'It's high season for hypocrisy': The godfather of the Indiana GOP slams Trump's redistricting push

INDIANAPOLIS — A Tug-of-War Over Redistricting in Indiana

Former Governor Mitch Daniels has expressed skepticism about the necessity of redistricting in Indiana, stating that he didn’t “see the point.” This remark comes amid Vice President JD Vance’s visit to the state, where he urged Republicans to consider redistricting as a strategy to gain more control in the House ahead of the 2026 midterms.

“It would just be wrong,” Daniels told POLITICO. “People there have a right to pick the person they want.” His comments highlight a tension between the desire for political maneuvering and the principle of fair representation.

Vance’s trip to the Hoosier State aimed to persuade lawmakers to create up to ten new congressional seats for the GOP, an effort that parallels the White House’s ongoing pressure on Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional map to potentially add five new Republican seats. Meanwhile, Texas Democrats recently fled the state to avoid a quorum, illustrating the lengths to which parties will go to influence legislative outcomes.

Daniels didn’t hold back on his critique of President Donald Trump’s push for redistricting, suggesting that Trump “could’ve just kept quiet.” He argued that such statements exacerbate partisan divisions: “By spouting off in that way, he turns it into this partisan wrangle that we now see,” he lamented.

However, Daniels also pointed fingers at Democrats, accusing them of hypocrisy for their own history of gerrymandering: “It’s high season for hypocrisy,” he remarked, noting that Democrats have engaged in similar tactics to undermine their Republican counterparts over the years.

Governor Mike Braun has yet to commit to a special session for redistricting, and Daniels pointed out that Indiana is already a Republican bastion, holding seven of the state’s nine congressional seats. “My sense is you’d have to torture the lines to eke out another one somehow,” he said, suggesting that any redistricting attempts would be overtly partisan. “I would hope that they would abstain from it.”

Should a special session be convened, Daniels warned that Indiana Democrats would have limited power, given the supermajority held by Republicans in the Legislature. He has not engaged with House Speaker Todd Houston on this matter.

Interestingly, Daniels is not just a bystander in this political landscape; he was instrumental in establishing Republican supermajorities in the Indiana Legislature. In a recent op-ed for The Washington Post, he lamented what he termed “one-party rule,” arguing that the effects of gerrymandering have diminished over time. “The gerrymandering that once exaggerated a dominant party’s political margin is no longer much of a factor,” he noted. Instead, he pointed to “social clustering and these other factors” as playing a more crucial role in shaping the political landscape.

In his conversation with POLITICO, Daniels underscored that gerrymandering ultimately prevents the creation of balanced, competitive districts, which he believes are vital for a healthier political system. In a world where political narratives often overshadow the voices of ordinary citizens, his call for geographic coherence and minimal jurisdictional crossings in redistricting seems almost like a plea for sanity in an otherwise chaotic process.