Indianapolis Recorder, Indianapolis, Marion County, 21 February 2003 — Page 3

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2003

THE INDIANAPOLIS RECORDER

PAGE A3

BITTER

► Continued from Pag* 1

charged that the “court deliberations were conducted less than 24 hours (after the trial) over the lunch hour” and complained that “many judges could not, and did not, read the material, were absent at trial, or never read the material, yet deliberated and ruled on the merits.” Under Indiana and federal law, redistricting plans have to meet the following standards: are the districts “compact”; are districts “equal” in population; have any precincts been divided and have the voting rights of minority groups been protected with minorities having the opportunity to elect candidates of their “choice.” On the issue of compactness, the court was bitterly divided. The Republicans’ expert witness, University of Kentucky professor Dr. Stephen Voss testified that the districts in the Republican plan were compact. But Judge Dreyer’s dissent and a concurring dissent by Judge Jane Mangus-Stinson, took strong exception to Voss’ testimony and logic. Wrote Judge Dreyer, “District 9 ••• is clearly not compact on its face. Dr. Voss found no justification for it, other than his guess it must be ‘residual,’ that is, some sort of leftover area that does not fit within the mapmaker’s other intentions. There is no allowance for ‘residual’ districts in the statute, only compact ones. Voss even admitted he does not favor ‘residual’ districts, yet he blessed District 9 without any sound basis.” Judge Mangus-Stinson wrote, “District 17 is divided by 1-65 and 38th Street. Voss, without citing any factual support, testified that 1-65 was a unifying aspect to this district. Perhaps interstate highways unify communities in Voss’ home state of Kentucky. There is no evidence that they perform such a civic function in Indianapo-

lis.” In its ruling, the court took the unusual step of directly attacking the credibility and veracity of the Democrats’ chief expert witness, Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services, one of the country’s leading experts on redistricting. The majority opinion said, “In fact, Mr. Brace was thoroughly discredited as an expert witness in this matter as a result of his conduct in this case and the numerous prior judicial findings cited to the court and upon which Mr. Brace gave testimony.” During the trial. Democrats with the help of Brace introduced a proposed redistricting plan to demonstrate to the court that an independent expert, or special master, could create a non-partisan redistricting plan in a short period of time. However, the court rejected the idea of hiring a special master. “Appointment of a master is not necessary because the redistricting map this court now orders addresses all of the key legal criteria for a redistricting plan,” the majority wrote. “Further, appointment of a special master would impose a significant cost upon the taxpayers of this county,... it is an important consideration the court has balanced with all the other important and compelling issues it has determined.” The issue of the voting rights of the city/county’s AfricanAmerican community took up a significant part of both the majority and dissenting opinions in this case. The majority ruling cites a 1992 case in the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Baird vs. Consolidated City of Indianapolis. In that 11-year-old case, the federal appeals court upheld the creation in 1991 of seven Blackmajority districts for the Cifyr County Council.

The Republican judges held that the Baird case continues as the standard under which the Republican redistricting plan should be considered, “a significant factor in favor of the districts drawn is that it contains seven compact districts in which the voting age African-Ameri-can population constitutes a majority.” The GOP-majority goes on to say that, “The dissent contends this ‘packing’ of African-Ameri-can citizens of our county does a disservice to African Americans. To the contrary, majority minority districts ensure and protect the right of minorities to compete for electoral success. Failure to provide majority minority districts, which is advocated by the dissent, would undermine the influence of minority votes ... (and) likely lead to claims of a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.” In abitter concurring dissent, Judge Grant Hawkins wrote, “Essentially, we are told (the Republican plan) saves us from a successful Voting Rights Act lawsuit. Where are the findings that justify such an assertion? Where is the evidence of racially polarized voting?” Judge Hawkins added, “The bloc voting political majority on the City-County Council - two of whose members referred to African Americans who attended Indiana Black Expo as ‘gorillas and thugs’ - and the bloc voting political majority of this court save us from a danger we do not face. However, by crying ‘Wolf!’ these political majorities guarantee African Americans a lesser voice.” Under state law, the Indiana Supreme Court has immediate appellate jurisdiction in this case. Legal experts anticipate that the Supreme Court could hear the case sometime early next month.

But at Crown Hill Funeral Home, you can make cemetery and funeral arrangements for a meaningful remembrance At One Place, At One Price, At One Time. At Crown Hill, we can help make a difficult time just a little easier. For more information, call 925.3800. Crown Hill A Wise Decision. drown Hill 1U N IRA I. IIOMI AND Cl M KTKRY 700 Wesi 3&thStreet Indianapolis, IN 46208 l > u (Vl7)925-3800 l ; x(317)920-2630 www.cRoWNimi.oiu;

Yes I want to subscribe to

The Indianapolis Recorder Payment Enclosed is $ for my year(s) subscription

Name Home Address (,ity,State,Zip I)a\ Phone i_.. Evening Phone

Yes send a gift subscription in my behalf to:

Name Home Address City,Slate,Zip Day Phone Evening Phone Charge my Card # Signature

Visa

Master Card Discover l-Ap. Date /

2 ( )()l North Tacoma Avenue • Indianapolis, IN ibilS • 3r- l 124-5H3 * Otter expires March 1, 200.1