DEMOCRACY

MADVoters believes in the importance of strengthening democracy through civic engagement.

We seek to:

Protect the principles of democracy, like checks and balances and separation of powers, and empower “We the People.”
Defend civil liberties and personal choice, and guard against government overreach and Christian nationalism.
Expand voting rights and access.

TALKING POINTS

THE SUPERMAJORITY & SINGLE PARTY RULE

Indiana has been controlled by the same party for over 20 years: the Governor & Executive Offices since 2005, the Senate since the 1970s, and the House since 2010. Prior to the 2026 elections, 73% of Indiana legislators belonged to the Republican party, even though less than 60% of voters typically vote Republican. It means that there are systems in place to give disproportionate power and representation.

Click the image to view MADVoters Democracy Advocacy Series, or download a PDF version here.

A simple majority means at least half of the chamber belongs to the same party. The majority party controls:

The legislative process, including chamber leadership, committee control, and determination of legislative priorities. The ruling party decides which bills to consider for law.
The legislative redistricting process. The ruling party can gerrymander districts in their favor.
Has a veto-proof majority over the Governor. The ruling party can overrule a veto and force passage of a bill even if the governor opposes it.

Within the Indiana Senate and House, Republicans gained supermajority status in 2012. Because the Governor is also a member of the same party as the legislature, Republicans have a trifecta in Indiana’s government.

A supermajority means at least 2/3 of the chamber belongs to the same party. In addition to the above powers of a majority, a supermajority is able to meet quorum all on their own, meaning the minority party could be completely absent, and the legislature could still conduct business.

Their numbers give them total control, and gerrymandering makes it very difficult to reduce those numbers. It is easy for them to violate norms and trample the minority party because there is no recourse against them. They don’t even need to attempt compromise or be bipartisan, because they have enough members in their own party to pass laws, even if the bill is opposed by every minority member. Ultimately, the ruling party is able to completely overrule the minority party in a supermajority situation.

Supermajorities tend to focus on more extreme, more polarized issues, even if they are unpopular with voters, and because they are less likely to face challengers in the election, they are less accountable to voters.

Indiana’s current Republican supermajority-trifecta didn’t happen by accident - it was the result of years of rollbacks on voting rights and accessibility. How did this happen?

Back in 2008, Indiana went blue for President Obama. In response to his landslide win that year, Republicans drafted a plan to redraw state and Congressional voting maps in their favor. That plan was called Project REDMAP (REDistricting MAjority Project). By strategically investing in state legislative races, Republicans gained control of several swing states and with that, control of the map-drawing process after the 2010 census.

Project REDMAP worked in Republicans' favor and paved the way for today’s dynamics, ending any balance in Indiana politics.

In the 2011 redistricting cycles, Indiana Republicans redrew the Congressional, State House, and State Senate districts to be extremely biased in their favor. This is a process known as partisan gerrymandering. That year, the Congressional map drawn by Indiana’s statehouse Republicans was more skewed than 84% of the other Congressional maps nationwide. The State Senate map was more skewed than 96% of other maps nationwide, and the State House was 93% more skewed.

Averaged together, all of Indiana’s voting maps that went into effect for the 2012 election were heavily biased in Republicans’ favor – 91% more skewed than maps across the country. This partisan gerrymandering allowed both chambers of the Indiana General Assembly to balloon to supermajority status.

Sources: https://planscore.org/indiana/#!2012-plan-ushouse-pb, https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_Indiana_state_government, https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/28/fifty-supermajority-state-elections-laws-00103646

PARTISAN GERRYMANDERING

Unlike other states that require nonpartisan or bipartisan commissions to oversee redistricting, Indiana allows the majority party to control this process, turning what should be nonpartisan redistricting into partisan gerrymandering. Once gerrymandering is established, it's incredibly difficult for the minority party to get a foothold and regain seats.

Disinformation abounds about “which party gerrymanders more.” It was one of the arguments made by the Trump administration to Republican-controlled states to justify early redistricting in 2025, pressuring those states to redraw Congressional voting maps 6 years early to make them more favorable for Republicans ahead of the midterms.

But here’s the reality: 74% of Red states currently permit partisan gerrymandering, compared to 44% of Blue states. Said another way, while over half of Blue states have guardrails in place to prevent or reduce partisan gerrymandering, only a quarter of Red states do.

Source: https://thearp.org/blog/party-control/2024-functional-control/

In the previous redistricting cycle, Republicans had controlled redistricting in 19 states, accounting for 41% of Congressional seats. Democrats had controlled redistricting in 7 states, accounting for 11% of Congressional seats. 6 states only had one Congressional district, so they didn’t have redistricting. A nonpartisan or bipartisan commission had controlled redistricting in 11 states, accounting for 32% of Congressional seats. Courts determined redistricting in 7 states, accounting for 13% of Congressional seats.

Trump’s assertion that “Democrats were unfairly gerrymandering” wasn’t just incorrect – it was a deliberate lie designed to trick voters into thinking that early redistricting to benefit his party’s control was somehow justifiable.

Throughout the fall of 2025, the Trump administration applied enormous pressure to Indiana lawmakers, urging them to redistrict early.

Despite two visits from VP Vance, a White House invitation and visit, phone calls from Trump, out-of-state groups applying pressure, swatting, intimidation, and threats of primaries, this plan ultimately failed in the Senate 31-19 after passing the House.

Indiana was the first state to publicly rebuke Trump’s plan. How did we win that fight?

Civic Engagement: Hoosiers called and emailed their legislators, attended Statehouse protests, and attended Town Hall discussions.
Education & Awareness: Through social media campaigns, billboards, news clips, Letters to the Editor, and more, the public quickly learned about this plan and the danger it posed to democracy.
Coalition: Hoosiers united across party lines, and organizations teamed up in defense of democracy. We may not have agreed on everything, but at its core, this fight was about respecting the will of the voters and opposing the federal government intruding into state affairs.