Indiana Republicans Aim to Sideline Courts to Protect their Gerrymander

When Indiana’s GOP supermajority opened an early legislative session Monday, Democrats expected a gerrymander favoring Republicans.

But hardly anyone would have predicted the unusual provisions that appear aimed at shielding the legislation from most state court review and fast-tracking its path to the state supreme court.

Democrats argued the provisions are unlike anything they have seen in modern redistricting fights — a direct attack on the checks and balances that are meant to protect fair elections. One lawmaker called the provisions “flamingly unconstitutional.”

But the goal appears clear: to ensure legal challenges don’t stop the gerrymander from coming into force before the 2026 midterm elections.

The redistricting bill (HB 1032), filed by state Rep. Ben Smaltz (R), would allow Indiana lawmakers to redraw the state’s congressional lines mid-decade, as seen earlier this year in states like Texas, Missouri and North Carolina.

But tucked into the bill is language that says a “temporary restraining order may not be sought or issued” in challenges to the map, and that “the supreme court has mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction” over any appeals. 

Essentially, the GOP-led state legislature is attempting to preemptively stop lower state courts from issuing temporary orders to block the gerrymander, instead ensuring it would go straight to the state’s supreme court in case of any challenges. 

The Indiana GOP clearly expects a victory in the Indiana Supreme Court, where all five justices were appointed by Republicans. 

The bill also aims to force the court to give those challenges “priority over ordinary matters.”

While the legislature cannot block full federal review, legal experts say these provisions are designed to speed up state litigation, so that courts have practically no time to issue emergency relief before the 2026 elections. The strategy, they said, relies on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Purcell principle, which discourages court intervention on voting issues too close to an election, no matter how discriminatory the laws are.

“When I read that passage, all that tells me is they just want to move it along. The legislature doesn’t want their gerrymander to get gummed up in the courts,” Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, election law professor at Indiana University Bloomington, told Democracy Docket. “They don’t want a lower court to block it, and then they have to appeal. It takes time. But by the time they resolve it and it gets to the supreme court — then it’s too late for the court to allow the new map because it’s too close to the next election.”

Fuentes-Rohwer noted that Purcell gives lawmakers a powerful incentive to rush. If litigation reaches the end stages of the election calendar — candidate filing deadlines, ballot preparation  — courts often step back, regardless of how egregious the underlying law may be.

House Speaker Todd Huston (R) said the language simply aims to get the bill to the Indiana Supreme Court as quickly as possible.

“Lawmakers will argue voters need to know their districts. Candidates need to know theirs. And so courts shouldn’t intervene,” Fuentes-Rohwer added. “Accelerating the entire process ensures Republicans keep the upper hand. They just want it to go.”

Democrats accused Republicans of attacking judicial independence to protect a potentially illegal map.

As protesters inside the House gallery chanted and cheered loudly enough to interrupt the proceedings Monday, state Rep. Edward DeLaney (D) rose and turned the debate into a fiery warning about the GOP’s democratic disregard.

“It’s sticking a finger in the eye of our judiciary,” DeLaney said. “It says that no Indiana court…can give an injunction. In this one category of law, we take power away from our courts.”

DeLaney pressed on, calling the bill an assault on the right of voters to seek meaningful review of an unlawful map.

“If somebody takes an appeal — something Republicans don’t like — that’s automatically stayed,” DeLaney added. “It destroys the right of appeal, it insults the courts and I think is flamingly unconstitutional.”

Indiana became a national flashpoint for gerrymandering after President Donald Trump demanded that Republican-led states redraw maps mid-decade to lock in more GOP House seats and secure a majority in 2026.

Indiana Republicans initially declined to pursue a gerrymander when several senators said they opposed the plan. After a wave of threats and harassment, the GOP gave in.But Senate leaders have admitted they may not have the votes to pass the gerrymander when the chamber meets Dec. 8.