The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-08-15
WHY NOT AssAIL THE eERRYMANpERq

The success which has uniformly at
tended Republican attacks upon Demo-
cratic gerrymanders in Wisconsin, Mich
igan and in New York, as far as carried,
is causing many Indiana Republicans to
inquire why those who represent the
Republican organization in this State
have not instituted proceedings to bring
the gerrymander before the Supreme
Court. The Indiana Rerrymander is as
outrageous as those in the States men,
toned = SO outrageous that Senator
Voorhees, is reported to have declared
that it mattered very little what ma
jOrity the Republicans might have on
the State ticket; they cannot get LegIs-
lature under such an apportionment as
the one which preceded the one now in
force. Under the present ingeni-
GUS and complicated gerrymander it
would be necessary for the Repub-
licans to poll nearly three-fifths
of the vote of the State to insure ma
jority of the Legislature. In 1890 the
Democratic candidates polled only 1896
per cent. of the total vote, but the
party elected nearly three-fourths of
the Assembly. That was under the APP
portionment of 1885. AS the perpetra-
tors of crime are never satisfied with
past efforts, the authors of Indiana ger
rymanders made an apportionment in
1891 which is even a greater iniquity
than that which enabled them, with less
than half the popular vote, in 1890, to
elect more than two thirds of the Assem-
bly,. Therefore. it may be assumed that
under this new device for the over
throw of popular government Demo-
cratic vote of two-fifths of the whole
poll can elect a Democratic Legislature.
The success in other States affords
ground for confidence in the success of
an effort to destroy the Indiana gerry
mander. In Wisconsin the Republicans
are attempting to set aside a second
gerrymander, while in Michigan the
Legislature was compelled to make a
reasonably fair apportionment. 1t may
be said that in the event that the
Supreme Court should declare the pros
ent apportiOnment unconstitutional, the
Democratic Legislature would enact an
other gerrymander quite as outrageous
as the present one. The Supreme Court
in Michigan seems to have suggested a
remedy for such contingency when it
declared that not only the existing, but
the apportiOnment preceding was not
constitutional, and that, unless the Gov
ernor should convene the Legislature to
make another, the General Assembly of
1893 must be elected upon an apportion-
ment made nearly twenty years before.
In the event that the Supreme Court in
Indiana should follow the precedent of
the Michigan court, leaving the appor-
tiOnment of 1879 as the one in force, be-
cause of it's general compliance with the
Constitution, would it not be much bet
ter to let that stand as the law rather
than convene Legislature which has
already made itself infamous by ger
rymander act to enact another uncOn-
stitutional measured
In view of the facts it would seem
that the Republicans of Indiana should
not hesitate to make an effort to restore
the representative government of the
State Constitution to the people by ap-
peal to the Supreme Court, as have the
Republicans in Wisconsin and Michigan,
and as the Republicans in New York are
attempting to do.