Decision expected next week on district map

The judge deciding whether a new district map adopted by the East Chicago City Council on Jan. 11 should stand will make a decision in the case early next week.

Lake Superior Court Civil Division Judge Bruce Parent acknowledged that time is of the essence in a hearing Thursday where he considered arguments from attorneys for East Chicago Mayor Anthony Copeland, who sued the City Council Jan. 27 to stop the Lake County Board of Elections and Voter Registration from implementing a new map for this year’s election cycle and instead revert back to the existing map drawn after the 2010 U.S. Census.

“This one’s a tough one,” Parent said.

He gave the sides until 9 a.m. Friday to file any remaining briefs and said he would swiftly consider the matter.

Parent is considering a question over state statute with underlying constitutional implications.

If he were to agree with the mayor and find the council’s ordinance and map unlawful because the council missed the Dec. 31, 2022, filing deadline required by state statute, a map that would violate the one voter one vote principal of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would be put in place, disenfranchising voters and opening the city up to federal civil rights litigation.

The existing district map in East Chicago carries a 58% population differential, according to Kelsey Kauffman with Indiana Local Redistricting.

Kauffman was called as an expert witness by the defense. She has worked on redistricting issues for 13 years and testified she reached out to the city in November to let them know they had the largest population differential of any second class city in the state. The optimum population differential is no more than 10%.

Since the population differential within the city is 58%, it means votes cast by voters in District 3 —

which has the lowest population — are counting twice as much as votes cast by voters in District 2, which has the highest population.

When asked what would happen if the judge decides in favor of the plaintiff and allows the existing maps to stay in place, Kauffman said, “They use the existing maps until they get sued (on constitutional grounds).”

In making his argument, Copeland’s attorney Jewell

Harris Jr. said the matter was simple. State statute says an ordinance is not approved until the mayor signs it or the city council overrides the pocket or written veto. Since the council did not override the pocket veto until January, it missed the Dec. 31 state deadline to approve the redistricting maps.

Missing the deadline, he said, makes the ordinance and the maps illegal.

“Quite frankly, none of us would be here today if they would have started before Dec. 14,” Harris said.

Attorney Alfredo Estrada, representing the city council, questioned the inaction by the mayor in the days leading up to the city council taking action on the map. He asked why the mayor did not call a meeting, reach out or ask questions.

Harris countered the responsibility of redistricting lies solely with the council. From the stand, Copeland said there was no notice from the council regarding the redistricting plan and the measure did not appear on the Dec. 14 regular agenda. The redistricting ordinance was added to the agenda from the floor during the meeting.

Copeland testified that he was prepared to sign the ordinance on Dec. 28 — its third reading after the council unanimously approved the document at the Dec. 14 meeting. When an amendment was introduced Dec. 28 and three council members were not aware of it, the measure passed 6-3 on third reading. He decided to veto the ordinance due to the trust he has built with the three council members who opposed the final reading.

He lamented the council waiting until the last minute and decried how the map was created in the absence of any stakeholders, including the school board, Democratic precinct organization and the public at large.

“We get one shot to get it right in that 10-year period,” Copeland said. “This cannot be done in a veil of secrecy.”

After the hearing, City Attorney Angela Jones said she was unaware the mayor and some members of the council had problems with the amended map prior to the lawsuit being filed. She said those changes were minor, including shifting two blocks between districts.

She called the lawsuit a problem of the mayor’s own making.

Much work was put into the map once it was realized the severity of the population differential in an effort to correct that for the voters, describing the process as arduous. Jones said reverting to the existing map would do more harm to voters than good.

“We did right by voters the best we could,” Jones said.