The Indiana General Assembly’s special session appears to be over, having voted down a mid-decade congressional reapportionment proposal. The legislature is required to reapportion after each decennial census but not more often, although nothing prevents more frequent efforts other than their fiscal and political costs.

Despite the heavy-handed involvement of Donald Trump in Indiana’s recent reapportionment process, he didn’t create this mess. It has been going on for most of our republic’s life. Establishing a governmental structure that was truly representative of the entire people while not being unduly influenced by special interest groups was the Founders’ goal.

In the debates leading to the Constitution’s ratification, James Madison warned against the unhealthy influence of what he called “factions.” By that he didn’t mean broad-based, organized political parties, something several decades in America’s future. Instead, he was referring to special interest groups that could wield disproportionate influence over public decision-making.

Madison argued the only way to combat a powerful faction is with competing factions. Factions would keep each other in check through representative democracy. This would occur at several levels including the most basic one — election to the House of Representatives.

The original constitutional language called for a congressman for each 30,000 citizens as a target, achieving the ideal of the House of Representatives being closest to the people and their needs. These were to be truly local elections, with candidates known to many of their voters. This worked for a while, until the population grew so fast that the House was becoming unmanageable. The decennial reapportionment was also becoming politically unmanageable, with congressional gridlock in apportioning House seats among the states after the 1910 census.

That was resolved by capping House membership at 435 with the creation of electoral districts left to the states. A simple system, except for the fact that everything today is an opportunity for a political battle in a nation that seems to split 51/49 on every issue. Enter Donald Trump.

Of course the anti-Trump crowd saw his demand for Indiana reapportionment as a naked power grab. It was hard to justify why a state where approximately 40% of the voters who chose a Democrat candidate should have no representatives in Indiana’s nine-person delegation.

They made a good case, philosophically at least. What didn’t come out was Mr. Trump is not the original sinner in this morality play. He was merely following an age-old political gambit. His political calculus likely went something like this: Democrat controlled states have redrawn House districts to minimize Republic election victories. If I don’t respond in kind, I will be unfairly denied a legislative majority in the next Congress.

His reason for thinking this can be seen by looking just to west to Illinois. Only three of its 17 congressmen are Republican while the 2024 election gave 47% of the vote to Republican candidates.

California, where Governor Newsom vows to retaliate against Trump’s reapportionment antics, is another gerrymandered state based on its delegation. Only nine of its 52 representatives are Republican although the party received nearly 40 percent of the congressional votes.

The case of the New England states is even more egregious. There is not a single Republican congressman from these six states.

Rolling up the data to the national level, Republicans captured 51% of the national congressional ballot and have just under 51% percent of the House seats. What could go wrong with that?

This: Congressmen do not represent the entire United States but a limited district within their state. Defining these limited districts is not a simple mathematical exercise in objectivity. It is a political process, in that term’s most positive and most negative meanings.

Let’s just call it what it is — politics, as usual. It is one of those unfortunate side effects of a governmental system built to be run by imperfect human beings and not by angels, to call on James Madison one more time. No constitution, no matter how well written, can prevent partisanship from overriding patriotism.

When we reduce everything to winning the next election, we cheapen the ideals of the Founding Fathers as handed down to us through the soaring words of the Declaration of Independence and the practical roadmap of the Constitution.

If this ultra-partisanship keeps up, the whirlwind can’t be far off.

Mark Franke, M.B.A., an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review and its book reviewer, is formerly an associate vice-chancellor at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne. Send comments to editorial@therepublic.com.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In keeping with a long standing holiday tradition,The Republic once again presents the legendary “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” editorial which first appeared in 1897 in the now-defunct New York Sun. It was written by Francis P. Church in response to the following letter.

Dear Editor:

I am 8 years old.

Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.

Papa says, “If you see it in The Sun, it’s so.” Please tell me the truth: Is there a Santa Claus?

Virginia O’Hanlon.

115 West Ninety-Fifth Street.

Virginia, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except (what) they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little.

In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias.

There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal life with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove?

Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that’s no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You may tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart.

Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernatural beauty and glory beyond.

Is it all real? Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No Santa Claus! Thank God he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

Dear Eric: Three friends and I are planning an eight-day cruise in January.

Two other people found out about the trip and are now coming as well. We are fine with that but are not looking to make it a larger group and I am definitely not looking to turn into the “cruise director” for the group as often seems to happen.

There is one friend that we feel is going to be very upset when she finds out about the cruise and feel personally excluded. And to be honest she kind of was.

While we have been careful not to talk about the trip in general so as not to encourage other people to say they want to come along, we have very specifically not mentioned the trip to this person because she tends to be very negative and those of us going on the trip can really only take her in small doses.

Sad to say, none of us really want to spend what should be a fun vacation with her bringing us down. She doesn’t see this behavior in herself but everyone else does.

I’m torn whether to mention this trip to her in advance or let her find out about it on her own, most likely from social media. And if I let the information drop, I’m not sure how to do it. I know she’s going to be upset either way. Any advice?

– Anxious Cruiser

Dear Cruiser: I’d be inclined to suggest you say nothing if it weren’t for the sticky issue of the truth. It’s perfectly fine for a subset of a friend group to decide to do something that doesn’t necessarily involve the rest of the group. Bruised feelings might occur, but this isn’t in and of itself a betrayal.

But you’ve purposefully been trying to exclude this one friend, something that she might correctly infer should she find out about the trip through social media.

This is your right, of course, but you have to own your choices. To that end, think about what you personally desire from this friendship. It won’t help you to speak for the group – and hearing “we all think this…” never feels great. But you have an individual connection to this friend that may or may not be damaged by the group’s decision. Let that connection guide your actions.

Dear Eric: I own a few cars that I park on the street in front of my house. Some new

toddlers and preschool kids are learning how to ride a bike. They circle constantly in front of my house instead of the house they rent next door to my house.

The neighbors park all over the street, and do not use the driveway. They have several cars and live in a cul-de-sac.

They are not watching or teaching the kids how to ride or even stay out of the road as cars come through. But that’s another issue.

My question is, do I have any rights as a homeowner and county resident to ask the renters to stay away from the area in front of my house and the cars parked in front?

My concern being the kids might hit my cars, and it’s actually annoying to see them in front of my house for hours. People think these are my kids and think I’m not watching them.

What can I do?

– Neighborhood Watch

Dear Watch: Depending on how much space there is on your street, I’m not sure it’s reasonable to ask the neighbors to keep their cars away or to keep their kids off the street. If you have an HOA, there may be some guidance there, but in general the street is for everyone.

If you’re noticing that the children are behaving dangerously or if you’re finding that they’re taking up more than their share of spaces, you should alert the parents, through a calm, civil conversation.

If I’m reading this correctly, you have a few cars on the street and the neighbors have a few cars on the street, but you don’t want them to park on the street. If this is the case, I’d presume it’s because they’re renters and you’re a homeowner. I’d encourage you to let go of that belief.

Indeed, a lot of your frustration could be alleviated by simply talking to all your neighbors. Is it really true that other neighbors think these are your kids? If they haven’t bothered to talk to you, then what does it matter?

Respectfully, your annoyance is not your neighbors’ responsibility. You can ask for what you want but also listen when your neighbors respond with what they want. Peaceful coexistence is the goal, and that’s not going to happen if one person is dictating what can and can’t happen in the neighborhood.

Send questions to R. Eric Thomas at eric@askingeric.com or P.O. Box 22474, Philadelphia, PA 19110. Follow him on Instagram and sign up for his weekly newsletter at rericthomas.com.