
    Patrick CHAVIS et al., Plaintiffs, v. Edgar D. WHITCOMB, Governor of the State of Indiana, Defendant, and John C. Ruckelshaus et al., Intervening Defendants.
    No. IP 69-C-23.
    United States District Court S. D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
    Dec. 15, 1969.
    Stay Granted Feb. 2, 1970. See 90 S.Ct. 748.
    
      James W. Beatty, Bamberger & Feibleman, James Manahan, Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiffs.
    Richard C. Johnson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Ind., for defendant.
    William K. Byrum, Fulmer, Burris & Byrum, Indianapolis, Ind., for intervening defendants.
    Before KERNER, Circuit Judge, and STECKLER and NOLAND, District Judges.
   THE COURT’S PLAN AND ORDER FOR REAPPORTIONMENT ' OF THE LEGISLATIVE SEATS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF INDIANA

PER CURIAM.

This suit was tried by the three-judge court on June 17 and 18, 1969. After consideration of the legal and factual issues, the Court entered its opinion and a separate order on July 28, 1969. The Court found that the multimember districting provisions of the present legislative apportionment statutes of Indiana, Indiana Acts of 1965 (2d Spec.Sess.), ch. 5, sec. 3, and ch. 4, sec. 3 (Ind.Ann.Stat. §§ 34-102, 34-104 (Burns’ Supp.1968)), as they relate to Marion County, operate to minimize and cancel out the voting strength of a cognizable racial minority group, which was defined and delinated in the opinion, to the extent that the members of such minority group are deprived of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. We therefore declared those portions of the legislative apportionment statutes to be unconstitutional and void.

Upon the evidence adduced, it was further determined that: (1) to redistrict Marion County alone, so as to provide districts meeting constitutional standards, would leave constitutionally impermissible population variations between the newly created districts in Marion County and other districts in the state, and (2) independent of the new districts in Marion County, constitutionally impermissible population variations would remain between presently existing districts in the state when compared among themselves. Thus the portions of the statutes relating to Marion County were found to be not severable from the full body of the statutes. We therefore found a redistricting of the entire state as to both houses of the General Assembly to be necessary.

While recognizing the right of the injured plaintiffs to have their constitutional rights vindicated at the earliest practicable time, we also recognized that the federal judiciary functions within a system of federalism which entrusts the responsibility of legislative apportionment and districting primarily to the state legislature. We therefore granted the State until October 1, 1969, to enact statutes redistricting the State and reapportioning the legislative seats in the General Assembly to remedy the constitutionally impermissible districting and apportionment, retaining jurisdiction should the State fail to comply.

On August 20, 1969, defendant Edgar D. Whitcomb, Governor of the State of Indiana, moved this Court to stay proceedings in the action. On August 27, 1969, the intervening defendants, joined by Governor Whitcomb, separately moved to stay proceedings. These motions were denied on September 4, 1969.

On October 15, 1969, judicial notice was taken of the fact that a special session of the Indiana General Assembly had not been called for the purpose of redistricting and reapportioning the General Assembly. Accordingly, the Court concluded that it would proceed to redistriet the State pursuant to its opinion and order of July 28, 1969.

At an informal conference in chambers held on October 15, 1969, counsel for the parties were informed that the Court wished to invite not only the parties to the action but also the State Committees of the majority and minority parties in the Indiana General Assembly, the legislative leaders of said parties, and the members of the Indiana State Election Board, to submit proposed plans for the Court’s consideration.

Pursuant to notice a further conference on October 17, 1969, was held in open court for the purpose of announcing minimal guidelines for submission of proposed plans. The date of November 3, 1969, was fixed as the date by which such plans were to be submitted. Persons desiring to submit plans were ordered to file notice of their intent to do so on or before October 24, 1969. The Court announced that 1960 census data would be used as a basis for redistricting; that single-member districts would be preferred to multi-member districts; and and that county and township boundary lines would be crossed in drawing district lines wherever necessary to achieve equality of population in the districts but that the Court would strive to preserve the integrity of county and township lines.

On October 30, 1969, the Court granted persons submitting proposed plans until November 10, 1969, to file objections, if any, to plans proposed by other persons. Defendant Governor Whitcomb on November 3, 1969, moved the Court to modify the order of October 30th by providing that any party to the action might file objections to any of the proposed plans filed by any party or non-party with the Court within ten (10) days after any party received actual notice of the filing of any proposed plan submitted by any party or non-party. The motion was denied on November 4, 1969.

The intervening defendants on November 5, 1969, moved for an extension of time within which to file notice of intent and a proposed plan until November 10, 1969. The motion was granted by an entry of November 6, 1969, and the Court further extended until November 13, 1969, the time within which persons having filed proposed plans could file objections to other plans filed with the Court.

The Court has received the following proposed plans, each preceded by a satisfactory notice of intent:

(1) Plaintiffs’ plan for Marion County only;
(2) Plan of Leslie Duvall as Chairman, Senate Legislative Apportionment Committee, for the Indiana Senate only;
(3) Plan of Leslie Duvall as Majority Caucus Chairman, Indiana Senate, for the Indiana Senate only;
(4) Plan of State Senator Robert E. Mahowald, for the Indiana Senate only;
(5) Plan of Frederick T. Bauer, Indiana General Assembly House Minority Leader, and David Rogers, Indiana General Assembly Senate Minority Leader, for both the Indiana House and Senate;
(6) Plan of Richard A. Boehning, Indiana General Assembly House Majority Leader, for the Indiana House only;
(7) Plan of Representative Richard J. Lesniak, for Lake County only; and
(8) Plan of Senator Albert J. La-Mere, for Lake County only.

As invited by the Court, several persons filed objections to districting plans submitted by other persons. These objections have been considered and the Court appreciates the diligence of the persons submitting them. The Court having prepared its own plan and the objections having been considered, these objections are considered moot. We reached this conclusion after examination of all plans submitted. With the exception of the plaintiffs’ plan and the intervening defendants’ plan, all other plans contain such a large deviation between the most populous and least populous districts that they were eliminated from further consideration.

Although the Court has previously indicated that 1960 census statistics should be utilized, several of the objections argue that these statistics are so outdated as to be not credible. The short answer to this objection was given by an earlier three-judge court of this district in considering congressional redistricting: “[T]he Census of 1960 must be tolerated until the next official census in order to maintain relative political stability.” Grills v. Branigin, 284 F. Supp. 176 (S.D.Ind.1968).

In districting Marion County, two of the plans submitted received primary consideration, the plan of the plaintiffs, and the plan of the intervening defendants. It is the opinion of the Court that the plaintiffs' plan for districting Marion County more nearly meets the constitutional standards laid down by the Supreme Court as followed by this Court in reaching its opinion of July 28, 1969. We note in the intervening defendants’ plan large suburban areas are combined with parts of the Center Township ghetto area. In fact, in seven instances the intervening defendants’ plan combines suburban areas with portions of the Center Township inner city area. As we observed in our opinion of July 28, 1969, sophisticated gerrymandering has been soundly condemned. Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 81 S.Ct. 125, 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (1960).

Plaintiffs’ districts in Marion County closely follow existing city and township boundary lines and are compact and composed of contiguous territory. Additionally, plaintiffs’ House districts approximate mathematical equality of population. The greatest deviation is minus .63 of 1% from the ideal House district in Marion County and the average deviation for all fifteen (15) House districts in Marion County is .26 of 1%. Plaintiffs’ plan also protects the legally cognizable racial minority group against dilution of its voting strength. This is also true when the respective House districts are combined for senatorial districts.

The legislature having failed to act, this Court now establishes House and Senate districts for the State of Indiana which in the Court’s opinion comply with federal constitutional requirements as set forth in decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and as applied in this Court’s opinion and order of July 28, 1969.

The Indiana Election Code provides a 30-day period for declarations of candidacy for nomination to a General Assembly seat; this period begins on February 24, 1970. Furthermore, precinct election boundaries will have to be adjusted in January of 1970 by the election officials to coincide with the boundaries of new legislative districts.

The legislative districting plan prescribed herein sets forth a description of each House district. The plan is based on 1960 census data which results in an ideal House district of 46,625, and an ideal Senate district of 93,250. As indicated to the interested persons at the October 17, 1969, conference, single-member districts have been utilized throughout the state; further, the Court’s aim has been for mathematical equality of population in each district. The difficulty of devising 100 compact and contiguous House districts within that framework has in large part precluded preservation of county lines. However, township boundary lines have been followed except in the state’s ten metropolitan areas, where the density of population required the division of townships.

For the convenience of the electorate and of the election officials, each Senate district consists of two House districts chosen by numerical sequence. There are 100 House districts and 50 Senate districts. Thus Senate district No. 1 consists of House districts Nos. 1 and 2, and Senate district No. 2 consists of House districts Nos. 3 and 4, and so forth. The House districts are set out in map form for the use of election officials. The Senate districts are described only by designating the combinations of House districts. The accompanying listing indicates the population of each House district and the percentage deviation from the ideal district of 46,625.

Each district is further described by townships, census tracts, blocks or enumeration districts. Where township lines have been followed, the composition of the district is largely self-explanatory. However, where districts have been described by census designations, it has been necessary to convert the description into streetline locations. This conversion has been accomplished by the use of detail maps A through J for the metropolitan areas of Lake County, South Bend, Fort Wayne, Kokomo, Muncie, Anderson, Marion County, Richmond, Terre Haute, and Evansville.

(See Appendix I for listing of House Districts, Appendix II for listing of Senate Districts, and Map Appendix for District Boundary Lines.)

The conversion to streetline locations was made possible by the assistance and cooperation of the United States Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce. The Court especially recognizes and credits the Bureau of the Census for its help in providing demographic data to accomplish this redistricting plan. Their information and assistance has made it possible to audit population figures and percentage deviations from the ideal.

In establishing district lines for the metropolitan areas of the state, the Court has taken judicial notice of the 1960 census statistics as to the location of the non white population. The single-member district plan gives recognition to the cognizable racial minority group whose grievance lead to this litigation.

In reapportioning legislative seats in the General Assembly, the question of how the “holdover” senators shall be treated is presented.

The Constitution of the State of Indiana, Art. 4, Sec. 3, provides that senators are elected for 4-year terms; thus, theoretically half of the members of the Senate, those who were elected in the 1968 general election, would not stand for re-election in 1970. Since the Act under which they were elected has been found unconstitutional, the Court is required to determine what is to become of the remainder of their terms of office. To permit the present terms of incumbent senators to extend beyond the 1970 general election would prevent implementation of the districting plan herein prescribed. Senators elected in 1968 under what has now been declared to be an unconstitutional statute do not have a vested right to serve out the balance of their 4-year terms. Reynolds v. State, 233 F.Supp. 323 (W.D.Okla.1964). Thus the Court has concluded that it will be necessary to fill all fifty senatorial seats in the 1970 election, and that .the present terms of all incumbent senators will expire at the time the members of the newly elected legislature take office on January 7, 1971. Mann v. Davis, 238 F.Supp. 458 (E.D.Va.1964), aff’d Hughes v. WMCA, Inc., 379 U.S. 694, 85 S.Ct. 713, 13 L.Ed.2d 698 (1965); Holt v. Richardson, 238 F.Supp. 468 (D.Haw. 1965); People ex rel. Engle v. Kerner, 33 Ill.2d 11, 210 N.E.2d 165 (1965).

The Indiana constitutional provision for staggering the terms of senators, so that one-half of the Senate terms expire every two years, is entirely proper and valid and would be mandatory in a legislatively devised redistricting plan.

However, the plan adopted herein is provisional in nature and probably will be applicable for only the 1970 election and the subsequent 2-year period. This is true since the 1970 census will have been completed in the interim, and the legislature can very well redistrict itself prior to the 1972 election. On the other hand, it is conceivable that the legislature may fail to redistrict before the 1972 election. In such event, all fifty senatorial seats shall be up for election every two years until such time as the legislature properly redistricts itself. It will then properly be the province of the legislature in redistricting to determine which senatorial districts shall elect senators to 4-year terms and which shall elect senators to 2-year terms to reinstate the staggering of terms.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant, Governor Edgar D. Whitcomb, the State Election Board, the Secretary of State of the State of Indiana, and all election officials under the Election Code of Indiana are hereby enjoined from conducting any primary, general or special elections for the offices of Indiana State Senator or Indiana State Representative by the use of the districts and apportionment created by the Indiana Acts of 1965 (2d Spec.Sess.), ch. 5, sec. 3, and ch. 4, sec. 3 (Ind.Ann.Stat. §§ 34-102, 34-104 (Burns’ Supp.1968)) for the reason that those statutes are violative of the Constitution of the United States for the reasons given in this opinion and in the Court’s opinion and order of July 28, 1969.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant, Governor Edgar D. Whitcomb, the State Election Board, the Secretary of State, and all election officials under the Election Code of Indiana are hereby mandated to conduct all primary, general and special elections during the year 1970 for the offices of Indiana State Senator or Indiana State Representative in accordance with this judgment and by the use of the districts created and described by this judgment; and this order now constitutes appropriate notice to all of such officials.

The Court retains jurisdiction of this action for the purpose of passing upon any future, claims of unconstitutionality made by plaintiffs against any future legislative apportionment adopted by the General Assembly of Indiana by reason of this order, and for such other action in the premises as may be necessary.

APPENDIX I

HOUSE DISTRICTS

DISTRICT NO. DESCRIPTION TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION DEVIATION

1 Posey County: All 46,966 +.73% Vanderburgh County: Tracts 29, 30, 31, 32 V6, V7 & V8 Tract 28: Blocks 4-13, 19-30, 37-44, 50-57, 64-71, 76-79, and 80 split

2 Gibson County: 46,711 +.187. Johnson Township Vanderburgh County: Tracts 4, 5, 33, 34, 35, 38, V3, V4, V9, V10 Tract 2: Blocks 1-33, 39-49, 54-75 Tract 3: Blocks 1-3, 11-22 Tract 22: Block 1 Tract 37: Blocks 1-45, 49-52, 61-67

3 Vanderburgh County: 46,735 +.24% Tracts 1, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Tract 2: Blocks 34-38, 50-53 Tract 3: Blocks 4-10, 23-35, 38, 39 Tract 7: Blocks 1-14 Tract 14: Blocks 1-8 Tract 15: Blocks 1-16, 21-25 Tract 16: Blocks 1-32 Tract 17: Blocks 1-27, 9 split# Tract 22: Blocks 2-61 Tract 28: Blocks 1-3, 14-18, 31-36, 45-49, 58-63, 72-75, 81, 80 split#

4 Vanderburgh County: Tracts 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, VI, 36 Tract 3: Blocks 36, 37, 40-52 Tract 7: Blocks 15-42 Tract 14: Blocks 9-28 Tract 15: Blocks 17-20, 26-48 Tract 16: Blocks 33-58 Tract 17: Blocks 28-40, 9 split# Tract 37: Blocks 46-48, 53-60 46,859 +.507.

5 Dubois County: Bainbridge, Boone & Madison Townships Gibson County: Center, Columbia, Montgomery, Patoka, Union, Wabash & Washington Townships Pike County: Clay, Jefferson, Logan, Madison Marion, Patoka & Washington Townships 46,999 + .S0%

DISTRICT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION

6 Warrick County: All 46,857 +.50% Dubois County: Cass & Patoka Townships Gibson County: Barton Township Pike County: Lockhart & Monroe Townships Spencer County: Carter, Clay, Grass, Hammond, Jackson, Luce & Ohio Townships

7 Perry County: All 46,514 -.24% Crawford County: Johnson, Patoka & Union Townships Dubois County: Columbia, Ferdinand, Hall, Harbison, Jackson, Jefferson & Marion Townships Orange County: French Lick, Greenfield, Jackson, Northeast, Northwest, Orangeville, Orleans & Paoli Townships Spencer County: Harrison & Huff Townships

8 Harrison County: All 46,655 +.06% Crawford County: Boone, Jennings, Liberty, Ohio, Sterling & Whiskey Run Townships Floyd County: Georgetown & Greenville Townships Orange County: Southeast & Stampers Creek Townships Washington County: Brown, Howard, Jackson, Monroe, Pierce, Posey, Madison, Vernon, Jefferson & Washington Townships

9 Floyd County: Franklin, Lafayette & 46,314 -.67%, New Albany Townships

10 Clark County: Carr, Jeffersonville, 46,634 +.02% Silver Creek, Union & Wood Townships

11 Scott County: All 46,903 +.607. Clark County: Bethlehem, Charlestown, Monroe, Oregon, Owen, Utica & Washington Townships Jackson County: Grassy Fork & Vernon Townships Jefferson County: Graham, Hanover, Lancaster, Republican, Saluda & Smyrna Townships Jennings County: Marion & Montgomery Townships Washington County: Franklin, Gibson & Polk Townships

DISTRICT NO. TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION

12 Ohio County: All 46,491 -.297. Switzerland County: All Dearborn County: Caesar Creek, Center, Clay, Hogan, Sparta & Washington Townships Jefferson County: Madison, Milton, Monroe & Shelby Townships Ripley County: Brown, Center, Johnson, Shelby & Washington Townships

13 Bartholomew County: Clay, Clifty, 46,444 -.397. Rock Creek, Sand Creek & Wayne Townships Decatur County: Jackson, Marion & Sand Creek Townships Jackson County: Jackson, Redding & Washington Townships Jennings County: Bigger, Campbell, Center, Columbia, Geneva, Lovett, Sand Creek, Spencer & Vernon Townships Ripley County: Otter Creek Township

14 Bartholomew County: Columbus, 46,455 -.37% Flat Rock, German & Haw Creek Townships in addition to Unorganized Territory Decatur County: Clay Township Johnson County: Blue River Township Shelby County: Jackson, Noble & Washington Townships

15 Brown County: All 46,331 -.63% Bartholomew County: Harrison, Jackson & Ohio Townships Jackson County: Brownstown, Carr, Driftwood, Hamilton, Owen, Pershing & Salt Creek Townships Lawrence County: Bono, Guthrie, Marshall, Pleasant Run St Shawswick Townships

16 Martin County: All 47,045 +.90% Daviess County: Barr, Harrison, Madison, Reeve, Van Burén, Veale & Washington Townships Greene County: Jackson & Taylor Townships Lawrence County: Indian Creek, Marion, Perry & Spice Valley Townships

17 Knox County: All 46,891 +.57% Daviess County: Bogard, Elmore St Steele Townships Gibson County: White River Township

DISTRICT NO. DESCRIPTION TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION DEVIATION

18 Sullivan County: All 46,849 +.48% Clay County: Cass, Harrison Lewis, Perry, Posey, Jackson Sugar Ridge & Washington Townships Owen County: Marion Township Vigo County: Honey Creek, Linton, Pierson, Prairie Creek, Prairieton & Riley Townships

19 Greene County: Beech Creek, Cass, 46,366 -.56% Center, Fairplay, Grant, Highland, Jefferson, Richland, Smith, Stafford, Stockton, Wright & Washington Townships Monroe County: Bean Blossom, Clear Creek, Indian Creek, Polk, Richland, Salt Creek, Washington & Van Burén Townships Owen County: Clay, Jefferson, Franklin, Lafayette, Montgomery, Morgan, Washington & Wayne Townships

20 Monroe County: Benton, Bloomington & 46,402 -.487. Perry Townships

21 Hendricks County: Guilford, Liberty & 46,2 6 6 -.777. Washington Townships Morgan County: Adams, Ashland Baker, Brown, Greene, Gregg, Jefferson, Monroe, Ray & Washington Townships Owen County: Harrison & Taylor Townships

22 Hendricks County: Brown, Center, 46,255 -.79% Clay, Eel River, Franklin, Lincoln, Marion, Middle & Union Townships Owen County: Jackson & Jennings Townships Putnam County: Clinton, Cloverdale, Floyd, Franklin, Greencastle, Jackson, Jefferson, Madison, Marion, Monroe, Warren & Washington Townships

23 Vigo County: Lost Creek Township 46,563 -.13% Harrison Township: Tracts E & G Tract D: Blocks 1-223, 224 split Tract F: Blocks 1-207, 209-220 Tract B: Blocks 243-293

DISTRICT NO. TOTAL DESCRIPTION POPULATION PERCENTAGE OF DEVIATION

24 Vigo County: Fayette, Otter 46,362 Creek & Sugar Creek Townships Harrison Township: Tracts A & C Tract B: Blocks 1-242 -.56%

25 Parke County: All 46,159 Clay County: Brazil, Dick Johnson & Van Burén Townships Vermillion County: Clinton, Eugene, Helt & Vermillion Townships Vigo County: Nevins Township -.99%

26 Montgomery County: All 46,506 Fountain County: Cain, Fulton, Jackson, Mill Creek, Troy, Van Burén & Wabash Townships Putnam County: Russell Township Vermillion County: Highland Township Warren County: Kent & Mound Townships -.26%

27 Clinton County: All 46,832 Carroll County: Burlington & Democrat Townships Howard County: Honey Creek & Monroe Townships Tippecanoe County: Lauramie, Randolph, Sheffield & Wea Townships Tipton County: Jefferson & Prairie( Townships +.44%

28 Carroll County: Clay Township 46,346 Tippecanoe County: Fairfield & Perry Townships -. 60%

29 Benton County: Bolivar Township 46,467 Fountain County: Davis, Logan, Richland & Shawnee Townships Tippecanoe County: Jackson, Shelby, Union, Wabash & Wayne Townships Warren County: Adams, Jordan, Liberty, Medina, Pike, Pine, Prairie, Steuben, Warren & Washington Townships -.34%

30 Jasper County: All 46,788 Newton County: All Benton County: Center, Gilboa, Grant, Hickory Grove, Oak Grove, Parish Grove, Pine, Richland, Union & York Townships Pulaski County: Cass & White Post Townships Starke County: Railroad Township White County: Princeton, Round + .35% Grove & West Point Townships

DISTRICT NO. DESCRIPTION TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION DEVIATION

31 LaPorte County: Cass, Center Clinton, Dewey, Hanna, New Durham, Noble & Scipio Townships Porter County: Boone, Jackson, Morgan, Pleasant, Porter, Union & Washington Townships 46,845 +.47%

32 Lake County: Cedar Creek, Center, Eagle Creek, Hanover, Ross, West Creek & Winfield Townships 46,779 +.33%

33 Lake County: Tracts SJT60, N0T53, HMC52 Tract HMC49: Blocks 37-67 Tract HMC51: Blocks 42, 45, 166 46,641 +.03%

34 Lake County: 46,646 +.04% Tracts CAT54 & CAT55, Tract GAC6: Blocks 426-455, 533-539 Tract GAC26: Blocks 44-47, 58-65, 69-79, 84-108, 111-149, 152-178, 179 Tract GAC27: Blocks 19-97

35 Lake County: 46,602 -.05% Tracts HMG42, HMC43, HMC44, HMC45, HMC50 Tract HMC46: Blocks 1-38, 47-52 *, 61-68, 73 Tract HMC49: Blocks 1-36 Tract HMC51: Blocks 2-6, 1.1-17, 19-26 Tract ECC37: Blocks 1-67, 76-80

36 Lake County: 46,530 -.20% Tracts HMC40, HMC41, ECC28, ECC28cv, ECC35, N0T38, NOT39, ECC29cv. Tract ECC29: Blocks 1-13, 16-55 Tract ECC36: Blocks 1-3, 7-20, 28-40, 44 split Tract ECC37: Blocks 68-75

37 Lake County: 46,772 +.31% Tracts HMC47 & HMC48 Tract HMC46: Blocks 39-44, 53-60 69-72 Tract HMC51: Blocks 1, 18, 27-41, 46-165, 167-215

DISTRICT NO, TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION

38 Lake County: 46,563 -.13% Tracts ECC30, ECC31, ECC32, ECC33 & ECC34 Tract ECC29: Blocks 14-15 Tract ECC36: Blocks 4-6, 21-27, 41-43, 44 split, & 45 Tract GAC1: Blocks 34-40 Tract GCA6: Blocks 1-80, 85-130, 132-179, 182-231, 234, 239, 240-425, 460-532

39 Lake County: 46,601 -.057. Tracts GAC18, GAC19, GAC20, GAC23 and GAC25 Tract GAC16: Blocks 39-45 Tract GAC21: Blocks 10-21, 28-31 Tract GAC27: Blocks 3-18

40 Lake County: 46,652 +.06% Tracts GAC14, GAC15, GAC17, GAC22 & GAC24 Tract GAC16: Blocks 1-38 Tract GAC21: Blocks 1-9, 22-27, 32-34 Tract GAC26: Blocks 1-43 Tract GAC27: Blocks 102

41 Lake County: 46,824 +.437. Tracts GAC2, GAC3, GAC4, GAC5, GAC7, GAC8, GAC9, GAC10, GAC11, & GAC12 Tract GAC1: Blocks 1-33, 41-188 Tract GAC6: Blocks 81-84, 131 180-181, 232-233, 235-238, 456-459 Tract GAC13: Block 1

42 Lake County: 46,659 +.07% Tracts H0T56, H0T57, & H0T58 Tract GAC13: Blocks 2-50 Tract GAC26: Blocks 48-57, 66-68, 80-83, 109-110, 150-151

43 Porter County: Center, Liberty, 46,484 -.307. Portage & Westchester Townships

44 LaPorte County: Cool Spring & 47,081 +.93% Michigan Townships Porter County: Pine Township

DISTRICT NO. TOTAL DESCRIPTION POPULATION PERCENTAGE OF DEVIATION

45 LaPorte County: Galena, Hudson, 46,621 Johnson, Kankakee, Lincoln, Pleasant, Prairie, Springfield, Union, Washington & Wills Townships Marshall County: Center, North, Polk & West Townships St. Joseph County: Olive Township Starke County: California, Center, Davis, Jackson, Oregon & Washington Townships -.01%

46 St. Joseph County: 46,566 Tracts C109, Clll, C119-C123, 22, 24, 26-28, 34 Tract 20: Blocks 37-40 -.13%

47 St. Joseph County: 46,648 Tracts: C110, 1-7, 19, 21, 23, 25 Tract 18: Blocks 2-9, 15-21,-26-29, 35-38 Tract 20: Blocks 1-36, 41-45 +.05%

48 St. Joseph County: 46,584 Tracts C112, C113, 8-13, 17 Tract 18: Blocks 1, 10-14, 22-25, 30-34, 39-42 -.09%

49 St. Joseph County: 46,591 Tracts C117,C118', 14, 16, 29-33, 35 Tract 15: Blocks 1-49, 65-69 -.07%

50 St. Joseph County 46,876 Tracts M101, M102, M103, M104 M105, M106, M107, C114, C115, C116 Tract 15: Blocks 50-64 +. 54%

51 Elkhart County: 46,464 Baugo, Cleveland, Elkhart, Harrison, Jackson, Olive & Osolo Townships -.35%

52 Elkhart County: Concord, 46,971 Jefferson & Washington Townships +.74%

53 LaGrange County: All 46,165 Elkhart County: Clinton, Middlebury & York Townships Noble County: Albion, Allen, Elkhart, Orange, Perry, Sparta, Wayne & York Townships and -.99% Jefferson Township

DISTRICT NO. TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION

54 DeKalb County: All 46,864 +.51% Steuben County: All Noble County: Swan Township

55 Allen County: 47,040 +.89% Tracts C101, Cl02, C103, C108-C113, C118, C119 Tract 1: Block 51 Tract 33: Block 1

56 Allen County: Tracts 2-10, 34, 35 47,047 Tract 1: Blocks 1-50, 52 Tract 33: Blocks 24-51 +.91%

57 Allen County: 46,694 Tracts 11-21 Tract 25: Blocks 3-7 Tract 27: Blocks 1-6 •+.15% '

58 Allen County: 46,778 Tracts 26, 28-32, 23, 40 Tract 25: Blocks 1, 2, 8-45 Tract 27: Blocks 7-62 Tract 36: Blocks 1-6, 9-18 + .33%

59 Allen County: 46,902 Tracts 22, 24, 37-39, C104-C107 C114-C117 Tract 33, Blocks 2-23, 52-55 Tract 36: Blocks 7, 8, 19-37 Huntington County: Jackson Township + .59%

60 Whitley County: All 46,626 Huntington County: Clear Creek, Huntington & Warren Townships Kosciusko County, Monroe Township Noble County: Green, Noble & Washington Townships +.01%

61 Elkhart County: Benton, Locke & 47,091 Union Townships Kosciusko County: Jefferson, Plain, Scott, Tippecanoe, Turkey Creek, Van Burén, Washington it Wayne Townships Marshall County: Bourbon & German Townships St. Joseph County: Madison Township +.99%

62 Fulton County: Henry & New Castle 46,505 Townships Kosciusko County: Clay, Etna Franklin, Harrison, Jackson, Lake, Prairie & Seward Townships Marshall County: Tippecanoe Township Miami County: Allen, Erie, Jefferson, Perry, Peru & Richmond Townships Wabash County: Chester, Paw Paw & -.26% Pleasant Townships

DISTRICT TOTAL NO. DESCRIPTION POPULATION PERCENTAGE OF DEVIATION

63 Carroll County: Adams, Jefferson, 46,461 Rock Creek & Tippecanoe Townships Fulton County: Aubbeenaubbee & Richland Townships Marshall County: Union, Green & Walnut Townships Pulaski County: Beaver, Franklin, Harrison, Indian Creek, Jefferson, Monroe, Rich Grove, Salem & Tippecanoe Townships Starke County: North Bend & Wayne Townships Tippecanoe County: Tippecanoe Township White County: Big Creek, Cass, Honey Creek, Jackson, Liberty, Lincoln, Monon, Prairie & Union Townships -.35%

64 Cass County: Adams, Bethelehem, 46,602 Boone, Clay, Clinton, Eel, Harrison, Jefferson & Noble Townships Fulton County: Liberty, Rochester, Union & Wayne Townships Miami County: Union Township Pulaski County: Van Burén Township -.05%

65 Carroll County: Carrollton, 46,488 Deer Creek, Jackson, Liberty, Madison, Monroe & Washington Townships Cass County: Deer Creek, Jackson, Miami, Tipton & Washington Townships Howard County: Clay, Ervin, Harrison, Howard, Jackson, Liberty & Union Townships That part of Center Township which is outside the City Limits of the City of Kokomo, plus Enumeration District 37P Miami County: Clay, Deer Creek, Harrison & Pipe Creek Townships Tippecanoe County: Washington Township ' -.29%

66 Howard County: 46,896 The City of Kokomo, less Enumeration District 37P + .58%

DISTRICT NO. DESCRIPTION TOTAL POPULATION PERCENTAGE OF DEVIATION

67 Hancock County: Vernon Township Hamilton County: Fall Creek, Jackson, Noblesville, Wayne & White River Townships Howard County: Taylor-Township Madison County: Duck Creek, Green & Jackson Townships Tipton County: Cicero, Liberty, Madison & Wildcat Townships 46,483 -.31%

68 Boone County: All Hamilton County: Adams, Clay, Delaware & Washington Townships 46,891 +.57%

69 Grant County: Monroe, Richard, Sims Van Burén & Washington Townships Huntington County: Dallas, Jefferson, Lancaster, Polk, Rock Creek, Salamonie & Wayne. Townships Miami County: Butler, Jackson & Washington Townships Wabash County: Lagro, Liberty Noble & Waltz Townships 46,666 +.09%

70' Grant County: Center, Franklin & 46,407 Pleasant Townships -.47%

71 Wells County: All 46,218 Adams County: Blue Creek, French, Jefferson, Kirkland, Monroe, Preble, Root, St. Mary's, Union, Wabash & Washington Townships Huntington County: Union Township -.87%

72 Blackford County: All 46,299 Adams County: Hartford Township Delaware County: Delaware, Niles & Union Townships Grant County: Jefferson Township Jay County: Bear Creek, Greene, Jackson, Knox, Noble, Penn, Richland, Wabash & Wayne Townships -.70%

73 Grant County: Fairmount, Green, 47,028 Liberty & Mill Townships Madison County: Boone, Monroe, Pipe Creek, Richland & Van Burén Townships +.86%

74 Delaware County: Hamilton, Harrison, 46,646 Mount Pleasant & Washington Townships Center Township: Tracts 7-11, 17-20 +.05% Tract 2: Blocks 1-11

TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF DESCRIPTION POPULATION . DEVIATION

Delaware County: Salem Township 47,056 +.92% Madison County: Adams, Fall Creek, Lafayette, Stony Creek & Union Townships That part of Anderson Township which is outside the City Limits of the City of Anderson, and excluding Enumeration District 14P

Madison County: That part of 47,066 +.95% the City of Anderson which is within the Township of Anderson, plus Enumeration District 14P

Jay County: Jefferson, Madison & 46,730 +.22% Pike Townships Randolph County: Franklin, Green, Greensford, Jackson, Monroe, Union, Ward, Washington, Wayne & White River Townships Wayne County: Abington, Center, Clay, Dalton, Franklin, Green, New Garden, Perry & Webster Townships That part of Wayne Township outside the City Limits of the City of Richmond, less Enumeration District 11NA, Enumeration District 11NB, and Enumeration District 14

Wayne County: The City of Richmond, 46,358 -.57% plus Enumeration District 11NA, Enumeration District 11NB ' and Enumeration District 14 (47R not included) (Richmond Airport)

Delaware County: 46,865 +.52% Center Township (Pt. of Muncie) Tracts 1, 3-6, 12-16, 21 Tract 2: Blocks 12-81

Delaware County: Liberty, Monroe & 46,550 -.16% Perry Townships Henry County: Blue River, Fall Creek, Harrison, Henry, Jefferson, Liberty, Prairie & Stony Creek Twps. Randolph County: Stoney Creek Township

Fayette County: All 46,173 -.97% Henry County: Dudley Township Rush County: Noble, Richland, Union & Washington Townships Union County: Brownsville, Center, Harrison, Liberty & Union ' Townships Wayne County: Boston, Harrison, Jackson, Jefferson & Washington Townships (Including 47R)

DISTRICT NO. DESCRIPTION TOTAL POPULATION PERCENTAGE OF DEVIATION

82 Franklin County: All Dearborn County: Harrison, Jackson, Kelso, Lawrenceburg, Logan, Manchester, Miller & York Townships Ripley County: Adams, Delaware, Franklin, Jackson & Laughery Townships Union County: Harmony Township 46,541 -. 187.

83 Decatur County: Adams, Clinton, Fugit, Salt Creek & Washington Townships Hancock County: Blue River, Brown, Green & Jackson Townships Henry County: Franklin, Greensboro, Spiceland & Wayne Townships Rush County: Anderson, Center, Jackson, Orange, Posey, Ripley, Rushville & Walker Townships Shelby County: Union Township 46,445 -.397.

84 Hancock County: Buck Creek, Center, Sugar Creek & Brandywine Townships Shelby County: Addison, Brandywine, Hanover, Hendricks, Liberty, Marion, Moral, Shelby, Sugar Creek & Van Burén Townships 46,426 -.437.

85 Johnson County: Clark, Franklin, Hensley, Needham, Nineveh, Pleasant, Union & White River Townships Morgan County: Clay, Jackson, Madison & Harrison Townships 46,959 +.727.

86 Marion County: Tract 420-425, 427, 701-703, 801 Tract 415: Blocks 23-25 Tract 426: Blocks 10-15, 18, 19, 22-62 46,456 -.367.

87 Marion County: Tracts 802-812, 903, 904 46,486 -. 307.

88 Marion County: Tracts 605, 607-616, 901, 902 Enumeration Districts 140P, 141S, 14IT, 142N, 142P, 143R, 144, 145N 46,460 -.357.

89 Marion County: Tracts 301-310, 602-604 Tract 601: Blocks 42, 43, 51, 58, 59 46,333 -, 63% Enumeration Districts 140R, 140S

DISTRICT NO, TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF DESCRIPTION POPULATION DEVIATION

90 Marion County: 46,582 -.09% Tracts 207, 212-218, 224-227 Towns of Crow's Nest & Rocky Ripple Enumeration District 33N Tract 205: Block 1 Tract 206: Blocks 1, 2

91 Marion County: Tracts 201-204, 209-210, 101-103, 404, 405 Tract 205 (that area outside City of Indianapolis) Tract 206 (that area outside City of Indianapolis) Tract 211 (less Towns of Rocky Ripple & Crow's Nest) Tract 403: Blocks 1-8, 29-31 Enumeration Districts 31P, 32N, 32P, 32R, 31S 46,602 .05%

92 Marion County: Tracts 401, 402, 406-412, 417-419 Tract 403: Blocks 9-28, 32-38 & balance of tract outside City Limits of Indianapolis 46,612 -.03%

93 Marion County: Tracts 560-563, 566-570, 578-581 Tract 564: Blocks 27-41 Tract 565: Blocks 7-33 46,606 -. 04%

94 Marion County: 46,524 Tracts 413, 414, 416, 538-542 Tract 415: Blocks 1-22 Tract 426: Blocks 1-9, 16, 17, 20, 21 Tract 534: Blocks 36, 37, 45-47, 54 Tract 535: Blocks 5, 6, 8-64 Tract 537: Blocks 13-38 Tract 543: Blocks 1-49, 51-61, 65-76, 80-84 & 85 Tract 564: Blocks 1-26, 42 Tract 565: Blocks 1-6 -.22%

95 Marion County: 46,426 -.437, Tract 559: 571-577 Tract 555: Blocks 40-71 Tract 556: Blocks 35-48 Tract 557: Blocks 5-12, 14, 15, 19-31 Tract 558: Blocks 12-30, 32, 33

DISTRICT MO. DESCRIPTION TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION DEVIATION

96 Marion County: Tracts 544-554 Tract 543: Blocks Tract 555: Blocks Tract 556: Blocks Tract 557: Blocks Tract 558: Blocks 50, 62-64, 77-79 1-39 1-34 1-4, 13, 16-18 1-11, 31 46,561 -.14%

97 46,560 -.14% Marion County: Tracts 512-516, 533,536 Tract 501: Blocks 8-47 Tract 509: Blocks 23-32 Tract 517: Blocks 16, 17, 36-39, 53-56 Tract 532: Blocks 5-10, 19-24 32-37, 46-51, 60-65 Tract 534: Blocks 1-35, 38-44, 48-53 Tract 535: Blocks 1-4, 7 Tract 537: Blocks 1-12

98 Marion County 46,572 -.11% Tracts 219-223, 502-504, 510, 511 Tract 501: Blocks 1-7 Tract 505: Blocks 15, 39, 40 Tract 508: Blocks 10-19, 33-38,44 Tract 509: Blocks 1-22

99 Marion County 46,412 -.46% Tracts 518-520, 527-531 Tract 517: Blocks 1-15, 18-35, 40- 52, 57-63 Tract 521: Blocks 16-23, 33-42 Tract 532: Blocks 1-4, 11-18, 25-31, 38-45, 52-59, 66-69

100 Marion County: 46,375 -.54% Tracts 506, 507, 522-526 Tract 505: Blocks 1-14, 16-38, 41- 51 Tract 508: Blocks 1-9, 20-32, 39-43 Tract 521: Blocks 1-15, 24-32, 43-47 Tract 601: Blocks 1-41, 44-50, 52-57, 60-79 Tract 601: Outside Indianapolis City Limits

Appendix II

SENATE DISTRICTS

NUMBER CONSISTS OF HOUSE DISTRICTS NUMBER CONSISTS OF HOUSE DISTRICTS

1 1 and 2 26 51 and 52

2 3 and 4 27 53 and 54

3 5 and 6 28 55 and 56

4 7 and 8 29 57 and 58

5 9 and 10 30 59 and 60

6 11 and 12 31 61 and 62

7 13 and 14 32 63 and 64

8 15 and 16 33 65 and 66

9 17 and 18 34 67 and 68

10 19 and 20 35 69 and 70

11 21 and 22 36 71 and 72

12 23 and 24 37 73 and 74

13 25 and 26 38 75 and, 76

14 27 and 28 39 77 and 78

15 29 and 30 40 79 and 80

16 31 and 32 41 81 and 82

17 33 and 34 42 83 and 84

18 35 and 36 43 85 and 86

19 37 and 38 44 87 and 88

20 39 and 40 45 89 and 90

21 41 and 42 46 91 and 92

22 43 and 44 47 93 and 94

23 45 and 46 48 95 and 96

24 47 and 48 49 97 and 98

25 49 and 50 50 99 and 100 
      
      . 305 F.Supp. 1364 (S.D.Ind.1969).
     
      
      . The Court acknowledges with thanks the permission granted by the George F. Cram and R. L. Polk Companies to publish and make use of copyrighted maps, Corporate Boundaries, Marion County, Indiana, and Official Arrow City Map, Hammond and Vicinity, Indiana
     
      
       Block, contains no population - is split into two (2) districts by a projected line.
     
      
       This block is split at the Township Line between Harrison and Lost Creek Townships.
     
      
       This block, containing no population, is split into two (2) districts by a projected line.
     
      
       There are not any blocks in Tract KMC46 that are numbered 45 or 46. Therefore, this series of blocks starts with number 47.
     
      
       This block, containing no population, is split into two (2) districts by a projected line.
     