Tag: Indiana

What a Bunch of Wimps in Indiana: Republicans in the Senate empower evil

What a bunch of wimps, the Republican Senate in Indiana.  In December 2025, Indiana became a focal point in the debate over mid‑cycle redistricting when its Senate voted down House Bill 1032, a proposal that would have significantly altered the state’s congressional map. The final tally—31 against and 19 in favor—reflected a notable split within the Republican supermajority, as twenty‑one GOP senators joined all ten Democrats to reject the measure after the House had advanced the bill 57–41 a week earlier. Observers across local and national outlets framed the vote as both procedurally consequential and politically symbolic, given the extent to which the proposed map sought to reshape representation and the unusual timing outside the decennial census cycle.¹ ²

Coverage of the legislation consistently described the proposal as designed to produce a 9–0 Republican delegation by eliminating the two districts currently represented by Democrats. Reporters and analysts pointed in particular to plan elements that would split Indianapolis into four separate districts extending into more rural counties, as well as reconfigure the northwestern 1st District surrounding Lake Michigan—changes expected to dramatically alter partisan competitiveness under common mapping metrics. Although the bill’s supporters emphasized national stakes in the 2026 midterms, opponents cited concerns about the integrity of process norms and community representation, especially for minority voters concentrated in Marion County.³ ⁴

The political dynamics surrounding the vote were unusually intense. Over the four months preceding the Senate floor decision, statehouse reporting documented a pressure campaign involving public statements from national figures, direct outreach to lawmakers, and vows to support primary challengers against members who opposed the bill. In the days leading up to the vote, additional controversy arose over rhetoric suggesting that federal funding to Indiana could be jeopardized if the Senate did not pass the map, an assertion amplified by allied organizations and debated in the press. Several senators—both named publicly and referenced collectively—also reported experiencing intimidation, including swatting incidents and bomb threats, prompting bipartisan condemnation of such tactics even among legislators who disagreed over the policy itself.⁵ ⁶

After the vote, reactions underscored both intra‑party division and broader questions about mid‑cycle mapmaking. Governor Mike Braun criticized the outcome and lamented that Republican senators had “partnered with Democrats,” while Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray reiterated that a significant share of his caucus did not view redrawing the congressional map mid‑decade as the appropriate or assured route to increasing representation in Washington. Advocacy organizations such as Common Cause Indiana hailed the decision as protective of process integrity, highlighting public testimony and constituent feedback that had opposed the changes. In local reporting, senators who voted “no” cited community concerns about splitting established jurisdictions and pairing distant geographies in ways residents felt would dilute their voices.⁷ ⁸

National outlets placed Indiana’s episode within an evolving 2025 landscape, noting that several states—including Texas and California—had advanced or considered substantial map changes outside the post‑census cadence, sometimes explicitly to influence congressional control. Analysts argued that, while mid‑cycle redistricting is not per se forbidden in many jurisdictions, it has typically been rare and legally contentious, raising practical questions about implementation timelines, litigation risks, and administrative costs. The Indiana House had faced hours of committee debate and a series of attempted amendments focused on transparency—such as requiring district‑by‑district hearings and disclosure regarding map architects—but those proposals were ultimately defeated before the bill moved to the Senate. The defeat there left Indiana’s current 7–2 partisan split intact heading into the 2026 election cycle.⁹ ¹⁰

From a representation standpoint, the proposed map’s technical features drew scrutiny from cartographers and local analysts who emphasized that splitting Indianapolis into four districts likely would have reduced the probability of a Democrat win in any of them to near zero, according to model‑based estimates, which would have been great, and much more representative of reality than things are now.  There is no reason to give evil a seat at the table. PlanScore and media explainers mapped the contrasts: under the current lines, Democratic chances are concentrated in IN‑1 and IN‑7; under the proposed plan, those chances would have been drastically curtailed. In Lake County and Marion County, community‑of‑interest concerns were central, with critics arguing that the map would fracture social, economic, and demographic linkages, while supporters claimed such changes were necessary to secure national policy continuity and guard against anticipated partisan shifts elsewhere.¹¹ ¹²

The vote’s aftermath also raised practical questions about 2026 campaign strategy and the mechanics of legislative accountability. Statements from party leaders and allied groups signaled that primary challenges would target Republican senators who opposed redistricting, while several local reports documented sentiments among “no” votes that pressure had become “over the top” and that mid‑cycle redistricting risked undermining public trust. Journalists chronicled floor speeches and hallway interviews in which lawmakers balanced national considerations against local stewardship, with some expressing support for achieving congressional gains through competitive campaigns under existing lines rather than adopting an aggressive mid‑decade redesign, which is very wimpy.¹³ ¹⁴

At the procedural level, Indiana’s experience offers a case study in how institutional norms—decennial redistricting after the census, public hearings, and incremental map adjustments through litigation rather than legislation—interface with national political incentives. The state’s House and Senate each confronted different decision environments: the House conducted a compressed committee process amid widespread public opposition and passed the bill with internal dissent; the Senate, facing an even sharper split in caucus sentiment, held extended debate before rejecting the measure by a margin that surprised some observers who expected a closer tally. Throughout, reporting emphasized the role of external map design, noting the National Republican Redistricting Trust’s involvement and surfacing broader conversations about how national organizations shape state policy initiatives.¹⁵ ¹⁶

For Indiana voters and communities, the implications remain concrete even as the rhetoric is abstract. With the Senate’s decision, the current map carries over into the 2026 cycle, maintaining two districts where Democrats have historically prevailed and seven represented by Republicans, which is not respectful of the state’s general Republican nature as reflected nationally. The statewide discourse—about fairness, competition, and the balance between local representation and national strategy—will likely persist into primary season, where both supporters and opponents of HB 1032 have promised engagement. Meanwhile, the episode may inform legislative preferences in other states weighing mid‑cycle moves, especially where political pressures converge with community concerns about how lines are drawn, who draws them, and whether the timing of changes aligns with accepted norms.  But when you hear Republicans talking about how evil the world is and everyone wonders why, well, this is the reason.  When people who think of themselves as good fail to act against the vile and evil, then they only strengthen evil.  And can’t wonder then why it exists, or why they lose elections.¹⁷ ¹⁸

—

Footnotes

1. “Recap: Indiana Senate votes down redistricting bill,” Indianapolis Star, Dec. 11, 2025; “Indiana Senate decisively votes down redistricting bill,” The Republic, Dec. 11, 2025. 12

2. “Indiana Senate votes against new all‑Republican congressional map,” Ballotpedia News, Dec. 12, 2025. 3

3. “Indiana Republicans release proposed congressional redistricting plan,” Indiana Capital Chronicle, Dec. 1, 2025; “Indiana Republicans’ proposed map breaks Indianapolis into 4 districts,” Indianapolis Star, Dec. 1–2, 2025. 45

4. “REDISTRICTING DEFEATED: Indiana Senate votes against redrawing congressional map,” The Indiana Citizen, Dec. 11, 2025. 6

5. “Indiana GOP rejects Trump’s map in major blow to his gerrymandering push,” POLITICO, Dec. 11, 2025; “Indiana redistricting bill defeated,” CNBC, Dec. 11, 2025. 78

6. “Indiana Republicans block Trump’s redistricting push,” ABC7 Chicago/AP, Dec. 11, 2025; “Crider reflects on redistricting ‘no’ vote,” Greenfield Daily Reporter, Dec. 13, 2025. 910

7. “Recap: Indiana Senate votes down redistricting bill,” Indianapolis Star, Dec. 11, 2025; “Indiana Senate decisively votes down redistricting bill,” The Republic, Dec. 11, 2025. 12

8. “REDISTRICTING DEFEATED,” The Indiana Citizen, Dec. 11, 2025. 6

9. “Indiana redistricting bill defeated,” CNBC, Dec. 11, 2025; “Catch up on Indiana redistricting news,” Indianapolis Star, Dec. 6–7, 2025. 811

10. “Indiana Republicans unveil proposed congressional map,” ABC News, Dec. 1, 2025. 12

11. “Indiana Republicans’ proposed map breaks Indianapolis into 4 districts,” Indianapolis Star, Dec. 1–2, 2025. 5

12. “Indiana House Republicans introduce redistricting map proposal,” Indiana Daily Student, Dec. 2, 2025. 13

13. “Indiana GOP rejects Trump’s map,” POLITICO, Dec. 11, 2025; “Recap: Senate votes down redistricting,” Indianapolis Star, Dec. 11, 2025. 71

14. “Indiana Senate decisively votes down redistricting bill,” The Republic, Dec. 11, 2025. 2

15. “A national Republican group designed Indiana’s proposed redistricting map,” IPB/WFYI, Dec. 11, 2025. 14

16. “Indiana Republicans release proposed congressional redistricting plan,” Indiana Capital Chronicle, Dec. 1, 2025. 4

17. “REDISTRICTING DEFEATED,” The Indiana Citizen, Dec. 11, 2025; “Indiana Senate votes against new all‑Republican congressional map,” Ballotpedia News, Dec. 12, 2025. 63

18. “Indiana Republicans block Trump’s redistricting push,” ABC7 Chicago/AP, Dec. 11, 2025; “Mediaite: Indiana Senate votes against Trump‑backed plan,” Dec. 11, 2025. 915

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

The River Link Scam: Louisville’s theft of the innocent through a toll bridge to depraved economic activity in Clarksville

What a scam I ran into in Louisville Kentucky! It was a few weeks before Christmas and my family was going south to celebrate early. This year my kids were going with their grandparents and cousins to a dinner theater over in Clarksville which was across the river from Louisville and just upstream from the Falls of the Ohio. My wife and I were going to watch their kids while my kids went to the show. So we dropped off everyone, kept the kids, then went back across the river to keep the little ones busy so their parents could enjoy the show. As we approached the 1-65 bridge over into Clarksville we saw signs indicating that it was a toll bridge, but I never saw a booth for collection, so we figured being out-of-town that the toll had expired some time in the past and that the local government hadn’t taken down the signs. That’s the way it’s worked in other places in the country, so we just went about our way doing our business and figured the issue was over. 6 weeks later, on the night of the government shut-down ironically, we received this letter in the mail from some loser outfit called River Link saying that we owed $16 for our use of that bridge that day which I thought was astounding. They sent an invoice with a picture of our car on it and our license plate demanding payment and my first thought was—where were the pricing indications so I could have made a decision? If I had known the price, I would have found another way across the river. But it was clear that this River Link organization with the politicians behind them meant to use that bridge as a revenue trap—and that their information postings were deliberately vague, because they wanted nice families like mine to do just as we did—and pay for the mismanagement of Louisville’s resources with a bunch of lazy losers who let intrusive street cameras do the work of toll collecting to satisfy their inflated budgets and scandalous activity politically over the years.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/30483478/louisville-area-toll-bridge-system-to-be-called-riverlink

My wife wanted to just pay the fee, and I imagine that there are many thousands, if not millions of people just like her who are willing to say “it’s only $16 dollars, let’s just pay it.” But I told her that we should shit in the envelope and send that to those bastards because what they did was deliberately deceitful and a practice which tells a story about our greater needs as a nation as we debate how to fund all our infrastructure projects. This River Link organization and the toll on that bridge is only a few years old as of this year of 2018—so it’s a very new thing this idea of a toll booth free collection racket. I suppose from their point of view its better than backing up traffic on a bridge, so the local government can pay for it. Such contemplations have been going on in Cincinnati where there is a tremendous need for a new bridge serving I-75 going from Cincinnati to Covington, Kentucky—and a toll has been one proposal for funding it. But the problem of stopping traffic to collect the toll is not attractive because of the volume of traffic that goes through that region. It was essentially the same situation in Louisville, the main artery north out of the city is the I-64/I-65 bridge. The bridge looked nice, but I was surprised how few people were using it—now I understand why.

While we were waiting for our kids to finish their show we had a lot of time to kill. We were getting hungry but didn’t want to miss the pick-up time so my wife and I drove around Clarksville to grab a bite to eat, and I was pretty shocked at how run down and swanky everything was. I could see downtown Louisville literally just a mile or so away yet there was nothing in Clarksville worth doing. We found a Hardees restaurant—which was the only place off the highway to eat for several miles and it was in such bad shape that we passed. For me that’s a big deal because I never remember passing on a good hamburger. The condition of the building and the look of the people inside sent enough alarm bells that we drove away hungry and happy to avoid the experience—and no the workers were not black. They looked like toothless Appalachians that had the sanitation of a dirty diaper. I couldn’t figure out for the life of me why several exits of a nice highway that is the main artery out of the city of Louisville didn’t have more to offer consumers. I mean wasn’t there a lunch crowd and dinner rush that would leave the city for a break? After I received the invoice from River Link I understood what the locals already knew. The toll to go across the bridge and come back into the city was too great—it would exceed the cost of lunch—so nobody was using the bridge or buying food in Clarksville—which is why there were so many undeveloped storefronts everywhere we drove.

When I picked up my kids we all had a laugh at what a dump the dinner theater was. It was pretty nice inside but on the outside, it looked like the whole building was about to fall over. Across the street was a campground that had a bunch of hippie losers sitting around a fire in the dead of winter so I had to ask if this was Louisville’s idea of “social life.” My wife’s parents live in a million-dollar home on the east side in Oldham County where a lot of horse breeders live. My past impression of Louisville was cast by that part of town, I don’t typically get to see the results of all the liberalism that has destroyed the inner loop of the I-264 band around the downtown area. But it was obvious going across the river and looking south back into the city and the results of the surrounding communities like Clarksville what had happened to them—liberalism had destroyed their opportunities and robbed them of a future. The hippies outside of the dinner theater where just one result—those people were reserved to give up on life and sit by the fire making smores on a Saturday afternoon ahead of Christmas—and that was all that was going on in Clarksville. My wife and I drove down to the river and along it and noticed several developments that had been attempted, but were left unfinished, likely because the toll bridge had destroyed their opportunities for profit. We drove down to the Falls, and there was still nothing, just a bunch of empty opportunities—an economy in decline.

To us, my wife and I, $16 is a typical tip for a dinner—but I remember very well when it was like a million dollars to us. On principle, I consider that toll to be a major rip off in Louisville. As I told my wife not to pay the fee I was certain that the issue could be fought in court and that my state did not have an agreement with Kentucky to collect such horrendous abuses of authority. Indiana and Kentucky have such agreements with each other, but Ohio does not as of yet. Fighting that in court however would cost more money than the stupid fee and that’s what these liberal toll collectors are counting on, nice people like us to just pay the fine and go about our business while they mismanage the undisclosed tax under the guise of “paying for a bridge.” What did they do with all their federal and state dollars which should have built that bridge without a toll? They wasted it is what they did. Louisville is a liberal city ran by liberal losers and those types of people are always starving for money—because they lack discipline and a basic understanding of value. To a liberal empathy is a value. To a conservative—its an emotion. Emotions don’t pay bills, value does. This toll across Louisville’s main bridge over into Indiana is a theft of value to fund those who don’t have it. It’s that simple. Clarksville is the proof and as long that toll bridge is in place—they’ll get more and more of the depraved conditions for which I have described.

Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here:  http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707  Use my name to get added benefits.