Quorum denied.

• Author: Ketzenberger, John
• Position: Indiana House - Includes related articles

Indiana House Democrats used the minority's ultimate constitutional tool to get their way when the Republican speaker tried to force redistricting.

Indiana Speaker Paul S. Mannweiler believes his mid-session plan to reduce House membership from 100 to 99 and the accompanying redistricting was good government. In power for the first time since sharing the speakership with Democrats during a 50-50 split in 1989-90, Mannweiler says he felt a responsibility to make sure the House wouldn't again be hindered by a tie.

But House Democrats, who were in control of the last reapportionment, didn't see it that way.

After a 90-minute caucus March 23, they packed their bags, checked out of their hotel rooms and quickly left the Statehouse. "We're not going to sit and take it," said Representative Win Moses.

Mannweiler was aware that his proposal, coming as it did just five years after the last federal census, could be seen as a strictly political move. But, he insisted, it was needed to avoid the hurly-burly atmosphere he experienced as co-speaker six years ago. Shared power is a two-headed administrative monster best avoided, Mannweiler says.

"I know firsthand that the people of the state were not well-served under that arrangement," he says. "There was no system of checks and balances, extra House employees were needed, the legislative budget jumped by more than $2 million, and more than 100 additional bills got through the House.

"This move is not being made for political gain," Mannweiler said in announcing his plan to reduce numbers, "but rather for better representation and more responsive government for Hoosiers." He noted that there were other states that had odd-numbered chambers to avoid ties.

Democrats, though, didn't buy the speaker's sales pitch. They'd tasted power for the first time in a generation during the 50-50 split and then gained a majority for four years before losing it in the November elections. They weren't about to watch any hopes for regaining the majority vanish in a Republican-controlled redistricting.

"What they are doing is an unconstitutional act that will no doubt jeopardize some of the important issues we were elected to deal with this year," said Representative John R. Gregg, the first-year Democratic leader, foreshadowing a walkout. "This is a pure power grab."

The plan's real purpose, many speculated, was to shore up districts held by ultra-conservative Republicans who rode into office on the conservative tidal wave last fall. Leadership, said political science professor Brian Vargus, "was forced to take a look at redistricting due to the antics of their freshmen." Many of the 16 new GOP members in the House make no bones about their religious right connections or their pro-term limits, anti-abortion, no-new-spending-for-anything agendas.

The conservative turn unsettled many long-time moderates in the GOP caucus, Vargus says. As evidence, he said, one Republican, Representative Barbara Engle, bucked national trends and defected to the Democrats on the session's last day, April 29. Engle, who voted against the caucus on issues she'd supported in the past, said she hadn't left the party - it had left her.

Many of the new Republicans won in districts traditionally controlled by Democrats, Vargus says, and haven't seemed concerned about whether they'll be re-elected. But "some in leadership were a little bit worried" about maintaining their majority, he ventures.

And it was no coincidence that a consultant the House Republicans last used in the 1991 remapping visited GOP leaders less than a month before Mannweiler went public with his plan, Gregg says. Washington D.C.-based consultant John Morgan did visit the caucus, says Representative John S. Keeler, but not to discuss redistricting.

Besides, Republican leaders say, the proposal only contained a generic resolution to reduce membership. Democrats, Mannweiler said, could participate in filling in the details. But Democrats believed Mannweiler already had the specifics nailed down. Most Republicans, they noted, had already been shown prospective maps of their new districts.

So, after a 90-minute caucus March 23, Democrats went home. For the first time since 1925 and for only the second time in state history, lawmakers left in mid-session. Quorum denied, action on the House floor ground to a halt. Democrats would not return, Gregg promised, unless Mannweiler pulled his plan.

WHAT TO DO WITH A SPLIT

Split chambers, which are a possibility in 61 bodies with even numbers, may prompt talk of expanding or reducing membership to ensure that one party maintains control. The system isn't set up for exactly equal representation, the arguments go, so legislators must find a...