Can Shortest-Splitline Districting Stop Gerrymandering in Indiana?
November 3, 2026
By Jeffy Samuel
Indiana has garnered some national attention in recent months as a result of a national campaign to gerrymander congressional maps mid-decade. Indiana marked one of a few examples in which Republican state legislators broke ranks and refused to draw a more aggressive map that would unseat the state’s two Democrat incumbents. One proposed map would “crack” Indianapolis between four different districts in order to dilute Democratic Party voters. While Indiana’s Republicans managed to avoid bending the knee to the national party, it came at a cost for those rebelling incumbents in the State Senate who were up for re-election. Five of the seven legislators whom the President had targeted for breaking ranks either retired or were defeated in their party primaries before the election.
While many scholars argue that gerrymandering is an inevitable problem which can result from politicians drawing their own districts, their opinions differ as to what the solution should be. Independent redistricting commissions are a popular solution and have been adopted in states like Arizona and Michigan. Some political scientists have instead called for algorithmic solutions, treating redistricting as a problem that can be optimized by a computer program. These programs come at the cost of being opaque to the general electorate, who may distrust the maps which the algorithm draws as a result. These programs must also make judgment calls regarding how to weigh its metrics, like compactness, competitiveness, etc. Some may state that these decisions are inherently political.
One proposed method, by a retired Temple University professor named Warren Smith, may alternatively be praised for its simplicity. Smith advocates for “shortest-splitline” districting, which splits states with lines in such a way as to ensure equal populations in each district. The method works by first finding the shortest line which can split the state into two parts with equal population (or in the case of Indiana with its odd number of districts, a 5:4 ratio). Each of these parts are then split in half (or ratios like 3:2 or 2:1 for parts that need to be split into odd numbers), until each district has been assigned. Smith has not drawn new districts for the 2010 and 2020 redistricting cycles, though I have generated a map for Indiana using the above-mentioned formula. I created the map by running the algorithm on the U.S. Census’ database of census tracts and exporting the result to Dave’s Redistricting App (DRA) to show the partisan leanings of the districts. The jagged lines are an artifact of DRA using precinct boundaries to create districts. In an ideal setup, the algorithm will draw perfectly straight polygons. The results are shown below. Darker shades of red and blue correspond to safer districts.
Shortest-splitline districting has clear benefits, as one can intuitively see how the districts were generated. It is almost impossible for politicians to manipulate the algorithm to garner a partisan advantage. It also makes it trivially easy for residents to determine which district they reside in, since each district is composed of simple polygons.
However, the approach also has clear downsides. The map does not accurately represent the statewide popular vote. With 38% of the popular vote in 2024, Democrats would proportionally be entitled to three or four House seats out of nine. However, since Democrats are heavily concentrated in the Chicago suburbs and Indianapolis, this discrepancy would exist under any plan that did not explicitly seek to create districts to reflect the popular vote. While the algorithm attempts to optimize compactness, it does not entirely succeed in doing so. One narrow district extends from Indianapolis down to the Kentucky border. Using this approach, just as it is impossible to manipulate districts for political gain, it is also impossible to account for communities of interest accurately, or to minimize splits in political boundaries such as counties.
Still, perhaps this is a price that Indiana residents may want to pay to avoid partisan gerrymandering.