The basic rights guaranteed a criminal defendant exceed the rights extended to the voter in Indiana. To back up this alarming comparison, a look at some of the rights the Sixth Amendment guarantees for criminal defendants makes clear what hasn’t been guaranteed for the benefit of Indiana voters.
“To have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense” is the last line of the Sixth Amendment and a good place to begin the comparison. Regarding Indiana voters, the “Assistance of Counsel” would equate to paid, independent redistricting commissioners who work on the voter’s behalf. Currently, this doesn’t exist in Indiana law.
But circulating in the state House and Senate chambers are several bills including language requiring the Legislative Services Agency to provide staff and administrative services to a Redistricting Commission. This ensures the redistricting commission will not exist in name only but will be funded and staffed to be effective. This is the voters’ equivalent of a defendant’s “Assistance of Counsel” and should be passed into law. If the language of the bills were phrased “Independent Redistricting Commission,” it would be all the better.
Why independent? Because the super-majority of Republicans drew the maps in 2011, they were drawn to protect incumbents and guarantee a continued super-majority status of the Republican Party. But if a criminal defendant’s right to “an impartial jury of the State” is enshrined in law, doesn’t the Indiana voter have a right to an impartial redistricting commission that fairly represents all of the constituencies in the state?
In a criminal defendant’s case, a jury is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony presented in court. Unknown to many, there is an objective method to determine if a political map is fair, called the Efficiency Gap. According to its equations, Indiana is considered to have one of the most gerrymandered political maps in the country. Note this is not a subjective opinion but is based on statistical analysis. (Learn more at the Brennan Center for Justice about this formula for determining good political maps.)
Jurors for a criminal defendant will have been selected from a district “previously ascertained by law.” Current state law allows the Indiana General Assembly to draw the political maps, creating the districts that suit incumbents. This is hardly a recipe for impartiality. Politicians shouldn’t choose their voters any more than a criminal defendant should choose his judge. In an ideal world, voters would choose their politicians, and the law would insist on an impartial Independent Redistricting Commission.
In 2019, the general assembly has the means and hopefully the will to make our next political maps fair and impartial. It can: 1) create an unbiased, INDEPENDENT commission, with some bipartisan inclusion; 2) allow a nonpartisan commission member to lead; 3) represent the diversity of the state with a good cross-section of the community; 4) create a transparent process open to citizen input and involvement; and 5) apply the Efficiency Gap to test the fairness of their efforts.
In other states, these ideas are implemented by allowing the public to apply for positions on the Independent Redistricting Committee. There is some vetting done by university presidents, and there is also random selection once the vetting is complete to further impartiality. The Indiana General Assembly has good models to follow.
On Jan. 16th, League Day at the Statehouse, more than 70 members of the League of Women Voters from all over the state, including Hancock County, made appointments with legislators urging them to support an impartial Independent Redistricting Commission. Please let your legislator know you support this, too. A good plan now will lay the foundation for good maps in 2021.
Donna Steele is a civic leader who advocates for informed citizen participation, transparent representation, and government accountability. You can write to her at dr-editorial@greenfield reporter.com.
