House debates seat elimination

With the results from the 2000 U.S. Census in, redistricting looms on the horizon.\nIndiana will lose one of its 10 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, but the number of seats to remain in the Indiana General Assembly is in question.\nBoth parties agreed in 1995 to eliminate one of the 100 seats during the 2001 redistricting, ending a drawn-out political standoff.\nThe House Republicans, who held a majority at the time, proposed eliminating a seat immediately.\nRep. Paul Mannweiller, R-Indianapolis, then speaker of the house, said the intention was to prevent legislative gridlock.\nA 99-member House of Representatives would once and for all end the possibility that Hoosiers will have to endure another 50-50 split,he said, referring to the 1989-1990 session, marked by confusion about which party controlled the speaker's chair. \nDemocrats called the move an unconstitutional power grab and walked out. Without a quorum to conduct business, the Republicans took the legislation off the table. They agreed to put the matter off until the 2001 redistricting.\nAccording to Indiana's Constitution, the General Assembly can only draw up new lines after the federal census every 10 years. \nMeanwhile, the parties agreed that the party in the governor's office would have the speaker's duties in a split. The 1996 election created that scenario, and Democrats assumed power because Frank O'Bannon won the governor's race.\nNow the issue is again at hand.\nWe plan to go ahead with it, said House Minority Leader Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis.\nBut the Democrats, now in the majority, have other plans.\nI think it's unlikely, said House Majority Leader Mark Kruzan of Bloomington. \nUnder the 1995 redistricting plan, Kruzan's district would have picked up more of the heavily Republican Perry Township, which might have jeopardized his seat.\nKruzan said the legislature should repeal the compromise 1995 law that draws a new map for the U.S. House of Representatives. \nThe only reason to go to 99 (seats),he said, the only reason that was done was for the Republicans to save face when they tried to redistrict in a non-census year\nHe said he doesn't think an evenly-divided House is unworkable.\nYou have to cooperate or you can't enact any of your proposals, he said.\nBut the Republicans disagree, citing concern about the possibility of Democratic gerrymandering.\nI think they'd have the flexibility to be more creative in some of the boundaries,said House Minority Whip Brent Steele, R-Bedford. I know I would.