The fact is, Indiana has very contiguous, very compact, very fair looking districts. The one Democrat representative who is black has a nearly perfectly rectangular district. The other Democrat who is white has a pretty compact district, the 1st District, but if you look at it you will see there is an odd northeast “bump” in the district and the southern boundary of the district is wavy. Based on the demographics, if you take that “bump” out making the east boundary straight and straighten out the southern boundary to balance the numbers you’d go from a D+1 district to an R+3 or R+4 district - and it would be even more compact/contiguous than it is now - not even remotely the “major gerrymander” you state - quite the opposite.
I’m not suggesting I think Indiana *should* do this or that it is either the right or the wrong thing to do - but one additional R and one less D in Indiana is trivially easy to do with ZERO gerrymandering.
It would take very little gerrymandering to turn my district “R”. If you google it, my district is projected as D+1 now.
So sad the RINO’s caved.
Correct - in many of these Republican controlled states, the Republicans actually gerrymandered to give the Democrats a district or two for the sake of "fairness." The new maps Republicans drew in other states did away with this and they are contiguous and compact - even moreso than before. Less gerrymandering nationwide results in fewer Dem districts - contiguous, compact districts result in more Republican districts - no matter where it is done.