Tully: A plan that would make Indiana a stronger state

Tom Sugar may or may not run for governor. But one thing is clear: He has a great plan that would make Indiana a stronger state.

The longtime top adviser to former governor and senator Evan Bayh gets quite excited about his plan, and rightfully so. After all, anything that could reduce the partisan isolationism that is taking over American and Indiana politics is a good thing.

A great thing, actually.

Sugar’s plan is based on the simple concept of taking political and partisan concerns out of the way when General Assembly and congressional districts are drawn. It’s one of those ideas that nearly everybody knows is right but that goes nowhere because of politics and apathy.

(It’s also one of those ideas that columnists love to write about but fear that nobody will read about. So please, prove me wrong!)

Here’s the thing: Partisanship is locked into our politics now. It prevents serious debates about everything from crime and energy, to immigration reform and education. And the way our districts are drawn, cynically and with partisan motives, makes everything worse

“The current system is an absolute joke,” he said over lunch recently. “An absolute joke.”

That’s true. But could someone actually launch a gubernatorial plan on the less-than-sexy issue of redistricting? Could a candidate really get people excited about this idea, as Sugar insists he would?

The realist in me says no. The dreamer, though, loves the idea. And as crazy as it seems, Sugar, who is vice president of Complete College America, a nonprofit that works to improve the college graduation rate, makes a good case for it. The key is to show people how the current system kills any attempts to tackle big issues.

“Just look at this,” he said. “This tells the story,”

He’s leafing through a booklet he has filled with discouraging data. For instance, not one of the nine Indiana congressional districts drawn after the 2010 census is considered competitive. Not one.

Essentially, that means our state doesn’t matter in the battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives, and that’s not healthy. That also means our general elections are not the battle of ideas that they should be, and that’s not good.

At the state level, the winner in 54 of 100 races for the Indiana House in 2014 ran unopposed because the districts were so gerrymandered that the other party had no chance of winning. Mitt Romney won 54 percent of the vote in 2012 in Indiana, but thanks in part to GOP gerrymandering Republicans won 40 of 50 seats in the Senate and 71 of 100 in the House in 2014.

“This isn’t your grandfather’s redistricting,” Sugar said, adding that in this hyperpartisan digital era gerrymandering become so precise that general-election competition has been eliminated from most districts. That means the majority party worries most about primary challenges from partisan purists, and not about having to attract the vast middle that often determines competitive elections.

Please don’t think I support this because Republicans are the current beneficiary of the process in Indiana. Democrats have drawn maps with equally partisan mindsets in the past, and like Republicans they will do so in the future. Democrats draw maps just as bad as Indiana’s in states that are our mirror image politically.

Wrong is wrong. Fair elections are right.

Sugar’s proposal, dubbed “Lead or Leave,” advocates a non-partisan redistricting commission. The new commission would be freed of politically minded criteria as it draws maps every 10 years — criteria such as where incumbents live and how voters and communities voted in the past. The goal instead would be compact, sensible districts in which cities and counties, as much as possible, are not divided into different districts.

Overnight, our elections would grow more competitive. Republicans would continue to have the upper hand, but the percentage of seats each party would win would likely come closer to matching the percentage of votes they receive.

Imagine that.

“There’s a simple choice to be made,” Sugar said. “Do we take politics out of the process or don’t we?”

Fixing the problem has been done. The state of Iowa created a nonpartisan commission years ago, removing elected lawmakers from the process, and the result has been a series of healthy and competitive congressional and Statehouse races in which the results largely mirror the partisan makeup of the state.

Thanks to Indiana’s gerrymandered districts, meanwhile, competitive races here are rare. Democrats have little chance of gaining a majority of seats in the Statehouse or congressional delegation, and voters often have no real choice on Election Day. To their credit, Republicans leaders have created a committee to study the idea of nonpartisan redistricting. But nobody I’ve talked to expects the idea to gain serious traction.

That’s a problem. Because Indiana needs to tackle a ton of challenges and it needs a healthy two-party system and a diversity of ideas to do so.

Although wonky issues like this one don’t often sweep people into high office, their importance shouldn’t be dismissed. Sugar is talking about something very important. It sure would be nice to see more politicians, and more voters, join the conversation.

You can reach me at matthew.tully@indystar.com or at Twitter.com/matthewltully.