DocketNumber： IP 69-C-23
Citation Numbers： 307 F. Supp. 1362
Judges： Kerner, Circuit Judge, and Steckler and Noland, District Judges
Filed Date： 2/2/1970
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 8/22/2023
United States District Court S. D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
*1363 James W. Beatty, Bamberger & Feibleman, James Manahan, Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiffs.
Richard C. Johnson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Ind., for defendant.
William K. Byrum, Fulmer, Burris & Byrum, Indianapolis, Ind., for intervening defendants.
Before KERNER, Circuit Judge, and STECKLER and NOLAND, District Judges.
Stay Granted February 2, 1970. See 90 S.Ct. 748.
PER CURIAM.
This suit was tried by the three-judge court on June 17 and 18, 1969. After consideration of the legal and factual issues, the Court entered its opinion and a separate order on July 28, 1969.[1] The Court found that the multimember districting provisions of the present legislative apportionment statutes of Indiana, Indiana Acts of 1965 (2d Spec.Sess.), ch. 5, sec. 3, and ch. 4, sec. 3 (Ind.Ann.Stat. §§ 34-102, 34-104 (Burns' Supp.1968)), as they relate to Marion County, operate to minimize and cancel out the voting strength of a cognizable racial minority group, which was defined and delinated in the opinion, to the extent that the *1364 members of such minority group are deprived of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. We therefore declared those portions of the legislative apportionment statutes to be unconstitutional and void.
Upon the evidence adduced, it was further determined that: (1) to redistrict Marion County alone, so as to provide districts meeting constitutional standards, would leave constitutionally impermissible population variations between the newly created districts in Marion County and other districts in the state, and (2) independent of the new districts in Marion County, constitutionally impermissible population variations would remain between presently existing districts in the state when compared among themselves. Thus the portions of the statutes relating to Marion County were found to be not severable from the full body of the statutes. We therefore found a redistricting of the entire state as to both houses of the General Assembly to be necessary.
While recognizing the right of the injured plaintiffs to have their constitutional rights vindicated at the earliest practicable time, we also recognized that the federal judiciary functions within a system of federalism which entrusts the responsibility of legislative apportionment and districting primarily to the state legislature. We therefore granted the State until October 1, 1969, to enact statutes redistricting the State and reapportioning the legislative seats in the General Assembly to remedy the constitutionally impermissible districting and apportionment, retaining jurisdiction should the State fail to comply.
On August 20, 1969, defendant Edgar D. Whitcomb, Governor of the State of Indiana, moved this Court to stay proceedings in the action. On August 27, 1969, the intervening defendants, joined by Governor Whitcomb, separately moved to stay proceedings. These motions were denied on September 4, 1969.
On October 15, 1969, judicial notice was taken of the fact that a special session of the Indiana General Assembly had not been called for the purpose of redistricting and reapportioning the General Assembly. Accordingly, the Court concluded that it would proceed to redistrict the State pursuant to its opinion and order of July 28, 1969.
At an informal conference in chambers held on October 15, 1969, counsel for the parties were informed that the Court wished to invite not only the parties to the action but also the State Committees of the majority and minority parties in the Indiana General Assembly, the legislative leaders of said parties, and the members of the Indiana State Election Board, to submit proposed plans for the Court's consideration.
Pursuant to notice a further conference on October 17, 1969, was held in open court for the purpose of announcing minimal guidelines for submission of proposed plans. The date of November 3, 1969, was fixed as the date by which such plans were to be submitted. Persons desiring to submit plans were ordered to file notice of their intent to do so on or before October 24, 1969. The Court announced that 1960 census data would be used as a basis for redistricting; that single-member districts would be preferred to multi-member districts; and and that county and township boundary lines would be crossed in drawing district lines wherever necessary to achieve equality of population in the districts but that the Court would strive to preserve the integrity of county and township lines.
On October 30, 1969, the Court granted persons submitting proposed plans until November 10, 1969, to file objections, if any, to plans proposed by other persons. Defendant Governor Whitcomb on November 3, 1969, moved the Court to modify the order of October 30th by providing that any party to the action might file objections to any of the proposed plans filed by any party or non-party with the Court within ten (10) days after any party received actual notice of the filing of any proposed plan submitted by any party or non-party. The motion was denied on November 4, 1969.
The intervening defendants on November 5, 1969, moved for an extension of *1365 time within which to file notice of intent and a proposed plan until November 10, 1969. The motion was granted by an entry of November 6, 1969, and the Court further extended until November 13, 1969, the time within which persons having filed proposed plans could file objections to other plans filed with the Court.
The Court has received the following proposed plans, each preceded by a satisfactory notice of intent:
(1) Plaintiffs' plan for Marion County only;
(2) Plan of Leslie Duvall as Chairman, Senate Legislative Apportionment Committee, for the Indiana Senate only;
(3) Plan of Leslie Duvall as Majority Caucus Chairman, Indiana Senate, for the Indiana Senate only;
(4) Plan of State Senator Robert E. Mahowald, for the Indiana Senate only;
(5) Plan of Frederick T. Bauer, Indiana General Assembly House Minority Leader, and David Rogers, Indiana General Assembly Senate Minority Leader, for both the Indiana House and Senate;
(6) Plan of Richard A. Boehning, Indiana General Assembly House Majority Leader, for the Indiana House only;
(7) Plan of Representative Richard J. Lesniak, for Lake County only; and
(8) Plan of Senator Albert J. LaMere, for Lake County only.
As invited by the Court, several persons filed objections to districting plans submitted by other persons. These objections have been considered and the Court appreciates the diligence of the persons submitting them. The Court having prepared its own plan and the objections having been considered, these objections are considered moot. We reached this conclusion after examination of all plans submitted. With the exception of the plaintiffs' plan and the intervening defendants' plan, all other plans contain such a large deviation between the most populous and least populous districts that they were eliminated from further consideration.
Although the Court has previously indicated that 1960 census statistics should be utilized, several of the objections argue that these statistics are so outdated as to be not credible. The short answer to this objection was given by an earlier three-judge court of this district in considering congressional redistricting: "[T]he Census of 1960 must be tolerated until the next official census in order to maintain relative political stability." Grills v. Branigin, 284 F. Supp. 176 (S.D.Ind.1968).
In districting Marion County, two of the plans submitted received primary consideration, the plan of the plaintiffs, and the plan of the intervening defendants. It is the opinion of the Court that the plaintiffs' plan for districting Marion County more nearly meets the constitutional standards laid down by the Supreme Court as followed by this Court in reaching its opinion of July 28, 1969. We note in the intervening defendants' plan large suburban areas are combined with parts of the Center Township ghetto area. In fact, in seven instances the intervening defendants' plan combines suburban areas with portions of the Center Township inner city area. As we observed in our opinion of July 28, 1969, sophisticated gerrymandering has been soundly condemned. Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 81 S.Ct. 125, 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (1960).
Plaintiffs' districts in Marion County closely follow existing city and township boundary lines and are compact and composed of contiguous territory. Additionally, plaintiffs' House districts approximate mathematical equality of population. The greatest deviation is minus .63 of 1% from the ideal House district in Marion County and the average deviation for all fifteen (15) House districts in Marion County is .26 of 1%. Plaintiffs' plan also protects the legally cognizable racial minority group against dilution of its voting strength. This is also true when the respective House districts *1366 are combined for senatorial districts.
The legislature having failed to act, this Court now establishes House and Senate districts for the State of Indiana which in the Court's opinion comply with federal constitutional requirements as set forth in decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and as applied in this Court's opinion and order of July 28, 1969.
The Indiana Election Code provides a 30-day period for declarations of candidacy for nomination to a General Assembly seat; this period begins on February 24, 1970. Furthermore, precinct election boundaries will have to be adjusted in January of 1970 by the election officials to coincide with the boundaries of new legislative districts.
The legislative districting plan prescribed herein sets forth a description of each House district. The plan is based on 1960 census data which results in an ideal House district of 46,625, and an ideal Senate district of 93,250. As indicated to the interested persons at the October 17, 1969, conference, single-member districts have been utilized throughout the state; further, the Court's aim has been for mathematical equality of population in each district. The difficulty of devising 100 compact and contiguous House districts within that framework has in large part precluded preservation of county lines. However, township boundary lines have been followed except in the state's ten metropolitan areas, where the density of population required the division of townships.
For the convenience of the electorate and of the election officials, each Senate district consists of two House districts chosen by numerical sequence. There are 100 House districts and 50 Senate districts. Thus Senate district No. 1 consists of House districts Nos. 1 and 2, and Senate district No. 2 consists of House districts Nos. 3 and 4, and so forth. The House districts are set out in map form for the use of election officials. The Senate districts are described only by designating the combinations of House districts. The accompanying listing indicates the population of each House district and the percentage deviation from the ideal district of 46,625.
Each district is further described by townships, census tracts, blocks or enumeration districts. Where township lines have been followed, the composition of the district is largely self-explanatory. However, where districts have been described by census designations, it has been necessary to convert the description into streetline locations. This conversion has been accomplished by the use of detail maps A through J for the metropolitan areas of Lake County, South Bend, Fort Wayne, Kokomo, Muncie, Anderson, Marion County, Richmond, Terre Haute, and Evansville.
(See Appendix I for listing of House Districts, Appendix II for listing of Senate Districts, and Map Appendix for District Boundary Lines.)[2]
The conversion to streetline locations was made possible by the assistance and cooperation of the United States Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce. The Court especially recognizes and credits the Bureau of the Census for its help in providing demographic data to accomplish this redistricting plan. Their information and assistance has made it possible to audit population figures and percentage deviations from the ideal.
In establishing district lines for the metropolitan areas of the state, the Court has taken judicial notice of the 1960 census statistics as to the location of the non white population. The single-member district plan gives recognition to the cognizable racial minority group whose grievance lead to this litigation.
In reapportioning legislative seats in the General Assembly, the question of *1367 how the "holdover" senators shall be treated is presented.
The Constitution of the State of Indiana, Art. 4, Sec. 3, provides that senators are elected for 4-year terms; thus, theoretically half of the members of the Senate, those who were elected in the 1968 general election, would not stand for re-election in 1970. Since the Act under which they were elected has been found unconstitutional, the Court is required to determine what is to become of the remainder of their terms of office. To permit the present terms of incumbent senators to extend beyond the 1970 general election would prevent implementation of the districting plan herein prescribed. Senators elected in 1968 under what has now been declared to be an unconstitutional statute do not have a vested right to serve out the balance of their 4-year terms. Reynolds v. State, 233 F.Supp. 323 (W.D.Okla.1964). Thus the Court has concluded that it will be necessary to fill all fifty senatorial seats in the 1970 election, and that the present terms of all incumbent senators will expire at the time the members of the newly elected legislature take office on January 7, 1971. Mann v. Davis, 238 F.Supp. 458 (E.D.Va.1964), aff'd Hughes v. WMCA, Inc., 379 U.S. 694, 85 S.Ct. 713, 13 L.Ed.2d 698 (1965); Holt v. Richardson, 238 F.Supp. 468 (D.Haw. 1965); People ex rel. Engle v. Kerner, 33 Ill.2d 11, 210 N.E.2d 165 (1965).
The Indiana constitutional provision for staggering the terms of senators, so that one-half of the Senate terms expire every two years, is entirely proper and valid and would be mandatory in a legislatively devised redistricting plan.
However, the plan adopted herein is provisional in nature and probably will be applicable for only the 1970 election and the subsequent 2-year period. This is true since the 1970 census will have been completed in the interim, and the legislature can very well redistrict itself prior to the 1972 election. On the other hand, it is conceivable that the legislature may fail to redistrict before the 1972 election. In such event, all fifty senatorial seats shall be up for election every two years until such time as the legislature properly redistricts itself. It will then properly be the province of the legislature in redistricting to determine which senatorial districts shall elect senators to 4-year terms and which shall elect senators to 2-year terms to reinstate the staggering of terms.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant, Governor Edgar D. Whitcomb, the State Election Board, the Secretary of State of the State of Indiana, and all election officials under the Election Code of Indiana are hereby enjoined from conducting any primary, general or special elections for the offices of Indiana State Senator or Indiana State Representative by the use of the districts and apportionment created by the Indiana Acts of 1965 (2d Spec.Sess.), ch. 5, sec. 3, and ch. 4, sec. 3 (Ind.Ann.Stat. §§ 34-102, 34-104 (Burns' Supp.1968)) for the reason that those statutes are violative of the Constitution of the United States for the reasons given in this opinion and in the Court's opinion and order of July 28, 1969.
It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant, Governor Edgar D. Whitcomb, the State Election Board, the Secretary of State, and all election officials under the Election Code of Indiana are hereby mandated to conduct all primary, general and special elections during the year 1970 for the offices of Indiana State Senator or Indiana State Representative in accordance with this judgment and by the use of the districts created and described by this judgment; and this order now constitutes appropriate notice to all of such officials.
The Court retains jurisdiction of this action for the purpose of passing upon any future claims of unconstitutionality made by plaintiffs against any future legislative apportionment adopted by the General Assembly of Indiana by reason of this order, and for such other action in the premises as may be necessary.
HOUSE DISTRICTS DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION 1 Posey County: All 46,966 +.73% Vanderburgh County: Tracts 29, 30, 31, 32 V6, V7 & V8 Tract 28: Blocks 4-13, 19-30, 37-44, 50-57, 64-71, 76-79, and 80 split[#] 2 Gibson County: 46,711 +.18% Johnson Township Vanderburgh County: Tracts 4, 5, 33, 34, 35, 38, V3, V4, V9, V10 Tract 2: Blocks 1-33, 39-49, 54-75 Tract 3: Blocks 1-3, 11-22 Tract 22: Block 1 Tract 37: Blocks 1-45, 49-52, 61-67 3 Vanderburgh County: 46,735 +.24% Tracts 1, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Tract 2: Blocks 34-38, 50-53 Tract 3: Blocks 4-10, 23-35, 38, 39 Tract 7: Blocks 1-14 Tract 14: Blocks 1-8 Tract 15: Blocks 1-16, 21-25 Tract 16: Blocks 1-32 Tract 17: Blocks 1-27, 9 split[#] Tract 22: Blocks 2-61 Tract 28: Blocks 1-3, 14-18, 31-36, 45-49, 58-63, 72-75, 81, 80 split[#] 4 Vanderburgh County: 46,859 +.50% Tracts 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, V1, 36 Tract 3: Blocks 36, 37, 40-52 Tract 7: Blocks 15-42 Tract 14: Blocks 9-28 Tract 15: Blocks 17-20, 26-48 Tract 16: Blocks 33-58 Tract 17: Blocks 28-40, 9 split[#] Tract 37: Blocks 46-48, 53-60 5 Dubois County: 46,999 +.80% Bainbridge, Boone & Madison Townships Gibson County: Center, Columbia, Montgomery, Patoka, Union, Wabash & Washington Townships Pike County: Clay, Jefferson, Logan, Madison Marion, Patoka & Washington Townships
*1369
DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION
6 Warrick County: All 46,857 +.50%
Dubois County: Cass & Patoka
Townships
Gibson County:
Barton Township
Pike County:
Lockhart & Monroe Townships
Spencer County: Carter, Clay,
Grass, Hammond, Jackson, Luce &
Ohio Townships
7 Perry County: All 46,514 -.24%
Crawford County: Johnson, Patoka &
Union Townships
Dubois County: Columbia, Ferdinand,
Hall, Harbison, Jackson, Jefferson &
Marion Townships
Orange County: French Lick, Greenfield,
Jackson, Northeast, Northwest,
Orangeville, Orleans & Paoli Townships
Spencer County: Harrison & Huff
Townships
8 Harrison County: All 46,655 +.06%
Crawford County: Boone, Jennings,
Liberty, Ohio, Sterling &
Whiskey Run Townships
Floyd County: Georgetown & Greenville
Townships
Orange County: Southeast & Stampers
Creek Townships
Washington County: Brown, Howard,
Jackson, Monroe, Pierce, Posey,
Madison, Vernon, Jefferson &
Washington Townships
9 Floyd County: Franklin, Lafayette & 46,314 -.67%
New Albany Townships
10 Clark County: Carr, Jeffersonville, 46,634 +.02%
Silver Creek, Union & Wood
Townships
11 Scott County: All 46,903 +.60%
Clark County: Bethlehem, Charlestown,
Monroe, Oregon, Owen, Utica &
Washington Townships
Jackson County:
Grassy Fork & Vernon Townships
Jefferson County: Graham, Hanover,
Lancaster, Republican, Saluda &
Smyrna Townships
Jennings County: Marion &
Montgomery Townships
Washington County:
Franklin, Gibson & Polk Townships
*1370
DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION
12 Ohio County: All 46,491 -.29%
Switzerland County: All
Dearborn County: Caesar Creek, Center,
Clay, Hogan, Sparta & Washington
Townships
Jefferson County: Madison, Milton,
Monroe & Shelby Townships
Ripley County: Brown, Center, Johnson,
Shelby & Washington Townships
13 Bartholomew County: Clay, Clifty, 46,444 -.39%
Rock Creek, Sand Creek & Wayne
Townships
Decatur County: Jackson, Marion &
Sand Creek Townships
Jackson County: Jackson, Redding &
Washington Townships
Jennings County: Bigger, Campbell,
Center, Columbia, Geneva, Lovett,
Sand Creek, Spencer & Vernon
Townships
Ripley County: Otter Creek Township
14 Bartholomew County: Columbus, 46,455 -.37%
Flat Rock, German & Haw Creek
Townships in addition to Unorganized
Territory
Decatur County: Clay Township
Johnson County: Blue River Township
Shelby County: Jackson, Noble &
Washington Townships
15 Brown County: All 46,331 -.63%
Bartholomew County: Harrison,
Jackson & Ohio Townships
Jackson County: Brownstown, Carr,
Driftwood, Hamilton, Owen, Pershing &
Salt Creek Townships
Lawrence County: Bono, Guthrie, Marshall,
Pleasant Run & Shawswick Townships
16 Martin County: All 47,045 +.90%
Daviess County: Barr, Harrison,
Madison, Reeve, Van Buren, Veale &
Washington Townships
Greene County: Jackson & Taylor Townships
Lawrence County: Indian Creek, Marion,
Perry & Spice Valley Townships
17 Knox County: All 46,891 +.57%
Daviess County: Bogard, Elmore &
Steele Townships
Gibson County: White River Township
*1371
DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION
18 Sullivan County: All 46,849 +.48%
Clay County: Cass, Harrison
Lewis, Perry, Posey, Jackson
Sugar Ridge & Washington
Townships
Owen County: Marion Township
Vigo County: Honey Creek, Linton,
Pierson, Prairie Creek, Prairieton &
Riley Townships
19 Greene County: Beech Creek, Cass, 46,366 -.56%
Center, Fairplay, Grant, Highland,
Jefferson, Richland, Smith, Stafford,
Stockton, Wright & Washington
Townships
Monroe County: Bean Blossom, Clear
Creek, Indian Creek, Polk, Richland,
Salt Creek, Washington & Van Buren
Townships
Owen County: Clay, Jefferson, Franklin,
Lafayette, Montgomery, Morgan,
Washington & Wayne Townships
20 Monroe County: Benton, Bloomington & 46,402 -.48%
Perry Townships
21 Hendricks County: Guilford, Liberty & 46,266 -.77%
Washington Townships
Morgan County: Adams, Ashland
Baker, Brown, Greene, Gregg,
Jefferson, Monroe, Ray &
Washington Townships
Owen County: Harrison & Taylor
Townships
22 Hendricks County: Brown, Center, 46,255 -.79%
Clay, Eel River, Franklin,
Lincoln, Marion, Middle &
Union Townships
Owen County: Jackson & Jennings
Townships
Putnam County: Clinton, Cloverdale,
Floyd, Franklin, Greencastle,
Jackson, Jefferson, Madison, Marion,
Monroe, Warren & Washington
Townships
23 Vigo County: Lost Creek Township 46,563 -.13%
Harrison Township:
Tracts E & G
Tract D: Blocks 1-223,
224 split[#]
Tract F: Blocks 1-207,
209-220
Tract B: Blocks 243-293
*1372
DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION
24 Vigo County: Fayette, Otter 46,362 -.56%
Creek & Sugar Creek Townships
Harrison Township:
Tracts A & C
Tract B: Blocks 1-242
25 Parke County: All 46,159 -.99%
Clay County: Brazil, Dick Johnson &
Van Buren Townships
Vermillion County: Clinton, Eugene,
Helt & Vermillion Townships
Vigo County: Nevins Township
26 Montgomery County: All 46,506 -.26%
Fountain County: Cain, Fulton,
Jackson, Mill Creek, Troy,
Van Buren & Wabash Townships
Putnam County: Russell Township
Vermillion County: Highland Township
Warren County: Kent & Mound Townships
27 Clinton County: All 46,832 +.44%
Carroll County: Burlington &
Democrat Townships
Howard County: Honey Creek &
Monroe Townships
Tippecanoe County: Lauramie,
Randolph, Sheffield & Wea
Townships
Tipton County: Jefferson & Prairie
Townships
28 Carroll County: Clay Township 46,346 -.60%
Tippecanoe County: Fairfield &
Perry Townships
29 Benton County: Bolivar Township 46,467 -.34%
Fountain County: Davis, Logan,
Richland & Shawnee Townships
Tippecanoe County: Jackson, Shelby,
Union, Wabash & Wayne Townships
Warren County: Adams, Jordan, Liberty,
Medina, Pike, Pine, Prairie, Steuben,
Warren & Washington Townships
30 Jasper County: All 46,788 +.35%
Newton County: All
Benton County: Center, Gilboa,
Grant, Hickory Grove, Oak Grove,
Parish Grove, Pine, Richland,
Union & York Townships
Pulaski County: Cass & White Post
Townships
Starke County: Railroad Township
White County: Princeton, Round
Grove & West Point Townships
*1373
DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION
31 LaPorte County: Cass, Center 46,845 +.47%
Clinton, Dewey, Hanna, New
Durham, Noble & Scipio
Townships
Porter County: Boone, Jackson,
Morgan, Pleasant, Porter,
Union & Washington Townships
32 Lake County: Cedar Creek, Center, 46,779 +.33%
Eagle Creek, Hanover, Ross,
West Creek & Winfield Townships
33 Lake County: 46,641 +.03%
Tracts SJT60, NOT53, HMC52
Tract HMC49: Blocks 37-67
Tract HMC51: Blocks 42, 45, 166
34 Lake County: 46,646 +.04%
Tracts CAT54 & CAT55,
Tract GAC6: Blocks 426-455,
533-539
Tract GAC26: Blocks 44-47, 58-65,
69-79, 84-108, 111-149,
152-178, 179
Tract GAC27: Blocks 19-97
35 Lake County: 46,602 -.05%
Tracts HMC42, HMC43, HMC44,
HMC45, HMC50
Tract HMC46: Blocks 1-38, 47-52[*],
61-68, 73
Tract HMC49: Blocks 1-36
Tract HMC51: Blocks 2-6, 11-17,
19-26
Tract ECC37: Blocks 1-67, 76-80
36 Lake County: 46,530 -.20%
Tracts HMC40, HMC41, ECC28,
ECC28cv, ECC35, NOT38,
NOT39, ECC29cv.
Tract ECC29: Blocks 1-13, 16-55
Tract ECC36: Blocks 1-3, 7-20,
28-40, 44 split[#]
Tract ECC37: Blocks 68-75
37 Lake County: 46,772 +.31%
Tracts HMC47 & HMC48
Tract HMC46: Blocks 39-44, 53-60
69-72
Tract HMC51: Blocks 1, 18, 27-41,
46-165, 167-215
*1374
DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION
38 Lake County: 46,563 -.13%
Tracts ECC30, ECC31, ECC32,
ECC33 & ECC34
Tract ECC29: Blocks 14-15
Tract ECC36: Blocks 4-6, 21-27,
41-43, 44 split[#], & 45
Tract GAC1: Blocks 34-40
Tract GCA6: Blocks 1-80, 85-130,
132-179, 182-231, 234, 239,
240-425, 460-532
39 Lake County: 46,601 -.05%
Tracts GAC18, GAC19, GAC20,
GAC23 and GAC25
Tract GAC16: Blocks 39-45
Tract GAC21: Blocks 10-21, 28-31
Tract GAC27: Blocks 3-18
40 Lake County: 46,652 +.06%
Tracts GAC14, GAC15, GAC17,
GAC22 & GAC24
Tract GAC16: Blocks 1-38
Tract GAC21: Blocks 1-9, 22-27,
32-34
Tract GAC26: Blocks 1-43
Tract GAC27: Blocks 102
41 Lake County: 46,824 +.43%
Tracts GAC2, GAC3, GAC4, GAC5,
GAC7, GAC8, GAC9, GAC10,
GAC11, & GAC12
Tract GAC1: Blocks 1-33, 41-188
Tract GAC6: Blocks 81-84, 131
180-181, 232-233, 235-238,
456-459
Tract GAC13: Block 1
42 Lake County: 46,659 +.07%
Tracts HOT56, HOT57, & HOT58
Tract GAC13: Blocks 2-50
Tract GAC26: Blocks 48-57,
66-68, 80-83, 109-110,
150-151
43 Porter County: Center, Liberty, 46,484 -.30%
Portage & Westchester Townships
44 LaPorte County: Cool Spring & 47,081 +.98%
Michigan Townships
Porter County: Pine Township
*1375
DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION
45 LaPorte County: Galena, Hudson, 46,621 -.01%
Johnson, Kankakee, Lincoln,
Pleasant, Prairie, Springfield,
Union, Washington & Wills Townships
Marshall County: Center, North, Polk &
West Townships
St. Joseph County: Olive Township
Starke County: California, Center,
Davis, Jackson, Oregon & Washington
Townships
46 St. Joseph County: 46,566 -.13%
Tracts C109, C111, C119-C123,
22, 24, 26-28, 34
Tract 20: Blocks 37-40
47 St. Joseph County: 46,648 +.05%
Tracts: C110, 1-7, 19, 21, 23, 25
Tract 18: Blocks 2-9, 15-21,
26-29, 35-38
Tract 20: Blocks 1-36, 41-45
48 St. Joseph County: 46,584 -.09%
Tracts C112, C113, 8-13, 17
Tract 18: Blocks 1, 10-14,
22-25, 30-34, 39-42
49 St. Joseph County: 46,591 -.07%
Tracts C117, C118, 14, 16,
29-33, 35
Tract 15: Blocks 1-49, 65-69
50 St. Joseph County 46,876 +.54%
Tracts M101, M102, M103, M104
M105, M106, M107, C114,
C115, C116
Tract 15: Blocks 50-64
51 Elkhart County: 46,464 -.35%
Baugo, Cleveland, Elkhart,
Harrison, Jackson, Olive &
Osolo Townships
52 Elkhart County: Concord, 46,971 +.74%
Jefferson & Washington Townships
53 LaGrange County: All 46,165 -.99%
Elkhart County: Clinton,
Middlebury & York Townships
Noble County: Albion, Allen,
Elkhart, Orange, Perry, Sparta,
Wayne & York Townships and
Jefferson Township
*1376
DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION
54 DeKalb County: All 46,864 +.51%
Steuben County: All
Noble County: Swan Township
55 Allen County: 47,040 +.89%
Tracts C101, C102, C103, C108-C113,
C118, C119
Tract 1: Block 51
Tract 33: Block 1
56 Allen County: 47,047 +.91%
Tracts 2-10, 34, 35
Tract 1: Blocks 1-50, 52
Tract 33: Blocks 24-51
57 Allen County: 46,694 +.15%
Tracts 11-21
Tract 25: Blocks 3-7
Tract 27: Blocks 1-6
58 Allen County: 46,778 +.33%
Tracts 26, 28-32, 23, 40
Tract 25: Blocks 1, 2, 8-45
Tract 27: Blocks 7-62
Tract 36: Blocks 1-6, 9-18
59 Allen County: 46,902 +.59%
Tracts 22, 24, 37-39, C104-C107
C114-C117
Tract 33, Blocks 2-23, 52-55
Tract 36: Blocks 7, 8, 19-37
Huntington County: Jackson Township
60 Whitley County: All 46,626 +.01%
Huntington County: Clear Creek,
Huntington & Warren Townships
Kosciusko County, Monroe Township
Noble County: Green, Noble &
Washington Townships
61 Elkhart County: Benton, Locke & 47,091 +.99%
Union Townships
Kosciusko County: Jefferson,
Plain, Scott, Tippecanoe,
Turkey Creek, Van Buren,
Washington & Wayne Townships
Marshall County: Bourbon & German
Townships
St. Joseph County: Madison Township
62 Fulton County: Henry & New Castle 46,505 -.26%
Townships
Kosciusko County: Clay, Etna
Franklin, Harrison, Jackson,
Lake, Prairie & Seward Townships
Marshall County: Tippecanoe Township
Miami County: Allen, Erie, Jefferson,
Perry, Peru & Richmond Townships
Wabash County: Chester, Paw Paw &
Pleasant Townships
*1377
DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION
63 Carroll County: Adams, Jefferson, 46,461 -.35%
Rock Creek & Tippecanoe Townships
Fulton County: Aubbeenaubbee &
Richland Townships
Marshall County: Union, Green &
Walnut Townships
Pulaski County: Beaver, Franklin,
Harrison, Indian Creek, Jefferson,
Monroe, Rich Grove, Salem &
Tippecanoe Townships
Starke County: North Bend & Wayne
Townships
Tippecanoe County: Tippecanoe
Township
White County: Big Creek, Cass,
Honey Creek, Jackson, Liberty,
Lincoln, Monon, Prairie & Union
Townships
64 Cass County: Adams, Bethelehem, 46,602 -.05%
Boone, Clay, Clinton, Eel,
Harrison, Jefferson & Noble
Townships
Fulton County: Liberty, Rochester,
Union & Wayne Townships
Miami County: Union Township
Pulaski County: Van Buren Township
65 Carroll County: Carrollton, 46,488 -.29%
Deer Creek, Jackson, Liberty,
Madison, Monroe & Washington
Townships
Cass County: Deer Creek, Jackson,
Miami, Tipton & Washington
Townships
Howard County: Clay, Ervin,
Harrison, Howard, Jackson,
Liberty & Union Townships
That part of Center Township which
is outside the City Limits of the
City of Kokomo, plus Enumeration
District 37P
Miami County: Clay, Deer Creek,
Harrison & Pipe Creek Townships
Tippecanoe County: Washington
Township
66 Howard County: 46,896 +.58%
The City of Kokomo, less
Enumeration District 37P
*1378
DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION
67 Hancock County: Vernon Township 46,483 -.31%
Hamilton County: Fall Creek,
Jackson, Noblesville, Wayne &
White River Townships
Howard County: Taylor Township
Madison County: Duck Creek, Green &
Jackson Townships
Tipton County: Cicero, Liberty,
Madison & Wildcat Townships
68 Boone County: All 46,891 +.57%
Hamilton County: Adams, Clay,
Delaware & Washington Townships
69 Grant County: Monroe, Richard, Sims 46,666 +.09%
Van Buren & Washington Townships
Huntington County: Dallas, Jefferson,
Lancaster, Polk, Rock Creek,
Salamonie & Wayne Townships
Miami County: Butler, Jackson &
Washington Townships
Wabash County: Lagro, Liberty
Noble & Waltz Townships
70 Grant County: Center, Franklin & 46,407 -.47%
Pleasant Townships
71 Wells County: All 46,218 -.87%
Adams County: Blue Creek, French,
Jefferson, Kirkland, Monroe, Preble,
Root, St. Mary's, Union, Wabash &
Washington Townships
Huntington County: Union Township
72 Blackford County: All 46,299 -.70%
Adams County: Hartford Township
Delaware County: Delaware, Niles &
Union Townships
Grant County: Jefferson Township
Jay County: Bear Creek, Greene,
Jackson, Knox, Noble, Penn,
Richland, Wabash & Wayne
Townships
73 Grant County: Fairmount, Green, 47,028 +.86%
Liberty & Mill Townships
Madison County: Boone, Monroe,
Pipe Creek, Richland &
Van Buren Townships
74 Delaware County: Hamilton, Harrison, 46,646 +.05%
Mount Pleasant & Washington
Townships
Center Township:
Tracts 7-11, 17-20
Tract 2: Blocks 1-11
*1379
DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION
75 Delaware County: Salem Township 47,056 +.92%
Madison County: Adams, Fall Creek,
Lafayette, Stony Creek & Union
Townships
That part of Anderson Township
which is outside the City Limits
of the City of Anderson, and
excluding Enumeration
District 14P
76 Madison County: That part of 47,066 +.95%
the City of Anderson which is
within the Township of Anderson,
plus Enumeration District 14P
77 Jay County: Jefferson, Madison & 46,730 +.22%
Pike Townships
Randolph County: Franklin, Green,
Greensford, Jackson, Monroe,
Union, Ward, Washington, Wayne &
White River Townships
Wayne County: Abington, Center,
Clay, Dalton, Franklin, Green,
New Garden, Perry & Webster
Townships
That part of Wayne Township
outside the City Limits of the
City of Richmond, less Enumeration
District 11NA, Enumeration District
11NB, and Enumeration District 14
78 Wayne County: The City of Richmond, 46,358 -.57%
plus Enumeration District 11NA,
Enumeration District 11NB
and Enumeration District 14
(47R not included)
(Richmond Airport)
79 Delaware County: 46,865 +.52%
Center Township (Pt. of Muncie)
Tracts 1, 3-6, 12-16, 21
Tract 2: Blocks 12-81
80 Delaware County: Liberty, Monroe & 46,550 -.16%
Perry Townships
Henry County: Blue River, Fall
Creek, Harrison, Henry, Jefferson,
Liberty, Prairie & Stony Creek Twps.
Randolph County: Stoney Creek
Township
81 Fayette County: All 46,173 -.97%
Henry County: Dudley Township
Rush County: Noble, Richland,
Union & Washington Townships
Union County: Brownsville, Center,
Harrison, Liberty & Union
Townships
Wayne County: Boston, Harrison,
Jackson, Jefferson & Washington
Townships
(Including 47R)
*1380
DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION
82 Franklin County: All 46,541 -.18%
Dearborn County: Harrison,
Jackson, Kelso, Lawrenceburg,
Logan, Manchester, Miller &
York Townships
Ripley County: Adams, Delaware,
Franklin, Jackson & Laughery
Townships
Union County: Harmony Township
83 Decatur County: Adams, Clinton, 46,445 -.39%
Fugit, Salt Creek & Washington
Townships
Hancock County: Blue River, Brown,
Green & Jackson Townships
Henry County: Franklin, Greensboro,
Spiceland & Wayne Townships
Rush County: Anderson, Center,
Jackson, Orange, Posey, Ripley,
Rushville & Walker Townships
Shelby County: Union Township
84 Hancock County: Buck Creek, Center, 46,426 -.43%
Sugar Creek & Brandywine
Townships
Shelby County: Addison, Brandywine,
Hanover, Hendricks, Liberty,
Marion, Moral, Shelby, Sugar
Creek & Van Buren Townships
85 Johnson County: Clark, Franklin, 46,959 +.72%
Hensley, Needham, Nineveh,
Pleasant, Union & White River
Townships
Morgan County: Clay, Jackson,
Madison & Harrison Townships
86 Marion County: 46,456 -.36%
Tract 420-425, 427, 701-703, 801
Tract 415: Blocks 23-25
Tract 426: Blocks 10-15, 18, 19,
22-62
87 Marion County: 46,486 -.30%
Tracts 802-812, 903, 904
88 Marion County: 46,460 -.35%
Tracts 605, 607-616, 901, 902
Enumeration Districts 140P,
141S, 141T, 142N, 142P,
143R, 144, 145N
89 Marion County: 46,333 -.63%
Tracts 301-310, 602-604
Tract 601: Blocks 42, 43, 51,
58, 59
Enumeration Districts 140R, 140S
*1381
DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION
90 Marion County: 46,582 -.09%
Tracts 207, 212-218, 224-227
Towns of Crow's Nest &
Rocky Ripple
Enumeration District 33N
Tract 205: Block 1
Tract 206: Blocks 1, 2
91 Marion County: 46,602 -.05%
Tracts 201-204, 209-210, 101-103,
404, 405
Tract 205 (that area outside
City of Indianapolis)
Tract 206 (that area outside
City of Indianapolis)
Tract 211 (less Towns of Rocky
Ripple & Crow's Nest)
Tract 403: Blocks 1-8, 29-31
Enumeration Districts 31P, 32N,
32P, 32R, 31S
92 Marion County: 46,612 -.03%
Tracts 401, 402, 406-412, 417-419
Tract 403: Blocks 9-28, 32-38 &
balance of tract outside
City Limits of Indianapolis
93 Marion County: 46,606 -.04%
Tracts 560-563, 566-570, 578-581
Tract 564: Blocks 27-41
Tract 565: Blocks 7-33
94 Marion County: 46,524 -.22%
Tracts 413, 414, 416, 538-542
Tract 415: Blocks 1-22
Tract 426: Blocks 1-9, 16, 17,
20, 21
Tract 534: Blocks 36, 37, 45-47, 54
Tract 535: Blocks 5, 6, 8-64
Tract 537: Blocks 13-38
Tract 543: Blocks 1-49, 51-61,
65-76, 80-84 & 85
Tract 564: Blocks 1-26, 42
Tract 565: Blocks 1-6
95 Marion County: 46,426 -.43%
Tract 559: 571-577
Tract 555: Blocks 40-71
Tract 556: Blocks 35-48
Tract 557: Blocks 5-12, 14, 15,
19-31
Tract 558: Blocks 12-30, 32, 33
*1382
DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF
NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION
96 Marion County: 46,561 -.14%
Tracts 544-554
Tract 543: Blocks 50, 62-64, 77-79
Tract 555: Blocks 1-39
Tract 556: Blocks 1-34
Tract 557: Blocks 1-4, 13, 16-18
Tract 558: Blocks 1-11, 31
97 Marion County: 46,560 -.14%
Tracts 512-516, 533, 536
Tract 501: Blocks 8-47
Tract 509: Blocks 23-32
Tract 517: Blocks 16, 17, 36-39,
53-56
Tract 532: Blocks 5-10, 19-24
32-37, 46-51, 60-65
Tract 534: Blocks 1-35, 38-44,
48-53
Tract 535: Blocks 1-4, 7
Tract 537: Blocks 1-12
98 Marion County 46,572 -.11%
Tracts 219-223, 502-504, 510, 511
Tract 501: Blocks 1-7
Tract 505: Blocks 15, 39, 40
Tract 508: Blocks 10-19, 33-38, 44
Tract 509: Blocks 1-22
99 Marion County 46,412 -.46%
Tracts 518-520, 527-531
Tract 517: Blocks 1-15, 18-35,
40-52, 57-63
Tract 521: Blocks 16-23, 33-42
Tract 532: Blocks 1-4, 11-18,
25-31, 38-45, 52-59, 66-69
100 Marion County: 46,375 -.54%
Tracts 506, 507, 522-526
Tract 505: Blocks 1-14, 16-38,
41-51
Tract 508: Blocks 1-9, 20-32,
39-43
Tract 521: Blocks 1-15, 24-32,
43-47
Tract 601: Blocks 1-41, 44-50,
52-57, 60-79
Tract 601: Outside Indianapolis
City Limits
SENATE DISTRICTS CONSISTS OF HOUSE NUMBER DISTRICTS 1 1 and 2 2 3 and 4 3 5 and 6 4 7 and 8 5 9 and 10 6 11 and 12 7 13 and 14 8 15 and 16 9 17 and 18 10 19 and 20 11 21 and 22 12 23 and 24 13 25 and 26 14 27 and 28 15 29 and 30 16 31 and 32 17 33 and 34 18 35 and 36 19 37 and 38 20 39 and 40 21 41 and 42 22 43 and 44 23 45 and 46 24 47 and 48 25 49 and 50 26 51 and 52 27 53 and 54 28 55 and 56 29 57 and 58 30 59 and 60 31 61 and 62 32 63 and 64 33 65 and 66 34 67 and 68 35 69 and 70 36 71 and 72 37 73 and 74 38 75 and 76 39 77 and 78 40 79 and 80 41 81 and 82 42 83 and 84 43 85 and 86 44 87 and 88 45 89 and 90 46 91 and 92 47 93 and 94 48 95 and 96 49 97 and 98 50 99 and 100
[1] 305 F.Supp. 1364 (S.D.Ind.1969).
[2] The Court acknowledges with thanks the permission granted by the George F. Cram and R. L. Polk Companies to publish and make use of copyrighted maps, Corporate Boundaries, Marion County, Indiana, and Official Arrow City Map, Hammond and Vicinity, Indiana
[#] Block, contains no population - is split into two (2) districts by a projected line.
[#] This block is split at the Township Line between Harrison and Lost Creek Townships.
[*] There are not any blocks in Tract HMC46 that are numbered 45 or 46. Therefore, this series of blocks starts with number 47.
[#] This block, containing no population, is split into two (2) districts by a projected line.
[#] This block, containing no population, is split into two (2) districts by a projected line.