed by the legislative leadership. There was a hearing in February of 2017 incorporating the recommendations into a house bill. Over 300 people attended the hearing in favor, except one. Unfortunately, the committee chairman refused to call a vote and the bill died.
Creating a redistricting reform with the study committee’s proposal would make Indiana’s elections fair and balanced, showing democratic principles, unlike now.
[sc:pullout-text-end]
