Is the fight more intense today?

Battle lines have only intensified in the last decade, Helmke said. Republicans in charge of redistricting in 2010 redrew the maps to carve up more densely populated areas like Fort Wayne and Evansville, diluting the urban voters. Fewer state representatives today represent majority-urban interests. National politics has become consumed with a mentality that prioritizes winning over bipartisanship.

Some say, however, the fight is no more intense than it was in the past. David Bottorff has observed the pattern for a long time from his perch at the Association of Indiana Counties: A local group or constituent is unhappy with a local policy, goes over the heads of local elected officials and complains to their state legislator; that lawmaker may take action to respond to their constituents, even as other lawmakers lack the same context. Still, the other lawmakers in the same party may follow their colleague’s lead.

It is possible in the eyes of the state constitution for the state government to pull too hard in this state vs. local tugof-war.

The Indiana constitution prohibits the state from passing “special” laws that target a certain place, person or case. But it makes exceptions for laws that address a specific situation but can have broader applications across the state.

For example, a bill this year to prohibit cities from suing firearm manufacturers clearly targets Gary’s decadesold lawsuit — and the bill’s author said so — but the text of the bill accomplishes this by prohibiting all local governments from doing this, retroactive to before the date of Gary’s lawsuit. House Bill 1235 passed the House by a party line vote and is working its way through the Senate.

The General Assembly in 2015 tried to halt the suit by amending an existing immunity law to a retroactive date before Gary filed suit. An appeals court allowed the suit to continue, but the court also decided that the City of Gary had not proved the law was unconstitutional.

Laws that target Indianapolis come even closer to this threshhold. A law passed in 2023 specifically bars “a consolidated city” from passing a no-turnon-red ordinance. There’s only one consolidated city in the state: Indianapolis.

House Speaker Huston said state lawmakers believe this kind of language would survive a challenge.

“A lot of bills have been passed over the years around this issue,” Huston said. “That’s been litigated, and we’re conscientious of that. Ultimately, we feel like what we’re doing passes muster.”

Indianapolis had its own workaround: It passed its ordinance in the months before the new state law went into effect. So this year, state Sen. Aaron Freeman floated a new bill to make that state law retroactive to before Indianapolis’ ordinance. He’s since compromised, calling instead for a moratorium on new signs while the state can study the efficacy of such a policy.

When the Indiana General Assembly passes laws undoing those of its cousins in local government, the only recourse city officials have is to bring suit. That decision means expending political capital fighting the state in court, Helmke said. Plus, with bills such as House Bill 1235 saying only the attorney general can sue gun manufacturers, the state is now attempting to exert control over the courts, potentially further weakening the power of municipalities.

“It really does call into question, why do we have local government?” Helmke said.

Contact IndyStar state government and politics reporter Kayla Dwyer at kdwyer@indystar.com or follow her on Twitter @kayla_dwyer17 .