Unigov: Unifying Indianapolis and Marion County

In 1969, the government of Indianapolis, along with the Indiana General Assembly, passed sweeping legislation to unify the governments of Indianapolis and Marion County into a single municipal government. As whites fled deteriorating cities for the suburbs, cities across the nation faced an erosion of their tax bases. Indianapolis was vastly affected by this exodus, which prompted Mayor Richard Lugar and the City Council to propose the merger of the City of Indianapolis and Marion County under “Unigov,” a term coined by Beurt SerVaas, an Indianapolis city councilman. [1] Upon the enactment of Unigov, Mayor Lugar became the head of the combined executive branch of the city and Marion County. A new City-County Council became the sole legislative body of Unigov, as the original City and County councils were dissolved. This new Council consisted of 29 members, with 25 representing single member districts and four elected at large. [2]

However, this merger of the city and county governments was not all-encompassing, with emergency services and various other governmental resources unable to combine. Unigov also did not consolidate any incorporated cities other than Indianapolis, nor incorporated towns with a population larger than 5,000. [3] This resulted in the categorization of “the cities of Beech Grove, Lawrence, and Southport, and the town of Speedway as separate jurisdictions,” [4] which “continued to elect their mayors and councils as they had before Unigov, while at the same time voting for the Unigov mayor.” [5] While the plan was intended to revive the city of Indianapolis and streamline overlapping governmental agencies, Unigov created serious political backlash.

In January 1969, before the passage of Unigov, members of the Indiana Conference for Civil and Human Rights met to discuss the proposed merger and the impact it would have on the city’s voting population. [6] The members released a statement lambasting Unigov, voicing a concern that neighborhoods predominantly populated by “those who are black and/or poor” may become “so gerrymandered as to dilute their political strength.” [7] At the time, the population of Marion County was 753,500, with a 16% non-white demographic, while the population of Indianapolis was 513,500 with a 23% non-white demographic. [8] The Indiana Conference for Civil and Human Rights were correct in their predictions; after the passage of Unigov by the General Assembly without a public referendum, the incorporation of white suburbanites weakened the strength of what had been a politically powerful, though still economically disadvantaged “growing black minority” in Indianapolis. [9]

Furthermore, “while consolidating some city and county agencies,” Unigov “expressly omitted school corporations” from any consolidation efforts. [10] In fact, the exclusion of schools from the merger was integral to the passage of the law. The proponents of Unigov specifically avoided the creation of a unified school district and widely advertised that fact, so as to “eliminate certain and strong opposition of any of the eleven school districts” in the majority-white suburbs. [11] The previous year, the Justice Department had filed a lawsuit against Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) in federal district court for overtly segregating the city’s schools by “assignment of pupils and teachers” in order to create “one-race schools,” wherein schools with a majority of white students employed white faculty and majority-black schools employed black faculty. [12] Though the case was not fully settled until 1981, the passage of Unigov was representative of the existing segregation in Indianapolis Public Schools, for which the courts found the district guilty.

The suburban school systems excluded from the Unigov merger only had 2.62% black enrollment, and “out of more than three thousand teachers only fifteen were African Americans.” [13] As such, it was found that “UniGov was an act of legislative gerrymandering that denied minority students educational opportunities equal to those that students were offered in the township schools.” [14] Because there were “virtually no black students in the suburbs,” Judge Samuel Hugh Dillin “concluded that a lasting remedy to segregation in IPS was impossible without including the suburban schools,” and ruled in 1973 that black students should be bused “from IPS to suburban schools.” [15] This anti-segregation measure fell entirely upon the shoulders of those who had been discriminated against; “only black students were bused out to the townships—white students were not ordered to come into IPS or to help remedy the divide.” [16] Busing was implemented in 1981, and continued until 2016, when the court order which mandated it expired. [17]

“By incorporating the suburbs in Marion County into the city,” Unigov “widened the city’s tax base, thus helping to stabilize city finances” in Indianapolis. [18] However, these economic benefits were achieved only by disadvantaging the city’s racial minorities and poor population. When Unigov was adopted, “African Americans in Indianapolis lost significant power” as their political influence was diluted with the incorporation of majority-white suburban voters. [19] While Indianapolis prospered under Unigov, the city’s black communities paid the price.

[1] Yaël Ksander, “Unigov, Indiana Public Media, June 11, 2007, https://indianapublicmedia.org/momentofindianahistory/unigov/.
[2] Emma Lou Thornbrough, Indiana Blacks in the Twentieth Century, ed. Lana Ruegamer, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2000): 178.
[3] William Blomquist and Roger B. Parks, “Fiscal, Service, and Political Impacts of Indianapolis-Marion County’s Unigov.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 25, no. 4 (1995): 41.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Emma Lou Thornbrough, “The Indianapolis Story: School Segregation and Desegregation in a Northern City,” 1989 [Manuscript and Visual Collections Department]; BV 2631; William Henry Smith Memorial Library; Indiana Historical Society Collections Department at Indianapolis, IN, [Accessed September 18, 2019, https://www.indianahistory.org/wp-content/uploads/emma-lou-thornbrough-the-indianapolis-story-school.pdf], 254.
[6] “UNIGOV Plan Proposed by Mayor Gets Lashing; Minority Voting Strength Will Be ‘Weakened,’” Indianapolis Recorder (Indianapolis, IN), January 18, 1969.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Thornbrough, Indiana Blacks in the Twentieth Century, 178.
[10] Thornbrough, “The Indianapolis Story,” v.
[11] Thornbrough, “The Indianapolis Story,” 260.
[12] Thornbrough, Indiana Blacks, 155.
[13] Ibid., 156.
[14] Ibid., 158.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Shaina Cavazos, “The End of Busing in Indianapolis: 35 Years Later, a More Segregated School System Calls it Quits,” Chalkbeat, June 30, 2016, https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/in/2016/06/30/the-end-of-busing-in-indianapolis-35-years-later-a-more-segregated-school-system-calls-it-quits/#.V6IDiWNwOQ2.
[17] Ibid.
[18] William H. Hudnut, III, “The Civil City: An Interview with William H. Hudnut, III,” Indiana Magazine of History 102, no. 3 (2006): 261.
[19] Thornbrough, Indiana Blacks, 225.

Student Authors: Allison Hunt and Jake Bailey
Faculty/Staff Editors: Dr. Ronald V. Morris, Dr. Kevin C. Nolan, and Christine Thompson
Graduate Assistant Researchers: Carrie Vachon and JB Bilbrey

PHOTO & VIDEO:
City-County Building (Indianapolis), attributed to Momoneymoproblemz, Public domain, via Wikimedia commons
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:City-County_Building_(Indianapolis)_exterior.jpg