No Way to Run a Democracy

Editors’ Note: Steve Laudig is a longtime Indianapolis attorney who litigated several local Voting Rights Act cases for legislative redistricting, was a candidate for Marion County clerk and served as Marion County Democrat Party chair from 1997 to 2001. Laudig now resides in Honolulu, where he is a member of the Hawaiian Bar and a graduate student in political science at the University of Hawaii. After the 2003 election, where he served as a key advisor to surprise Lawrence mayoral winner Deborah Cantwell, Laudig sent a handful of local party insiders a data-packed 37-page memo analyzing the election results. At NUVO’s request, Laudig agreed to share an abridged 10-point version with our readers.

This council district map, drawn by the Indiana Supreme Court in March, was intended to be neutral. Instead, November's election results show the map created a racial and partisan gerrymander that discriminates against African-Americans and Democrats.

1. It was hardly a mandate for Bart Peterson.

Bart Peterson received 92,760 votes, or 63 percent of the ballots cast for mayor of Indianapolis. But the turnout was only 25 percent of registered voters. (By comparison, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 85.5% of registered voters cast ballots in the 2000 presidential election.)This means that 15.5 percent of the registered voters voted for Peterson.

Hardly a mandate, is it?

It means 9.5 percent voted directly against him and 75 percent, in effect, cast a blank ballot, possibly not participating because they saw no difference significant enough to pick between the Republican and the Democratic candidate.

It occurs to me that if the political parties wanted higher participation they failed just about as badly as they could fail. But if they didn’t want high participation, then they succeeded. Cynics could make a reasonable case that since turnout has been dropping for years with no effective attempt to increase turnout by either party, their joint plan to discourage participation is succeeding. It succeeds by making it hard for third parties to either participate or elect. There is nothing sacred or inherently democratic (as will be established below) about single-member districts. Proportional voting without districts would result in higher participation. Or at least it couldn’t do any worse.

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there were 639,449 persons of voting age residing in Marion County. So, in truth, the turnout was only 22 percent of all voting age persons who could have voted. Thus 62 percent of 22 percent means that 13.6 percent of the voting age population voted for Peterson and that 86.4 percent either voted against him or didn’t vote for him.
Something less than a landslide, isn’t it?

2. Participatory democracy is in trouble.

Given this abysmally low turnout, anyone who doesn’t think that participatory democracy is in trouble is missing something. And any apologist for the current situation who blames people for not voting is mistaken. Consider: If I am shopping for a car, is it my fault when I don’t buy a Ford or is it Ford’s fault because it didn’t make a car I’d like to buy?

So 78 percent of the eligible electors see more value in not participating than in participating, which means they are convinced that their vote has less value or meaning than the cost of a trip to the polls. Is such a widely held opinion an accident; a mistake; a delusion? Or, is it the result of years of participating in the two party “democracy” and seeing no significant change as a result?

3. Libertarians help Democrats.

The results of several City-County Council races show that Democrats lost opportunities, in part by failing to help Libertarian candidates. In District 1, where Democrat Ricky Hence lost by 82 votes to Republican Isaac Randolph Jr., there was a weak Libertarian candidacy earning only 1.7 percent of the votes.
A typical Libertarian candidacy, about 3.3 percent of the votes in this election, would have changed the outcome in District 1. Political people don’t like to talk about this openly, but the evidence seems to be, though it is sensitive to what part of town one is looking at, that Libertarian candidates take votes 6-1 from the Republicans.

In City-County Council District 4, where Democrat Kip Tew lost by only 361 votes to Republican Scott Schneider and no Libertarian candidate was on the ballot, a Libertarian candidacy could well have changed the outcome. Also in Council Districts 6, 14, 16 and 20, where the Democrats lost by a range of just three to 196 votes, I think Democrats should have helped the Libertarians.

City-County Council District 12, where Democrat Sherron Franklin beat incumbent Republican Curt Coonrod by 13 votes, pending a recount, is the clearest example why Democrats should like Libertarian candidates. The Libertarian candidate got 196 votes, 3.2 percent of the total, and the Democrat was only a plurality — not a majority — winner. Libertarians helped carry the day for the Democrats here.

4. The Indiana Supreme Court created racially gerrymandered districts.

Last March, after the council Republican majority and Democrat Mayor Peterson could not agree on a map defining the City-County Council districts, the Indiana Supreme Court decided to draw its own council district map. The court’s map intentionally ignored evidence of racial segregation in Indianapolis, and instead chose districts that corresponded only to geographic compactness and precinct lines. The result, however unintended, is a racially gerrymandered district map.

Marion County is 25 percent African-American. African-Americans should have the fair opportunity to elect one-fourth of 25 districts, which is six districts. Under the packing and cracking of African-Americans in the Indiana Supreme Court districting, there are only three African-American majority districts. The Republicans in 1993 created seven.

The Republicans were then operating under federal court scrutiny in litigation that I was handling, so they were very careful to not even appear to discriminate. My speculation is that the Republicans created seven districts as an attempt to save the discriminatory at-large seats, which now discriminate against them. At-large council seats are inherently discriminatory. And actually rather useless. You might as well simply give the mayor four votes on the council and save voters, candidates and contributors the hassle and pretense.

One of every four African-Americans in the county, nearly 25 percent of all African-Americans, are packed in two council districts, which account for 8 percent of the districts. Three of every five African-Americans in Marion County are in seven districts. Sixty percent of African-Americans are placed into 28 percent of the districts.

The Supreme Court’s intent was to remain ignorant of certain data. It remained ignorant of Indianapolis’ racially polarized voting patterns and racially segregated housing patterns. The court’s goal was to create compact districts in compliance with state law. But the same Legislature that enacted this particular state law also enacted Unigov and engaged in racial discrimination by not incorporating township schools.

So the court, it could be argued, is enforcing a statute — Unigov — that already has been found to be racially discriminatory. The court made no conscious attempt to avoid racial and partisan discrimination. The court assumed that its “goal” of racial neutrality or non-discrimination would be reached that way. This shows either ignorance or inexperience in districting.

It seems to have been operating under a variant of the “ignorance is innocence” motto. To which I would respond that “Ignorance of the facts is no excuse.”

If residential housing is racially segregated (as it is in Indianapolis), then district-creating criteria that fail to take into account prior discrimination are not neutral. The prior racial discrimination that resulted in housing segregation is carried forward and not corrected for in the supposedly “neutrally” drawn plan. Not correcting for prior discrimination does not prevent subsequent discrimination — it perpetuates it.

Is the Supreme Court a gang of racists? No. Did the Supreme Court, by remaining ignorant of voting patterns and residential housing patterns when drawing voting districts “pack” and “crack” the African-American population in Indianapolis? Yes.

(“Packing” means creating a district with far more minority voters than needed to elect a candidate of minority voters’ choosing. “Cracking” means separating a minority population into enough different districts that the minority votes in any one district are not enough to make up an electoral majority. Packing “wastes” minority votes, cracking can make minority votes meaningless. Both practices have a long sordid history in racist gerrymandering, and both violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965.)

Should it be changed? Obviously, that is unless the white ruling class in Indianapolis is comfortable with perpetuating racially discriminatory effects in their political process.

Although Mayor Bart Peterson was easily re-elected, 75 percent of registered voters in effect cast a blank ballot, possibly because they saw no difference significant enough to pick between theRepublican and the Democrat.

5. The Indiana Supreme Court created partisan gerrymandered districts.

Consider that in this election, Democrats got 76,291 votes, or 53 percent, of the votes for district council seats, but only got 44 percent of the seats. Republicans got 45 percent of the votes but 56 percent of the seats.

That’s a gerrymander — regardless of the intent of the Indiana Supreme Court. Mayor Peterson won in a landslide, but Democrats gained only one council seat and that one by just 13 votes. Such an ordering of events is wrong and a violation of the notions of representative and proportional democracy.

When Democrats win, they generally win by a landslide. When Republicans win districts, they do so narrowly. The average Republican margin of victory in the districts they won was 914 votes. The average Democratic margin of victory was 2,336 votes.

Republicans, with 13,000 fewer votes for district seats win 14 seats to the Democrats’ 11. This is wrong, very wrong.

Here’s another way to look at it. What if just eight people had changed their mind and voted for Coonrod instead of Franklin in District 12? Then the Republicans, who lost the mayor’s race by 37,000, the at-large council races by more than 35,000 and the districts by 13,000, would control the City-County Council even though they got only 45 percent of the vote.

That’s no way to run a democracy. It’s also no measure of public support for a party.

6. Negative campaigning lost District 3 for the Democrats.

In City-County District 3, Democrat Mike Edmonson, a former aide to Sen. Evan Bayh, lost by 1,073 votes to incumbent Republican Jim Bradford. This race got attention because of the Democrats’ very negative campaigning, which included fliers sent to area homes accusing Bradford of improprieties in running his business, the Whistle Stop Deli, along the Monon Trail in Broad Ripple.

The Democrat loss was attributable to the negative campaigning. One doesn’t attack a candidate for the business he or she owns. They may have Democratic customers who like their sandwiches. Additionally, it’s considered unappetizingly aggressive by local voters and thus a rules violation.

7. Turnout, gentrification, complacency are behind the surprising loss for Democrats in District 16.

City-County Councilor At-Large Karen Horseman ran in District 16 this time, a Center Township area that was considered to be safely Democratic. But, pending a recount, Horseman lost by three votes to Republican Scott Keller.

I thought this district would be safely Democratic, too. But this is a district with miserably low turnout, possibly the worst in the city. Also, there is some evidence that this district may have already gentrified. We now may have a little bit of Carmel right downtown.

Gentrification combined with racial and partisan gerrymandering may have caught the Democrat napping, or at least a little drowsy. A more aggressive candidacy will see this district flip back to the Democrats in 2007.

Until then, Republican County Chairman John Keeler should get credit for wins like this one, instead of blame for mayoral candidate Greg Jordan’s abysmal performance. Keeler is the big winner by not losing as badly as he should have. If eight votes went the other way in District 12, he’s a miracle worker for having survived the Peterson landslide by not losing the council.

8. Democrats have migrated from the central city.

City-County Council District 18, where Democrat Vernon Brown won with 62 percent of the vote, is the first Marion County Democratic district at a state or local level to touch Hancock County. The surprisingly large margin of victory shows there has been a significant migration of Democrats since 2000.

Also, Democrat Deborah Cantwell thumped Republican four-term incumbent Tom Schneider, thus ending Cotteyism as a vital force in the Marion County Republican Party. This clears the way for moderate, tolerant, modern, racially inclusive Republicans to arise, if they are interested. They may not be. They may be gone from the county already.

The Brown and Cantwell victories, along with the close Democrat losses in several other township council districts, show that in 2004 Democrats can take Wayne and Warren townships at the township board level for the first time ever.

9. I was wrong about District 22.

I predicted that District 22 in the southwest corner of the county would be a Republican victory, but a very close one. It wasn’t. Republican Bob Cockrum won with a comfortable 59 percent of the vote. My mistake was believing that a Baptist preacher running as a Libertarian could get more than 15 percent of the vote, thus giving the Democrat a chance. The Rev. Greg Dixon got just 691 votes (14 percent) and the Democrat was out of luck.

10. There is only one political party in Marion County.

Those who say the 2003 election results indicate that the county is no longer Republican are missing something. At least temporarily, the parties are competitive. When Peterson leaves the scene, there is a likelihood that business money will return to its ideological base of the party of predatory capitalism — the Republicans.

If you define a political party as a group of individuals sharing a basic and explicit political philosophy for governance, there is really only one political party in Marion County. It’s the Libertarians. If you define a political party as a group of individuals sharing a basic and explicit goal of electing candidates it supports then there is another — the Firefighters Party. If you define a political party as a group of individuals who all do the same thing on election day there is another — the Nonparticipating Party.
The other two political “parties” can be described as groups of people with “partisan and policy tendencies” waiting for a candidate to come along that they can be a fan of because they either like the charisma of the candidate or like the simpleton version of the candidate’s policy positions.

Any major “political party” candidate who has anything other than a mushy nice sounding agenda is demonized because the powers that be really don’t want anything to change. The powers that be are content with crummy public schools. (If they are not, then why have these schools been tolerated so long? The powers that be move quickly when the Colts are on the market.)

Those powers are also content with poor water quality, no public transportation and all other long-standing, unsolved Indianapolis problems. Remember, someone is making money creating the problem and someone is making money solving the problem. Sometimes it’s the same person/corporation.