Mayor Gregory Ballard v. . Maggie Lewis, John Barth, and Vernon Brown, 8 N.E.3d 190

Redistricting was assigned to the judiciary in Marion County if the County’s political branches deadlock over redistricting.
Ordinance 61 (Dec. 19, 2011) reconfigured 25 council districts using 2010 census data and Mayor Ballard’s 2011 precinct order.
Mayor Ballard signed Ordinance 61 in 2012, after it had been enacted by the Council, triggering a dispute over timing.
Councillors Lewis, Barth, and Brown sued in Feb. 2013 seeking a declaration that Ordinance 61 failed the statutory timing and requested new districting.
The trial court split, with some judges saying Ordinance 61 was 2012 redistricting and others saying it was 2011, and the court ultimately redrew districts with a master.
This Court granted transfer and addressed whether the statute permits Ordinance 61 as mandatory redistricting in 2012 to avoid judicial redistricting.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ordinance 61 constitutes mandatory redistricting during 2012.	Lewis argues 2012 timing required and 2011 actions don’t satisfy.	Ballard argues 2012 timing satisfied by signing/adoption in 2012.	Yes; Ordinance 61 is deemed 2012 redistricting to avoid court-drawn districts.
Whether the Redistricting Statute should be read pari materia to require 2012 actions by the Council.	Lewis emphasizes Council-only actions in 2012.	Ballard urges harmonization with executive-council process.	Ambiguity resolved in favor of judicial restraint; adopt interpretation preserving legislative/executive roles and avoiding court redistricting.
Whether judicial intervention was appropriate or necessary to redraw districts.	Lewis seeks court-ordered redistricting.	Ballard urges restraint and respect for legislative process.	Court adopts restraint; reversal and summary judgment in Ballard’s favor.
Whether the trial court had authority to grant relief or impose master’s costs.	Lewis seeks relief from 2011-2012 process.	Ballard contends proper statutory channels and cost allocations.	Remanded with instruction to grant summary judgment for Ballard and reverse master-cost order.

Peterson v. Borst, 786 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. 2003) (necessity of judicial relief when executive and legislative branches deadlock on redistricting)
Adams v. State, 960 N.E.2d 793 (Ind. 2012) (statutory interpretation governs ambiguous redistricting provisions)
Thatcher v. City of Kokomo, 962 N.E.2d 1224 (Ind. 2012) (ambiguous statutes require construction to effect General Assembly intent)
Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. 2011) (courts caution in exercising judicial power in political-gate matters)