¶1ON MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO APPELLATE RULE 56(A)
¶2At issue in this appeal is the validity of the redistricting plan for the City-County Council of the City of Indianapolis and of Marion County, Indiana ("Council"), which was adopted in the final judgment of the Marion Superior Court, sitting en bane. We reverse because we conclude that the Superior Court's adoption of a plan that has been uniformly supported by one major political party and uniformly opposed by the other is incompatible with applicable principles of both the appearance and fact of judicial independence and neutrality. Because of the emergency nature of this appeal, we adopt a plan that we have drawn with the consideration of only factors required by applicable federal and State law, and without consideration of party affiliation or incumbeney. This plan will be in effect for the May 6, 2003, primary election unless a different plan is adopted by ordinance prior to March 26, 2008.
¶3Background and Applicable Statutes
¶4In 1969, the Indiana General Assembly enacted what is commonly referred to as the "Unigov' Act,
[The Act provides that the Mayor of the consolidated city shall be elected by all of the voters of the consolidated city and the county voting for such office. The Mayor is to be the chief executive and administrative officer of the consolidated city with the power to supervise the work of its departments, special taxing districts and special service districts. A twenty-nine (29) member City-County Council is also provided for which is to operate as the primary legislative body of the consolidated city and county. Its powers ... include generally the power to adopt budgets, levy taxes, make appropriations and adopt resolutions or ordinances necessary to the exercise of such powers. Four (4) members of the Council are elected from the county-at-large with the remaining twenty-five (25) elected individually from single-member electoral districts as equal as practicable in population.
¶5255 Ind. at 562, 266 N.E.2d at 36-37 (citations omitted).
¶6Boundaries of the twenty-five single-member electoral districts are drawn after every federal decennial census according to the following "Redistricting Statute:"
(a) The city-county legislative body shall, by ordinance, divide the whole county into twenty-five (25) districts that:
*670(1) are compact, subject only to natural boundary lines (such as railroads, major highways, rivers, creeks, parks, and major industrial complexes);
(2) contain, as nearly as is possible, equal population; and
(3) do not cross precinet boundary lines.
This division shall be made in 1992 and every ten (10) years after that, and may also be made at any other time, subject to IC 3-11-1.5-82.
[[Image here]]
(d) If the legislative body fails to make the division before the date pre-seribed by subsection (a) or the division is alleged to violate subsection (a) or other law, a taxpayer or registered voter of the county may petition the superior court of the county to hear and deter-maine the matter. There may not be a change of venue from the court or from the county. The court sitting en bane may appoint a master to assist in its determination and may draw proper district boundaries if necessary. An appeal from the court's judgment must be taken within thirty (80) days, directly to the supreme court, in the same manner as appeals from other actions.
¶7Ind.Code § 86-34-38 (1998) (emphasis added).
¶8With inapplicable exceptions, ordinances enacted by the city-county legislative body (1.e., the Council) are subject to veto by the Mayor of Indianapolis under the following statute:
(a) Within ten (10) days after an ordinance or resolution is presented to him, the executive shall:
(1) approve the ordinance or resolution, by entering his approval on it, signing it, and sending the legislative body a message announcing his approval; or
(2) veto the ordinance or resolution, by returning it to the legislative body with a message announcing his veto and stating his reasons for the veto....
[[Image here]]
(c) Whenever an ordinance or resolution is vetoed by the executive, it is considered defeated unless the legislative body, at its first regular or special meeting after the ten (10) day period prescribed by subsection (a), passes the ordinance or resolution over his veto by a two-thirds ( 2/8) vote.
¶9Ind.Code § 86-8-4-16 (1998) (emphasis added).
¶10In 2002, the Council began the redistricting process pursuant to the Redistricting Statute. Among the plans considered were the "Borst Plan" proposed by Phillip C. Borst Borst"), Republican leader of the Council, and the "Boyd Plan" proposed by Rozelle Boyd ("Councillor Boyd"), the Democratic leader of the Council. On October 7, 2002, the Council passed an ordinance approving the Borst Plan. The vote was 15 to 14, with all Republican members voting in favor of the plan and all Democrats voting against it. On October 19, 2002, Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson, a Democrat, vetoed the ordinance, asserting among other things that the Borst Plan violated the requirement of 1.C. § 36-8-4-8(a) that the Council districts be compact.
¶11The Council did not attempt to override Mayor Peterson's veto. Instead, on October 25, 2002, Councillor Borst, in his individual capacity and as Vice President of the Council, filed a "Petition for Determination by the Marion Superior Court En Bane," requesting that the Marion Superi- or Court declare that the Borst Plan was valid under I.C. § 36-3-4-3 and order that it be implemented in the upcoming munici*671pal elections scheduled for May 6, 2003. Mayor Peterson intervened in this action.
¶12On November 8, 2002, Councillor Boyd and others (together "Councillor Boyd") filed "Complaint for Declaratory and In-junctive Relief and Petition to Redistrict," naming various members of the Marion County Election Board as defendants. Councillor Boyd asked, among other things, that a master be appointed to assist the Superior Court in drawing new district boundary lines. Mayor Peterson also intervened in this action. The Superior Court consolidated the two actions,
¶13The Superior Court is composed of 382 judges, of whom 17 are Republicans and 15 are Democrats
¶14On February 14, 2008, Councillor Boyd and Mayor Peterson filed a notice of appeal. On February 20, 2008, this Court accepted jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to Appellate Rule 56(A) and directed an expedited appellate process. The City of Fort Wayne was granted amicus curiae status. With the cooperation of the parties and the Superior Court, the record on appeal was submitted to the Court, the matter has been fully briefed, and oral argument was conducted March 6, 2008.
¶15The demands of the election calendar have imposed special problems in hearing this appeal. The filing period for seeking an election to the Council had nearly expired when the case was brought to this Court. We directed that filing should remain open until further order. As noted above, we required that the case be briefed and argued in a matter of days. Our own decision-making has been treated as a matter of urgency, in which we have dispensed with certain customs. Onee it became apparent that there was not a majority to affirm the Superior Court's judgment, we have concentrated on fashioning the remedy. As is sometimes the case in appellate courts, today's per curiam does not necessarily reflect the initial position of each of the members. In light of the press of time, we have joined in today's decision without taking the time required to iron out or explicate those differences.
¶16The dispositive issue raised by Council-lor Boyd and Mayor Peterson in this appeal is whether the Superior Court violated its duty of neutrality by adopting a redistricting plan developed by one political party. Councillor Boyd and Mayor Peterson request this Court to reverse the judgment of the Superior Court and to appoint a special master to assist this Court in drawing proper district boundaries. Councillor Borst urges this Court to affirm the Superior Court's decision, contending that the proceedings before the Superior Court were fundamentally fair, that the Superior Court's judgment is supported by the evidence, and that its decision is entitled to substantial deference.
¶17The Judiciary's Duty of Independence and Neutrality
¶18This is the first time that the Redistricting Statute has ever been invoked, and none of the parties have called to our attention, and we are not aware of, any Indiana state court decisions resolving partisan redistricting disputes. Thus, we *672write on a clean slate as to the duties and obligations of the Indiana judiciary in such circumstances.
¶19One "stark fact" about "apportionment is its embroilment in politics, in the sense of party contests and party interests." Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549, 554, 66 S.Ct. 1198, 90 L.Ed. 1432 (1946). That is certainly the situation here. It is clear that the redistricting process in this case is a spirited partisan dispute between the Republican majority of the Council on the one hand and the Democratic minority of the Council and the Democratic mayor on the other.
¶20Partisan disputes over redistricting can be expected within and between the legislative and executive bodies of government. However, the Redistricting Statute enlists the judiciary as an arbiter when these two branches become deadlocked. Although the judges of the Superior Court are chosen by partisan election, see Ind.Code § 38-5.1-2-8 (1998), all parties in this dispute clearly and unequivocally champion judicial independence, free of partisan political decision-making.
¶21The principle of judicial independence and neutrality is embodied in Indiana's Code of Judicial Conduct. "An independent ... judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society." Ind. Judicial Conduct Canon 1(A). "A judge shall ... act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary." Jud. Canon 2(A). "A judge shall not allow ... political or other relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment." Jud. Canon 2(B). "A judge shall not be swayed by partisan - interests ." Jud. Canon 3(B)(2).
¶22The United States Supreme Court has also addressed this issue, albeit in a somewhat different context. In reviewing a federal district court's legislative redistricting plan for Mississippi's Senate and House of Representatives, the Supreme Court stated that when a federal court is confronted with the need to devise a redistricting plan after the legislature has failed, the court will be held to stricter standards in accomplishing its task than will a state legislature.
These high standards reflect the unusual position of federal courts as draftsmen of reapportionment plans. We have repeatedly emphasized that legislative reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination.... The federal courts by contrast possess no distinctive mandate to compromise sometimes conflicting state apportionment policies in the people's name. In the wake of a legislature's failure constitutionally to reconcile these conflicting state and federal goals, however, a federal court is left with the unwelcome obligation of performing in the legislature's stead, while lacking the political authoritativeness that the legislature can bring to the task. In such circumstances, the court's task is inevitably an exposed and sensitive one that must be accomplished ctreumspectly, and in a manner free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination.
¶23Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 414-15, 97 S.Ct. 1828, 52 L.Ed.2d 465 (1977) (emphasis added, citations and internal quotations omitted). See also Burling v. Chandler, 148 NH. 143, 804 A2d 471, 483 (2002) ("While political considerations are tolerated in legislatively-implemented redistricting plans, they have no place in a court-ordered plan.").
¶24Based on the unchallenged principle of judicial independence and neutrality, we hold that in resolving partisan redistricting disputes, Indiana judges must consider only the factors required by applicable federal and State law. We conclude *673that this was the intent of the legislature in providing both the criteria for district boundaries and the dispute resolution mechanism that it did. Whatever role politics may legitimately play in the decisions and maneuverings of the legislative and executive branches, if those branches cannot reach a political resolution and the dispute spills over into an Indiana court, the resolution must be judicial, not political. Thus, Indiana judges may not consider the partisan political consequences of redistricting plans because this is not among the constitutional and statutory factors that inform a judicial decision.
¶25We do not in any way intend to imply that the Superior Court or any of its judges acted with any improper motive or intentionally disregarded their duties of impartiality and independence. We do not question the earnest good faith of the judges in attempting to discharge their judicial obligations. The Redistricting Statute states that the court "may draw proper district boundaries if necessary." IC. § 36-3-4-3(d) (emphasis added). In the absence of controlling authority from this Court, the decision of the Superior Court to adopt the Borst Plan found support in cases from other jurisdictions, discussed below, that approved redistricting plans advanced by one party to a dispute. We conclude, however, that the court's approval of the Borst Plan in the circumstances of this particular case unavoidably introduced the appearance if not the fact of political considerations into this judicial process and thus makes redrawing the boundaries necessary.
¶26The Duty of Independence and Neutrality Precludes Adoption of the Borst Plan
¶27This dispute shows that the parties' principal concern is the political implications of the Borst Plan, the Boyd Plan, and other competing plans that have been considered in the course of this process. The parties in this case have deadlocked politically and have come to the courts for a judicial resolution. That resolution must be guided by the principles embodied in Indiana's Code of Judicial Conduct, discussed above.
¶28A court called upon to draw a map on a clean slate should do so with both the appearance and fact of serupulous neutrality. A number of courts, federal and state, have taken that view.
Judges should not select a plan that seeks partisan advantage-that seeks to change the ground rules so that one party can do better than it would do under a plan drawn up by persons having no political agenda-even if they would not be entitled to invalidate an enacted plan that did so.
¶29Prosser v. Elections Bd., 793 F.Supp. 859, 867 (W.D.Wis.1992) (three-judge district court adopting its own redistricting plan that combined features of two best plans submitted). The reason is the most fundamental of tenets of judicial administration: the process must be fair, and it must appear to be fair. Judges working on a clean slate to fashion a remedy in a redistricting case where the political process failed to adopt one should be guided by the same principles that govern shaping equitable relief in any lawsuit.
¶30We conclude that the Superior Court's decision to adopt the Borst Plan, which was uniformly endorsed by members of one party and uniformly rejected by members of the other, does not conform to applicable principles of judicial independence and neutrality.
¶31We find instructive a decision by a federal district court in St. Louis in a similar case last year. See Corbett v. Sullivan, 202 F.Supp.2d 972 (E.D.Mo.2002). The St. Louis County Charter provides for ap*674pointment of a "County Council Reapportionment Commission" every ten years to divide the county into seven single-member districts. There is no procedure for redrawing the districts if this Commission fails to do so. When the Commission was unable to approve a plan, one party filed suit in federal district court to resolve the issue.
Although ostensibly the parties have asked me to redraw the lines, they really want me to choose among their competing redistricting plans. ...
I find that it would be inappropriate for me to choose any of the plans proposed by the parties. Each has advantages and disadvantages .... Each of the parties' plans, however, has been shown to be a product of political or racial gerrymandering, at least to some extent, and they all consider many factors other than those referenced in the County Charter. Selecting any of them would be a political act, inappropriate for a judge to take.
I conclude I must draw my own map in order to avoid making a decision based on politics. In doing so I should only consider the factors required by the United States and Missouri constitutions and those set out in the County Charter, so long as doing so does not run afoul of the Voting Rights Act. I have done this .... This plan considers only the three factors listed in the County Charter-equality, contiguity, and - compactness.... It does not consider the political consequences because that is not the proper role for a Court. Although this is certainly not the best way to make such important governmental decisions, where the political process has failed as spectacularly and repeatedly as it has in the St. Louis County Council redistricting process, this appears to be the only solution currently available.
¶32Id. at 973-74.
¶33The New Hampshire Supreme Court, "drawn reluctantly" into a redistricting dispute last year, also confronted its duty to act when the legislature had failed.
In furtherance of that duty, we establish a plan for new house districts.... This plan corrects the constitutional deficiencies in the existing districts and eliminates the present inequities.... We are indifferent to political considerations, such as incumbeney or party affiliation.
[[Image here]]
Based upon our review of the submitted plans, we conclude that none can be adopted by the court.... Each plan has "calculated partisan political consequences (the details of which are unknown) .... We have no principled way to choose [among] the plans, especially knowing that we would be endorsing an unknown but intended political consequence by the choice we make." Wilson [v. Eu], 1 Cal.4th 707, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 379, 823 P.2d [545,] 576-77 [ (1992) ].
Accordingly, the court has devised a reapportionment plan consistent with neutral State and federal constitutional principles.
¶34Burling v. Chandler, 804 A.2d at 474, 483-84. See also Smith v. Clark, 189 F.Supp.2d 529, 540 (S.D.Miss.2002) (court considered constitutional, statutory, and several neutral factors when constructing a congressional redistricting plan), prob. jur-is. noted sub nom. Branch v. Smith, 536 U.S. 903, 122 S.Ct. 2355, 153 L.Ed.2d 178 (2002); Arizonans for Fair Representation *675v. Symington, 828 F.Supp. 684 (D.Ariz.1992) (court prepared its own plan by modifying the best of the plans submitted), appeal dismissed sub nom. Arizona State Senate v. Arizonans for Fair Representation, 507 U.S. 980, 113 S.Ct. 1438, 122 L.Ed.2d 804 (1993), and aff'd mem. sub nom. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce v. Arizonans for Fair Representation, 507 U.S. 981, 113 S.Ct. 1573, 123 L.Ed.2d 142 (1993); In re Legislative Districting of State, 370 Md. 312, 805 A.2d 292, 328-29 (2002) (after determining that portions of the Governor's 2002 Redistricting Plan were unconstitutional, the Maryland Supreme Court prepared its own a redistricting plan with the aid of technical consultants).
¶35Like the Superior Court in this case, some courts drawn into redistricting disputes have adopted a plan proposed by one of the partisan litigants. For example, in Beauprez v. Avalos, 42 P.3d 642 (Colo. 2002), after the legislature and governor failed to agree on a redistricting plan, a state court adopted a plan proposed by plaintiffs representing the interests of the State Democratic Party. That plan, however, was a modification of one originally proposed by the Republican leadership. See id. at 645-46. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, stating:
We determine that the process utilized by the district court in adopting a redistricting plan was thorough, inclusive, and non-partisan. The district court engaged in an even-handed approach to the complex and detailed process of congressional redistricting. It encouraged all parties and intervenors to submit proposed plans in order for it to adopt a plan that would reflect, as much as possible, the input of the general assembly and the governor, while satisfying the relevant constitutional and non-constitutional criteria.
¶36Id. at 647. See also Vigo County Republican Cent. Comm. v. Vigo County Comm'rs, 834 F.Supp. 1080 (S.D.Ind.1993) (adopting plan proposed by plaintiffs after finding significant deficiencies in plan approved by county commissioners); Alexander v. Taylor, 51 P.3d 1204 (Okla.2002) (affirming adoption of one of five plans submitted to the court).
¶37The outcomes in these cases may well be supportable, and adoption of a plan provided by one of the parties has the advantage of avoiding the problems and pitfalls attendant to drafting a new plan. Nevertheless, we remain convinced that when faced with a politically polarized redistricting dispute like the one in this case, a court's adoption of a plan that represents one political party's idea of how district boundaries should be drawn does not conform to the principle of judicial independence and neutrality.
¶38This is not to say that a court may never adopt a plan advocated by one of the parties in a proceeding under the Redistricting Statute. It is theoretically possible, for instance, that the Superior Court may be called on to decide a nonpolitical dispute over whether the district lines of a redistricting plan impermissibly cross pre-cinet boundary lines. See I.C. § 86-3-4-3(a)(8). The court might find among the alternatives submitted a plan that has some measure of bipartisan support. It is also possible that a redistricting plan that has been duly adopted through the political process may be challenged by a disgruntled taxpayer or voter. See LC. § 36-3-4-3(d). Disputes such as these may perhaps be resolved by a judgment that the plan at issue conforms to the requirements of the Redistricting Statute and other applicable law. Cf. Prosser v. Elections Bd., 793 F.Supp. at 865 (if reviewing validly enacted plan, court's task would be to decide not whether the plan was the best *676possible, but whether it struck a reasonable balance among applicable considerations). The case before this Court, however, is not such a dispute.
¶39The Remedy
¶40Having concluded that the Superior Court's adoption of the Borst Plan cannot stand, we turn to the question of what to do next. If time were not of the essence and the administrative complexities of a 32-member court reaching a decision not so daunting,
¶41But time is of the essence. The primary election is scheduled for May 6, 2003, and the Marion County Election Board has told us that it must have district boundaries in place as soon as possible in order to conduct an orderly election on that date. Delaying the primary is an unattractive alternative for several reasons. Other races besides those for the Council are at stake in the primary election. This raises the prospect of either holding two primary elections or of prolonging the campaigns of all the other races. Also, primary election day is a State holiday, and rescheduling the primary would disrupt the schedules of many election day workers and volunteers. Given these time pressures, we find it appropriate and necessary to draw the district boundaries ourselves.
¶42In a submission of supplemental authority filed with this case, Councillor Borst argues that this Court is without authority to draw legislative district boundaries. However, the General Assembly assigned the task of redrawing district boundaries to the judicial branch of government in the event of political deadlock. - See LC. § 86-8-4-3(d). - The Indiana Constitution grants this Court broad jurisdiction over judicial matters. "The Supreme Court shall exercise appellate jurisdiction under such terms and conditions as specified by rules ...." IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. There is no question we have appellate jurisdiction over the case. - Having thus acquired jurisdiction, we can exercise that jurisdiction, as authorized by the Indiana Constitution, in accordance with court rules. The Rules of Appellate Procedure allow this Court to, among other things:
(2) reverse the decision of the trial court
++3
[[Image here]]
(7) order correction of a judgment or order;
[[Image here]]
(9) make any relief granted subject to conditions; and
(10) grant any other appropriate relief.
¶43Ind. Appellate Rule 66(C).
¶44Moreover, although the Court's appellate jurisdiction is now governed by Appellate Rule 4, we note that the legislature did explicitly envision review by this Court of any decision made by the Superior Court under the Redistricting Statute. See 1.C. § 86-3-4-83(d). Given that explicit recognition by the legislature of a role for this Court in such matters and the broad jurisdiction invested in this Court by the Indiana Constitution and the Rules of Appellate Procedure, we conclude that it is within our authority to redraw the Council district lines in a politically neutral manner.
¶45To that end, by order dated March 7, 20083, and pursuant to Appellate Rule 27, *677we directed the parties to provide this Court with additional materials from the proceedings below. Included among those materials were exhibits better illustrating the various plans and database information used by the experts below to draw Council district lines in the various plan. To assure that the process be free of any hint of political partisanship, paragraph 2 of our order directed:
e. - The database shall not include individual or collective information about voting histories, political party affiliations, incumbency information, voting projections, or political data of that nature. This information is not relevant to the Court's review.
[[Image here]]
g. The information requested is neutral in nature and not a matter about which any dispute between the parties has been identified, nor would such a dispute be expected. Accordingly, the Court fully anticipates that assembly of the requested data and the filing will be done cooperatively and jointly by the parties. The Court understands that there may be disagreement or objection to the outcomes the data has in the past or may in the future produce. However, there should be no dispute about the data itself or to the relevancy of the data requested. To the extent there is not accord as to relevancy of any particular data item, the parties should err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion (except as to political party data excluded in paragraph 2(e), above)....
¶46We commend the parties for their cooperation in this process. We note that although there is some disagreement on the exact boundaries of some precinets, the parties have agreed to the use of the set of data submitted by Councillor Borst for the purposes of this appeal.
¶47In redrawing the district lines, we gave primary consideration to the following factors mandated by the Redistricting Statute: equality of population, compactness, and the prohibition against crossing pre-cinet boundary lines. We also considered township lines, major rivers and thoroughfares, and school districts. These criteria were used as parameters for a leading computer program designed for redistricting. This program, in fact, was the same one used by both parties in this appeal. The program was used to draw a plan based solely on the identified criteria without consideration of party affiliation or in-cumbeney. In fact, this Court had no data available on these political factors. A description by precinet of that plan is attached as Appendix A. A map reflecting the district boundaries is attached as Appendix B. Appendices A and B are hereby incorporated into this opinion by reference. In addition, maps of the Borst Plan and the Boyd Plan are attached as Appendices C and D, respectively.
¶48The ideal population of each Council district is 34,418. The deviation from this ideal for most of the districts in the plan adopted by this Court is less than one percent, and none deviates by more than 1.8 percent. The attached Appendix E provides further statistical information about this plan. The districts are as compact as possible, given the goal of maximizing population equality and the mandate to respect precinet lines. In many instances, straight lines between districts were rendered impossible by the irregular and widely varied shapes and sizes of pre-cinets. Nearly all of the irregular protrusions from one district into another resulted from irregularly shaped precinets. Just a very few irregularities were needed to maintain population balance. For example, the two protrusions from District 21 into District 17 were caused by pre-cinets that straddled what otherwise would *678have been a straight-line boundary. The small protrusion from District 17 into District 21 represents an irregularly shaped precinet included in District 17 to balance the populations. As a practical matter, rivers, thoroughfares, and school districts ended up playing a fairly minor role in the process because of the statutory requirement that precinets be used as the basic building blocks of districts and because we gave a higher priority to population equality and compactness.
¶49Nothing in this opinion prevents the Council, subject to veto by Mayor Peterson, from redrawing these boundaries at any time under IC. § This provision is normally subject to the restriction that the Council may not change the boundary of a district established under the Redistricting Statute "after November 8 of the year preceding the year in which a municipal election is to be held and before the day following the date on which the municipal election is held except to assign territory to a municipal legislative body district in an annexation ordinance." See Ind.Code § 3-11-1.5-32 (1998). We do not read this restriction, however, to apply to ongoing efforts to effect a decennial redistricting required by the Redistricting Statute. We therefore conclude that the Council and the mayor are still free, even at this late date, to fashion a political solution to this dispute.
¶50Time, however, is running out if the primary election is to be held on schedule. Therefore, the plan designed by this Court will be in effect for the primary election unless a different plan is adopted by ordinance prior to noon on March 26, 2003 (the deadline for response to any petition for rehearing).
¶51Conclusion
¶52It is with great reluctance that we embark on resolving this politically-charged redistricting issue. We conclude, however, that when the Council and the mayor are unable to reach a suitable political solution, the Redistricting Statute calls on the judi-clary to resolve the deadlock through a judicial decision, marked by the principles of independence and neutrality. The decision by the Marion Superior Court to adopt, by a close, party-line vote, a plan that has been uniformly supported by one major political party and uniformly opposed by the other, cannot be reconciled with both the appearance and fact of seru-pulous judicial neutrality. Rather, a judicial decision calls for the adoption of a plan that considers only politically neutral factors required by federal and State constitutions and statutes.
¶53If we remanded this case, we have no reason to doubt the Superior Court's ability and willingness to follow our guidance on this issue of first impression in this State. However, due to severe time constraints involved, we have chosen instead to adopt a plan consistent with the principles we have set forth, subject to redraw ing through an appropriate legislative process.
¶54The Court's plan was drawn with strict neutrality, without consideration of party affiliation or incumbency. 'The Court imposed neither the Borst Plan proposed by the Republican majority of the Council, see Appendix C, nor the Boyd Plan proposed by the Democratic minority, see Appendix D.
¶55For the reasons above, the judgment of the Marion Superior Court is reversed. The redistricting plan attached to and incorporated by reference into this opinion will govern the district boundaries of the Council unless and until a different plan is enacted.
¶56Because time is of the essence, the Court, by separate order, has set shortened deadlines to govern rehearing under *679Appellate Rule 54. In addition, the Court now establishes the close of business on March 31, 2003, as the deadline for any person to declare his or her candidacy for any position on the Council. Because pri- or candidacy declarations were made without regard to districts, persons making such declarations must still designate whether he or she is running for an at-large position, and if not, the district for which he or she is running. The deadline for such designations shall also be the close of business on March 31, 2003.
¶57Appendix A: List of Precinets in Each City-County District
¶58DISTRICT 1:
¶59Pike Precinet 1
¶60Pike Precinet 2
¶61Pike Precinet 4
¶62Pike Precinet 5
¶63Pike Precinet 6
¶64Pike Precinet 8
¶65Pike Precinet 9
¶66Pike Precinet 12
¶67Pike Precinet 14
¶68Pike Precinet 15
¶69Pike Precinet 18
¶70Pike Precinet 19
¶71Pike Precinet 21
¶72Pike Precinet 22
¶73Pike Precinet 26
¶74Pike Precinet 27
¶75Pike Precinet 28
¶76Pike Precinet 29
¶77Pike Precinet 34
¶78Pike Precinet 836
¶79Pike Precinet 87
¶80Pike Precinet 38
¶81Pike Precinet 89
¶82Pike Precinet 40
¶83Pike Precinet 41
¶84Pike Precinet 44
¶85Pike Precinet 52
¶86Pike Precinet 54
¶87Pike Precinet 55
¶88Pike Precinet 56
¶89Pike Precinet 59
¶90Pike Precinet 60
¶91DISTRICT 2:
¶92Pike Precinet 13
¶93Pike Precinet 20
¶94Pike Precinet 85
¶95Pike Precinet 48
¶96Pike Precinet 53
¶97Washington Precinet 18
¶98Washington Precinet 22
¶99Washington Precinet 25
¶100Washington Precinet 30
¶101Washington Precinet 38
¶102Washington Precinet 34
¶103Washington Precinet 37
¶104Washington Precinet 38
¶105Washington Precinet 46
¶106Washington Precinet 47
¶107Washington Precinet 48
¶108Washington Precinet 49
¶109Washington Precinet 53
¶110Washington Precinet 60
¶111Washington Precinet 61
¶112Washington Precinet 62
¶113Washington Precinet 63
¶114Washington Precinet 67
¶115Washington Precinet 68
¶116Washington Precinet 69
¶117Washington Precinet 72
¶118Washington Precinet 78
¶119Washington Precinet 74
¶120Washington Precinet 80
¶121*680Washington Precinet 84
¶122Washington Precinet 85
¶123Washington Precinet 91
¶124Washington Precinet 92
¶125Washington Precinet 98
¶126Washington Precinet 96
¶127Washington Precinet 104
¶128Washington Precinet 105
¶129Washington Precinet 106
¶130Washington Precinet 107
¶131Washington Precinet 109
¶132Washington Precinet 110
¶133Washington Precinet 112
¶134DISTRICT 3:
¶135Ward 21 Precinet 1
¶136Ward 21 Precinet 2
¶137Ward 21 Precinet 3
¶138Ward 21 Precinet 4
¶139Ward 21 Precinet 5
¶140Ward 21 Precinet 6
¶141Ward 21 Precinet 7
¶142Ward 21 Precinet 9
¶143Ward 21 Precinet 10
¶144Ward 21 Precinet 11
¶145Ward 21 Precinet 12
¶146Ward 21 Precinet 18
¶147Ward 21 Precinet 14
¶148Ward 21 Precinet 15
¶149Ward 21 Precinet 16
¶150Ward 21 Precinet 17
¶151Ward 21 Precinet 18
¶152Ward 21 Precinet 19
¶153Ward 21 Precinet 20
¶154Ward 21 Precinet 21
¶155Ward 21 Precinet 28
¶156Ward 21 Precinet 24
¶157Ward 22 Precinet 3
¶158Ward 22 Precinet 9
¶159Ward 22 Precinet 10
¶160Washington Precinet 2
¶161Washington Precinet 7
¶162Washington Precinet 10
¶163Washington Precinet 12
¶164Washington Precinet 26
¶165Washington Precinet 27
¶166Washington Precinet 29
¶167Washington Precinet 31
¶168Washington Precinet 48
¶169Washington Precinet 54
¶170Washington Precinet 59
¶171Washington Precinet 64
¶172Washington Precinet 65
¶173Washington Precinet 66
¶174Washington Precinet 79
¶175Washington Precinet 87
¶176Washington Precinet 88
¶177Washington Precinet 89
¶178Washington Precinet 98
¶179Washington Precinet 102
¶180Washington Precinet 103
¶181Washington Precinet 113
¶182Washington Precinet 114
¶183DISTRICT 4:
¶184Ward 21 Precinet 22
¶185Ward 31 Precinet 2
¶186Ward 31 Precinet 3
¶187Ward 31 Precinet 4
¶188Ward 31 Precinet 5
¶189Ward 31 Precinet 6
¶190Ward 31 Precinet 7
¶191Ward 31 Precinet 8
¶192Ward 31 Precinet 10
¶193Washington Precinet 1
¶194Washington Precinet 3
¶195Washington Precinet 5
¶196Washington Precinet 6
¶197Washington Precinet 9
¶198Washington Precinet 11
¶199*681Washington Precinet 15
¶200Washington Precinet 16
¶201Washington Precinet 17
¶202Washington Precinet 18
¶203Washington Precinet 21
¶204Washington Precinet 28
¶205Washington Precinet 32
¶206Washington Precinet 35
¶207Washington Precinet 39
¶208Washington Precinet 40
¶209Washington Precinet 41
¶210Washington Precinet 42
¶211Washington Precinet 44
¶212Washington Precinet 45
¶213Washington Precinet 52
¶214Washington Precinet 55
¶215Washingtoh Precinet 56
¶216Washington Precinet 57
¶217Washington Precinet 58
¶218Washington Precinet 70
¶219Washington Precinet 75
¶220Washington Precinet 76
¶221Washington Precinet 77
¶222Washington Precinet 78
¶223Washington Precinet 81
¶224Washington Precinet 86
¶225Washington Precinet 90
¶226Washington Precinet 94
¶227Washington Precinet 97
¶228Washington Precinet 101
¶229Washington Precinet 111
¶230DISTRICT 5:
¶231Lawrence Precinet 16
¶232Lawrence Precinet 17
¶233Lawrence Precinet 27
¶234Lawrence Precinet 28
¶235Lawrence Precinet 32
¶236Lawrence Precinet 85
¶237Lawrence Precinet 38
¶238Lawrence Precinet 48
¶239Lawrence Precinet 44
¶240Lawrence Precinet 45
¶241Lawrence Precinet 46
¶242Lawrence Precinet 47
¶243Lawrence Precinet 48
¶244Lawrence Precinet 52
¶245Lawrence Precinet 58
¶246Lawrence Precinet 58
¶247Lawrence Precinet 59
¶248Lawrence Precinet 64
¶249Lawrence Precinet 65
¶250Lawrence Precinet 68
¶251Lawrence Precinet 70
¶252Lawrence Precinet 71
¶253Lawrence Precinet 72
¶254Lawrence Precinet 78
¶255Lawrence Precinet 74
¶256Lawrence Precinet 76
¶257Lawrence Precinet 77
¶258Lawrence Precinet 78
¶259Lawrence Precinet 79
¶260Lawrence Precinet 80
¶261Lawrence Precinet 81
¶262Lawrence Precinet 82
¶263Lawrence Precinet 84
¶264Lawrence Precinet 85
¶265Lawrence Precinet 86
¶266Lawrence Precinet 87
¶267Lawrence Precinet 88
¶268Lawrence Precinet 90
¶269Geist Reservoir (Non-Voting)
¶270DISTRICT 6:
¶271Ward 29 Precinet 18
¶272Ward 29 Precinet 28
¶273Center Ward 32 Precinet 1
¶274Eagle Creek Reservoir (Non-Voting)
¶275Pike Precinet 8
¶276Pike Precinet 23
¶278Pike Precinet 31
¶279Pike Precinet 32
¶280Pike Precinet 33
¶281Pike Precinet 48
¶282Pike Precinet 45
¶283Pike Precinet 46
¶284Pike Precinet 49
¶285Pike Precinet 51
¶286Pike Precinet 57
¶287Wayne Precinet 3
¶288Wayne Precinet 22
¶289Wayne Precinet 34
¶290Wayne Precinet 37
¶291Wayne Precinet 88
¶292Wayne Precinet 45
¶293Wayne Precinet 59
¶294Wayne Precinet 70
¶295Wayne Precinet 71
¶296Wayne Precinet 77
¶297Wayne Precinet 82
¶298Wayne Precinet 83
¶299Wayne Precinet 84
¶300Wayne Precinet 85
¶301Wayne Precinet 88
¶302DISTRICT 7:
¶303Ward 29 Precinet 6
¶304Ward 29 Precinet 7
¶305Ward 29 Precinet 9
¶306Ward 29 Precinet 10
¶307Ward 29 Precinet 11
¶308Ward 29 Precinet 12
¶309Ward 29 Precinet 14
¶310Ward 29 Precinet 19
¶311Ward 29 Precinet 20
¶312Ward 29 Precinet 21
¶313Ward 29 Precinet 22
¶314Ward 29 Precinet 24
¶315Ward 29 Precinet 25
¶316Ward 29 Precinet 30
¶317Ward 29 Precinet 31
¶318Ward 29 Precinet 83
¶319Ward 82 Precinet 2
¶320Center Ward 32 Precinet 3
¶321Center Ward 32 Precinet 4
¶322Pike Precinet 7
¶323Pike Precinet 10
¶324Pike Precinet 11
¶325Pike Precinet 16
¶326Pike Precinet 17
¶327Pike Precinet 24
¶328Pike Precinet 25
¶329Pike Precinet 42
¶330Pike Precinet 47
¶331Pike Precinet 50
¶332Pike Precinet 58
¶333Wayne Precinet 28
¶334Wayne Precinet 89
¶335Wayne Precinet 47
¶336Wayne Precinet 61
¶337DISTRICT 8:
¶338Center Ward 5 Precinet 2
¶339Center Ward 5 Precinet 3
¶340Center Ward 5 Precinet 4
¶341Center Ward 5 Precinet 5
¶342Center Ward 5 Precinet 9
¶343Center Ward 5 Precinet 10
¶344Center Ward 5 Precinet 11
¶345Center Ward 6 Precinet 1
¶346Center Ward 6 Precinet 3
¶347Center Ward 6 Precinet 10
¶348Ward 20 Precinet 1
¶349Ward 20 Precinet 2
¶350Ward 20 Precinet 3
¶351Ward 20 Precinet 5
¶352Ward 20 Precinet 6
¶353Ward 20 Precinet 7
¶354Ward 20 Precinet 8
¶356Ward 20 Precinet 11
¶357Ward 20 Precinet 12
¶358Ward 20 Precinet 13
¶359Ward 20 Precinet 15
¶360Ward 20 Precinet 16
¶361Ward 20 Precinet 17
¶362Ward 20 Precinet 18
¶363Ward 20 Precinet 19
¶364Ward 21 Precinet 8
¶365Ward 29 Precinet 16
¶366. Ward 29 Precinet 28
¶367Ward 29 Precinet 29
¶368Washington Precinet 4
¶369Washington Precinet 8
¶370Washington Precinet 14
¶371Washington Precinet 19
¶372Washington Precinet 20
¶373Washington Precinet 28
¶374Washington Precinet 24
¶375Washington Precinet 36
¶376Washington Precinet 50
¶377Washington Precinet 51
¶378Washington Precinet 71
¶379Washington Precinet 82
¶380Washington Precinet 88
¶381Washington Precinet 108
¶382DISTRICT t:
¶383Center Ward 3 Precinet 1
¶384Center Ward 3 Precinet 2
¶385Center Ward 3 Precinet 3
¶386Center Ward 3 Precinet 4
¶387Center Ward 3 Precinet 5
¶388Center Ward 3 Precinet 6
¶389Center Ward 3 Precinet 7
¶390Center Ward 3 Precinet 8
¶391Center Ward 4 Precinet 1
¶392Center Ward 4 Precinet 2
¶393Center Ward 4 Precinet 3
¶394Center Ward 4 Precinet 4
¶395Center Ward 4 Precinet 5
¶396Center Ward 4 Precinet 6
¶397Center Ward 4 Precinet 7
¶398Center Ward 4 Precinet 9
¶399Center Ward 4 Precinet 10
¶400Center Ward 8 Precinet 2
¶401Center Ward 8 Preqnct 4
¶402Center Ward 8 Precn’lct 5
¶403Center Ward 11 Precinet 2
¶404Ward 20 Precinet 4
¶405Ward 20 Precinet 9
¶406Ward 20 Precinet 14
¶407Ward 22 Precinet 1
¶408Ward 22 Precinet 2
¶409Ward 22 Precinet 4
¶410Ward 22 Precinet 5
¶411Ward 22 Precinet 6
¶412Ward 22 Precinet 7
¶413Ward 22 Precinet 8
¶414Ward 22 Precinet 11
¶415Ward 22 Precinet 12
¶416Ward 22 Precinet 13
¶417Ward 22 Precinet 14
¶418Center Ward 23 Precinet 1
¶419Center Ward 23 Precinet 3
¶420Center Ward 23 Precinet 4
¶421Center Ward 23 Precinet 5
¶422Center Ward 23 Precinet 6
¶423Center Ward 23 Precinet 8
¶424Center Ward 23 Precinet 9
¶425Center Ward 23 Precinet 10
¶426Center Ward 23 Precinet 11
¶427Center Ward 28 Precinet 12
¶428Center Ward 23 Precinet 13
¶429Ward 31 Precinet 1
¶430DISTRICT 10:
¶431Center Ward 1 Precinet 1
¶432Center Ward 1 Precinet 2
¶433*684Center Ward 1 Precinet 3
¶434Center Ward 1 Precinet 4
¶435Center Ward 1 Precinet 5
¶436Center Ward 1 Precinet 6
¶437Center Ward 1 Precinet 7
¶438Center Ward 1 Precinet 9
¶439Center Ward 1 Precinet 10
¶440Center Ward 1 Precinet 12
¶441Center Ward 1 Precinet 18
¶442Center Ward 1 Precinet 14
¶443Center Ward 1 Precinet 15
¶444Center Ward 1 Precinet 16
¶445Center Ward 1 Precinet 17
¶446Center Ward 2 Precinet 2
¶447Center Ward 2 Precinet 3
¶448Center Ward 2 Precinet 4
¶449Center Ward 2 Precinet 7
¶450Center Ward 2 Precinet 8
¶451Center Ward 2 Precinet 9
¶452Center Ward 2 Precinet 10
¶453Center Ward 2 Precinet 11
¶454Center Ward 9 Precinet 1
¶455Center Ward 9 Precinet 2
¶456Center Ward 9 Precinet 3
¶457Center Ward 9 Precinet 5
¶458Center Ward 9 Precinet 6
¶459Center Ward 9 Precinet 7
¶460Center Ward 9 Precinet 9
¶461Center Ward 9 Precinet 10
¶462Center Ward 9 Precinet 11
¶463Center Ward 9 Precinet 12
¶464Center Ward 9 Precinet 14
¶465Center Ward 9 Precinet 15
¶466Center Ward 9 Precinet 16
¶467Center Ward 10 Precinet 4
¶468Center Ward 23 Precinet 2
¶469Center Ward 28 Precinet 7
¶470Center Ward 25 Precinet 7
¶471DISTRICT 11:
¶472Ward 27 Precinet 1
¶473Ward 27 Precinet 2
¶474Ward 27 Precinet 3
¶475Ward 27 Precinet 4
¶476Ward 27 Precinet 5
¶477Ward 27 Precinet 6
¶478Ward 27 Precinet 7
¶479Ward 27 Precinet 9
¶480Ward 27 Precinet 10
¶481Ward 27 Precinet 11
¶482Ward 27 Precinet 12
¶483Ward 27 Precinet 17
¶484Ward 27 Precinet 22
¶485Ward 27 Precinet 25
¶486Ward 27 Precinet 26
¶487Ward 27 Precinet 28
¶488Ward 27 Precinet 29
¶489Ward 27 Precinet 30
¶490Lawrence Precinet 2
¶491Lawrence Precinet 3
¶492Lawrence Precinet 4
¶493Lawrence Precinet 5
¶494Lawrence Precinet 7
¶495Lawrence Precinet 9
¶496Lawrence Precinet 10
¶497Lawrence Precinet 11
¶498Lawrence Precinet 14
¶499Lawrence Precinet 15
¶500Lawrence Precinet 18
¶501Lawrence Precinet 19
¶502Lawrence Precinet 21
¶503Lawrence Precinet 24
¶504Lawrence Precinet 26
¶505Lawrence Precinet 31
¶506Lawrence Precinet 33
¶507Lawrence Precinet 37
¶508Lawrence Precinet 39
¶509Lawrence Precinet 40
¶511Lawrence Precinet 49
¶512Lawrence Precinet 62
¶513Lawrence Precinet 63
¶514Lawrence Precinet 75
¶515Lawrence Precinet 83
¶516Lawrence Precinet 91
¶517DISTRICT 12:
¶518Ward 27 Precinet 8
¶519Ward 27 Precinet 18
¶520Ward 27 Precinet 16
¶521Ward 27 Precinet 20
¶522Ward 27 Precinet 24
¶523Lawrence Precinet 1
¶524Lawrence Precinet 6
¶525Lawrence Precinet 8
¶526Lawrence Precinet 12
¶527Lawrence Precinet 13
¶528Lawrence Precinet 20
¶529Lawrence Precinet 22
¶530Lawrence Precinet 28
¶531Lawrence Precinet 25
¶532Lawrence Precinet 29
¶533Lawrence Precinet 30
¶534Lawrence Precinet 34
¶535Lawrence Precinet 86
¶536Lawrence Precinet 50
¶537Lawrence Precinet 51
¶538Lawrence Precinet 54
¶539Lawrence Precinet 55
¶540Lawrence Precinet 56
¶541Lawrence Precinet 57
¶542Lawrence Precinet 60
¶543Lawrence Precinet 66
¶544Lawrence Precinet 67
¶545Lawrence Precinet 89
¶546DISTRICT 13:
¶547Wayne Precinet 4
¶548Wayne Precinet 9
¶549Wayne Precinet 10
¶550Wayne Precinet 11
¶551Wayne Precinet 12
¶552Wayne Precinet 19
¶553Wayne Precinet 21
¶554Wayne Precinet 23
¶555Wayne Precinet 29
¶556Wayne Precinet 33
¶557Wayne Precinet 35
¶558Wayne Precinet 36
¶559Wayne Precinet 48
¶560Wayne Precinet 44
¶561Wayne Precinet 49
¶562Wayne Precinet 52
¶563Wayne Precinet 53
¶564Wayne Precinet 54
¶565Wayne Precinet 56
¶566Wayne Precinet 57
¶567Wayne Precinet 62
¶568Wayne Precinet 68
¶569Wayne Precinet 64
¶570Wayne Precinet 65
¶571Wayne Precinet 67
¶572Wayne Precinet 69
¶573Wayne Precinet 78
¶574Wayne Precinet 74
¶575Wayne Precinet 76
¶576Wayne Precinet 79
¶577Wayne Precinet 81
¶578Wayne Precinet 86
¶579Wayne Precinet 87
¶580DISTRICT 14:
¶581Ward 19 Precinet 1
¶582Ward 19 Precinet 4
¶583Ward 19 Precinet 5
¶584Ward 19 Precinet 6
¶585Ward 19 Precinet 7
¶586Ward 19 Precinet 8 >
¶587Ward 19 Precinet 9
¶589Ward 24 Precinet 1
¶590Ward 29 Precinet 5
¶591Ward 29 Precinet 8
¶592Ward 29 Precinet 15
¶593Ward 29 Precinet 26
¶594Wayne Precinet 1
¶595Wayne Precinet 2
¶596. Wayne Precinet 5
¶597Wayne Precinet 7
¶598, Wayne Precinct 8
¶599Wayne Precinet 13
¶600Wayne Precinet 17
¶601Wayne Precinet 18
¶602Wayne Precinet 25
¶603Wayne Precinet 26
¶604Wayne Precinet 27
¶605Wayne Precinet 81
¶606Wayne Precinet 82
¶607Wayne Precinet 40
¶608Wayne Precinet 46
¶609Wayne Precinet 48
¶610Wayne Precinet 50
¶611Wayne Precinet 51
¶612Wayne Precinet 55
¶613Wayne Precinet 60
¶614. Wayne Precinet 66
¶615Wayne Precinet 72
¶616Wayne Precinct 80
¶617DISTRICT 15;
¶618Center Ward 4 Precinet 8
¶619Center Ward 5 Precinet 1
¶620Center Ward 5 Precinet 6
¶621Center Ward 5 Precinet 7
¶622Center Ward 5 Precinet 8
¶623Center Ward 5 Precinet 12
¶624Center Ward 6 Precinet 2
¶625Center Ward 6 Precinet 4
¶626Center Ward 6 Precinet 5
¶627Center Ward 6 Precinet 6
¶628Center Ward 6 Precinet 7
¶629Center Ward 6 Precinet 8
¶630Center Ward 6 Precinet 9
¶631Center Ward 6 Precinet 11
¶632Center Ward 7 Precinet 1
¶633Center Ward 7 Precinet 2
¶634Center Ward 7 Precinet 3
¶635. Ward 7 Precinet 4
¶636Center Ward 7 Precinet 6
¶637Center Ward 8 Precinet 1
¶638Center Ward 8 Precinet 3
¶639Center Ward 11 Precinet 1
¶640Center Ward 11 Precinet 3
¶641Center Ward 11 Precinet 4
¶642Center Ward 11 Precinet 5
¶643Center Ward 12 Precinet 1
¶644Center Ward 12 Precinet 2
¶645Center Ward 12 Precinet 3
¶646Center Ward 12 Precinet 4
¶647Center Ward 12 Precinet 5
¶648Ward 19 Precinet 2
¶649Ward 19 Precinet 8
¶650Ward 19 Precinet 11
¶651Ward 19 Precinet 12
¶652Ward 24 Precinet 2
¶653Ward 24 Precinet 3
¶654Ward 29 Precinet 1
¶655Ward 29 Precinet 2
¶656Ward 29 Precinet 3
¶657Ward 29 Precinet 4
¶658Ward 29 Precinet 17
¶659Ward 29 Precinet 27
¶660DISTRICT 16:
¶661Center Ward 2 Precinet 1
¶662Center Ward 10 Precinet 1
¶663Center Ward 10 Precinet 2
¶664Center Ward 10 Precinet 3
¶665Center Ward 10 Precinet 5
¶666*687Center Ward 10 Precinet 6
¶667Center Ward 10 Precinet 7
¶668Center Ward 10 Precinet 8
¶669Center Ward 10 Precinet 9
¶670Center Ward 10 Precinet 10
¶671Center Ward 16 Precinet 1
¶672Center Ward 16 Precinet 2
¶673Center Ward 16 Precinet 8
¶674Center Ward 16 Precinet 4
¶675Center Ward 16 Precinet 5
¶676Center Ward 16 Precinet 6
¶677Center Ward 16 Precinet 7
¶678Center Ward 16 Precinet 8
¶679Center Ward 16 Precinet 10
¶680Center Ward 16 Precinet 11
¶681Center Ward 17 Precinet 1
¶682Center Ward 17 Precinet 7
¶683Center Ward 17 Precinet 9
¶684Center Ward 25 Precinet 1
¶685Center Ward 25 Precinet 2
¶686Center Ward 25 Precinet 6
¶687Center Ward 25 Precinet 8
¶688Center Ward 25 Precinet 9
¶689Center Ward 25 Precinet 10
¶690Center Ward 25 Precinet 13
¶691Center Ward 25 Precinet 14
¶692DISTRICT 17:
¶693Ward 18 Precinet 7
¶694Ward 28 Precinet 1
¶695Ward 28 Precinet 2
¶696Ward 28 Precinet 8
¶697Ward 28 Precinet 4
¶698Ward 28 Precinet 5
¶699Ward 28 Precinet 6
¶700Ward 28 Precinet 7
¶701Ward 28 Precinet 8
¶702Ward 28 Precinet 9
¶703Ward 28 Precinet 10
¶704Ward 28 Precinet 11
¶705Ward 28 Precinet 12
¶706Ward 28 Precinet 13
¶707Ward 28 Precinet 14
¶708Ward 28 Precinet 15
¶709Ward 28 Precinet 17
¶710Ward 28 Precinet 19
¶711Ward 28 Precinet 20
¶712Ward 28 Precinet 21
¶713Ward 28 Precinet 22
¶714Ward 28 Precinet 283
¶715Ward 28 Precinet 24
¶716Ward 28 Precinet 25
¶717Ward 28 Precinet 28
¶718Ward 28 Precinet 30
¶719Warren Precinet 2
¶720Warren Precinet 7
¶721Warren Precinet 11
¶722Warren Precinet 14
¶723Warren Precinet 15
¶724Warren Precinet 18
¶725Warren Precinet 23
¶726Warren Precinet 33
¶727Warren Precinet 86
¶728Warren Precinet 37
¶729Warren Precinet 38
¶730Warren Precinet 51
¶731Warren Precinet 54
¶732Warren Precinet 56
¶733Warren Precinet 57
¶734DISTRICT 18:
¶735Ward 27 Precinet 14
¶736Ward 27 Precinet 15
¶737Ward 27 Precinet 18
¶738Ward 27 Precinet 19
¶739Ward 27 Precinet 21
¶740Ward 27 Precinet 283.
¶741Ward 28 Precinet 18
¶742Ward 28 Precinet 26
¶743Ward 28 Precinet 27
¶745Lawrence Precinet 42
¶746Warren Precinet 9
¶747Warren Precinet 17
¶748Warren Precinet 20
¶749Warren Precinet 21
¶750Warren Precinet 24
¶751Warren Precinet 34
¶752Warren Precinet 35
¶753Warren Precinet 89
¶754Warren Precinet 41,
¶755Warren Precinet 42
¶756Warren Precinet 48.
¶757Warren Precinet 47
¶758Warren Precinet 48
¶759Warren Precinet 49
¶760Warren Precinet 50°
¶761Warren Precinet 59
¶762DISTRICT 19:
¶763Center Ward 18 Precinet 1
¶764Center Ward 18 Precinet 2
¶765Center Ward 13 Precinet 4
¶766Center Ward 18 Precinet 5
¶767Center Ward 18 Precinet 6
¶768Center Ward 13 Precinet 7
¶769Center Ward 13 Precinet 8
¶770Center Ward 13 Precinet 9
¶771Center Ward 13 Precinet 10
¶772Center Ward 183 Precinet 11
¶773Center Ward 18 Precinet 12
¶774Center Ward 13 Precinet 13
¶775Center Ward 14 Precinet 2
¶776Center Ward 14 Precinet 4
¶777Center Ward 14 Precinet 5
¶778Center Ward 14 Precinet 6
¶779Center Ward 15 Precinet 1
¶780Center Ward 15 Precinet 2
¶781Center Ward 15 Precinet 3"
¶782Center Ward 17 Precinet 4
¶783Center Ward 17 Precinet 10
¶784Ward 24 Precinet 4
¶785Ward 24 Precinet 5
¶786Ward 24 Precinet 6
¶787Ward 24 Precinet 7
¶788Center Ward 30 Precinet 7
¶789Center Ward 30 Precinet 8
¶790Center Ward 30 Precinet 11
¶791Wayne Precinet 6
¶792Wayne Precinet 14
¶793Wayne Precinet 15
¶794Wayne Precinet 16
¶795Wayne Precinet 24
¶796Wayne Precinet 30
¶797~ DISTRICT 20:
¶798Center Ward 17 Precinet 2
¶799Center Ward 17 Precinet 3
¶800Center Ward 17 Precinet 5
¶801Center Ward 17 Precinet 6
¶802Center Ward 17 Precinet 8
¶803Center Ward 17 Precinet 11
¶804Ward 26 Precinet 4
¶805Center Ward 26 Precinet 8
¶806Center Ward 30 Precinet 1
¶807Center Ward 30 Precinet 2
¶808Center Ward 30 Precinet 3
¶809Center Ward 30 Precinet 4
¶810Center Ward 30 Precinet 5
¶811Center Ward 30 Precinet 6
¶812Center Ward 30 Precinet 9
¶813Center Ward 30 Precinet 10
¶814Center Ward 30 Precinet 12
¶815Center Outside Precinet 1
¶816Center Outside Precinet 2
¶817Center Outside Precinet 3
¶818Center Outside Precinet 4
¶819Perry Precinet 1
¶820Perry Precinet 2
¶821Perry Precinet 3
¶823Perry Precinet 16
¶824Perry Precinet 23
¶825Perry Precinet 24
¶826Perry Precinet 32
¶827Perry Precinet 42
¶828Perry Precinet 50
¶829Perry Precinet 58
¶830Perry Precinet 61
¶831Perry Precinet 63
¶832Perry Precinct 72
¶833. Perry Precinet 73
¶834Perry Precinet 82
¶835Perry Precinet 85
¶836DISTRICT 21:
¶837Ward 18 Precinet 1
¶838Ward 18 Precinet 2
¶839Ward 18 Precinet 3
¶840Ward 18 precinet 4
¶841Ward 18 Precinet 5
¶842Ward 18 Precinet 6 °
¶843Ward 18 Precinet 8
¶844Ward 18 Precinet 9
¶845Ward 18 Precinet 10
¶846Ward 18 Precinet 11
¶847Ward 18 Precinet 12
¶848Ward 18 Precinet 13
¶849Ward 18 precinet 14
¶850Ward 18 Precinet 15 ar
¶851c inct 3 enter Ward 25 Precinet
¶852Center Ward 25 Precinet 4
¶853Center Ward 25 Precinet 11
¶854Center Ward 25 Precinet 12
¶855Warren Precinet 1
¶856Warren Precinet 3
¶857Warren Precinet 4
¶858Warren Precinet 5
¶859Warren Precinet 6
¶860Warren Precinet 8
¶861Warren Precinet 10
¶862Warren Precinet 12
¶863Warren Precinet 19
¶864Warren Precinet 22
¶865Warren Precinet 25
¶866Warren Precinet 26
¶867Warren Precinet 27
¶868Warren Precinet 29
¶869Warren Precinet 30
¶870Warren Precinet 31
¶871Warren Precinet 32
¶872Warren Precinet 45
¶873Warren Precinet 55
¶874DISTRICT 32:
¶875Decatur Precinet 1
¶876Decatur Precinet 2
¶877Decatur Precinet 3
¶878Decatur Precinet 4
¶879Decatur Precinet 5
¶880Decatur Precinet 6
¶881Decatur Precinet 7
¶882Decatur Precinet 8
¶883Decatur Precinet 9
¶884Decatur Precinet 10
¶885Decatur Preqnct 11
¶886Decatur 12
¶887[[Image here]]
¶888ecavur
¶889Decatur Precinet 15
¶890Decatur Precinet 16
¶891Decatur Precinet 17
¶892Decatur Precinet 18
¶893Decatur Precinet 19
¶894Decatur Precinet 20
¶895Perry Precinet 6
¶896Perry Precinet 29
¶897Perry Precinet 65
¶898Perry Precinet 69
¶899Perry Precinet 78
¶901Wayne Precinet 41
¶902Wayne Precinet 68
¶903DISTRICT 238: ©
¶904Ward 26 Precinet 1
¶905Center Ward 26 Precinet 2
¶906Center Ward 26 Precinet 3
¶907Center Ward 26 Precinet 5A
¶908Center Ward 26 Precinet 6
¶909Center Ward 26 Precinet 7
¶910Perry Precinet 4
¶911Perry Precinet 5
¶912Perry Precinet 7
¶913Perry Precinet 18
¶914Perry Precinet 14
¶915Perry Precinet 15
¶916Perry Precinet 22
¶917Perry Precinet 27
¶918Perry Precinet 28
¶919Perry Precinet 30
¶920Perry Precinet 33
¶921Perry Precinet 34
¶922Perry Precinet 35
¶923Perry Precinet 36
¶924[[Image here]]
¶925Perry Precinet 44
¶926Perry Precinet 47
¶927Perry Precinet 48
¶928Perry Precinet 56
¶929Perry Precinet 57
¶930Perry Precinet 58
¶931Perry Precinet 64
¶932Perry Precinet 68
¶933Perry Precinet 75
¶934Perry Precinet 76
¶935Perry Precinet 79
¶936Perry Precinet 80
¶937Perry Precinet 84
¶938Perry Precinet 86
¶939DISTRICT 24:
¶940Perry Precinet 8
¶941Perry Precinet 9
¶942Perry Precinet 10
¶943Perry Pr eqnct 11
¶944Perry 17
¶945[[Image here]]
¶946[[Image here]]
¶947Perry Precinet 20
¶948Perry Precinet 21
¶949Perry Precinet 25
¶950Perry Precinet 26
¶951Perry Precinet 31
¶952Perry Precinet 37
¶953Perry Precinet 38
¶954Perry Precinet 39
¶955Perry Precinet 40
¶956Perry Precinet 41
¶957Perry Precinet 45
¶958Perry Precinet 46
¶959Perry Precinet 49
¶960Perry Precinet 51
¶961Perry Precinet 52
¶962Perry 54.
¶963[[Image here]]
¶964[[Image here]]
¶965Perry Precinet 62
¶966Perry Precinet 66
¶967Perry Precinet 67
¶968Perry Precinet 70
¶969Perry Precinet 71
¶970Perry Precinet 74
¶971Perry Precinet 77
¶972Perry Precinet 83
¶973DISTRICT 25:
¶974Franklin Precinet 1
¶975Franklin Precinet 2
¶976Franklin Precinet 83
¶977Franklin Precinet 4
¶979Franklin Precinet 6
¶980Franklin Precinet 7
¶981Franklin Precinet 8
¶982Franklin Precinet 9
¶983Franklin Precinet 10
¶984Franklin Precinet 11
¶985Franklin Precinet 12
¶986Franklin Precinet 18
¶987Franklin Precinet 14
¶988Franklin Precinet 15
¶989Franklin Precinet 16
¶990Franklin Precinet 17
¶991Franklin Precinet 18
¶992Franklin Precinet 19
¶993Franklin Precinet 20
¶994Franklin Precinet 21
¶995Franklin Precinet 22
¶996Franklin Precinet 28
¶997Franklin Precinet 24
¶998Franklin Precinet 25
¶999Franklin Precinet 26
¶1000Warren Precinet 18
¶1001Warren Precinet 28
¶1006. 1969 Ind. Acts ch. 173.
¶1007. The Superior Court also severed a claim against the Marion County Election Board from the action brought by Councillor Boyd.
¶1008. The Superior Court judges are elected to their positions under a statute designed to assure relative parity between the number of Republican and Democratic judges. See Ind. Code § 33-5.1-2-8 (1998).
¶1009. A federal court was also called on to decide the issue in the prior two reapportionments. See Corbett, 202 F.Supp.2d at 975.
¶1010. We note that when the Unigov Act was first enacted, the Superior Court was composed of just seven judges. See Ind.Code Ann. § 4-2201 (Burns 1968 & Supp.1974).