Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Indiana Republicans Could Lose at the Ballot over Redistricting Plan

News

Indiana Republicans Could Lose at the Ballot over Redistricting Plan
Image generated by IVN staff

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. -- As Indiana Republicans weigh whether to call a special session to redraw the state’s congressional map, a new Unite America poll shows that voters overwhelmingly oppose the idea — including a majority of GOP primary voters.

The survey, conducted October 7–9 by 3D Strategic Research, found that 44% of Hoosiers oppose mid-decade redistricting while only 31% support it. After hearing balanced arguments from both sides, opposition jumped to 69%, with just 21% still in favor.


The results were released days after Vice President JD Vance visited Indiana to rally support for the redistricting push, a sign of how deeply the Trump administration has inserted itself into state-level redistricting battles.

“Voters across Indiana — including a majority of Republicans — are sick of partisan games that put party over country,” said Nick Troiano, executive director of Unite America.

A Mid-Decade Gerrymander: Few Support, Even Among GOP Voters

Only 10% of Indiana voters say the governor and legislature should call a special session for redistricting. Even among Republican primary voters — the base legislators are targeting — enthusiasm is low:

  • 28% said they would be less likely to support a candidate backing mid-decade redistricting.
  • Just 17% said they’d be more likely to do so.

When presented with 14 public-policy priorities, “redrawing congressional maps” ranked dead last among GOP primary voters – behind concerns like cost of living, jobs, and public safety.

The results echo concerns voiced by some Republican lawmakers that reopening the maps could backfire politically and further erode public trust.

Unite America has found in yearly research that 90% of U.S. elections are safe for the party in power, whether it is a GOP-controlled district or a Democratic district. This creates an electoral environment where the most consequential votes are made in primary elections.

General elections are all but inconsequential. Thus, the incentive for lawmakers is to cater only to a small, partisan minority that votes in the primaries. This is why polling these voters is so important.

If lawmakers make them happy, they are guaranteed re-election. If they don’t, a primary challenger could take their seat.

Voters Also Reject Closing Primaries to Party Members

The Unite America poll also found that Indiana voters are strongly opposed to closing state primaries to registered party members -- another idea under consideration by GOP lawmakers.

Initially, 52% opposed the move. After hearing arguments from both sides, opposition soared to 77% -- including 66% of Republican primary voters.

Such a change would lock out roughly 2 million independent voters from the elections that matter most in a state where all 9 congressional seats are effectively decided in the primary.

“Every voter should have the freedom to cast a ballot in every taxpayer-funded election,” Troiano said. “I’m not surprised Indiana voters don’t want to give up that right.”

A Message to Lawmakers: Focus on Real Issues

The poll’s findings underscore a consistent message: Indiana voters, across party lines, want lawmakers to focus on cost of living, safety, and the economy – not partisan power plays.

As the Republican caucus meets this week to consider a special session, the data suggest that moving forward with redistricting could deepen voter frustration at a time when trust in government is already at historic lows.

Poll details: Conducted Oct. 7–9, 2025 by 3D Strategic Research among 500 registered voters and 450 Republican primary voters in Indiana. Full results available via Unite America.

New Poll Shows Indiana Republicans Could Lose at the Ballot over Redistricting Plan was first published on IVN and republished with permission.

Shawn Griffiths Is An Election Reform Expert And National Editor Of IVN.us.

Read More

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

A deep look at the fight over rescinding Medals of Honor from U.S. soldiers at Wounded Knee, the political clash surrounding the Remove the Stain Act, and what’s at stake for historical justice.

Getty Images, Stocktrek Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Remove the Stain Act

Should the U.S. soldiers at 1890’s Wounded Knee keep the Medal of Honor?

Context: history

Keep ReadingShow less
The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

Migrant families from Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela and Haiti live in a migrant camp set up by a charity organization in a former hospital, in the border town of Matamoros, Mexico.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Recipe for a Humanitarian Crisis: 600,000 Venezuelans Set to Be Returned to the “Mouth of the Shark”

On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end Temporary Protected Status for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living in the United States, effective November 7, 2025. Although the exact mechanisms and details are unclear at this time, the message from DHS is: “Venezuelans, leave.”

Proponents of the Administration’s position (there is no official Opinion from SCOTUS, as the ruling was part of its shadow docket) argue that (1) the Secretary of DHS has discretion to determine designate whether a country is safe enough for individuals to return from the US, (2) “Temporary Protected Status” was always meant to be temporary, and (3) the situation in Venezuela has improved enough that Venezuelans in the U.S. may now safely return to Venezuela. As a lawyer who volunteers with immigrants, I admit that the two legal bases—Secretary’s broad discretion and the temporary nature of TPS—carry some weight, and I will not address them here.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less