I have been reluctant to write about the redistricting debate in Indiana. After all, there is no original sin to gerrymandering and the economic effects are generally well into the future. But this Indiana General Assembly session offers a rich environment in which to judge the people involved.

Originally, redistricting was supposed to have captured a few House seats for Republicans in Texas, but it spread to other states, including California, Virginia and Illinois. It has run into legal hurdles in Texas, but if all these states pass new maps, the 2027 Congress could see a net effect of a House seat or two.

At the national level, MAGA pressure on Indiana legislators has been intense. This has included direct calls from the president and House Speaker Mike Johnson, threats of well-funded primary candidates and efforts to intimidate or threaten state Senate members.

That pressure has been accompanied by a series of amateurish attempts to sway opinion. My favorite came from Turning Point USA appealing to “Indianans” to redistrict our congressional seats. Apparently, there are no Hoosiers in Turning Point USA.

What’s funny about all the kerfuffle is that the U.S. House of Representatives is going to wildly swing towards the Democrats in the next election. With President Donald Trump’s favorability ratings hovering in the high 30s, the only question is how many seats Democrats will gain.

The ineptness of the national MAGA coalition isn’t limited to its ham-handed marketing. It also helped create a proposed Indiana map that is bizarre in its scope and effects.

This new map places Muncie and Elkhart in the same district, but the closest route between the two would cross three other congressional districts. Gary and Wabash are weirdly placed together, while northern Marion County, Randolph County and southern Jefferson County are in the same district. Thus, a member of Congress would need to drive from 38th Street in Indianapolis to Richmond, then south to south Jefferson County to traverse that district.

As IndyStar’s Jacob Stewart noted, this map seems custom-made to devalue rural voters (see https://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/columnists/2025/12/02/indiana-redistricting-will-disenfranchise-rural-voters/87557639007/). This is undoubtedly true in two ways.

First, the new map deconstructs Indianapolis, placing the largest county into four new congressional districts. This amplifies the voice of urban voters by placing the same city into multiple jurisdictions. At the same time, the vast geography of the gerrymander increases the cost of visiting smaller population centers.

The immediate effect may be modest, but over two or three election cycles, this could mark a big shift in the urban-rural dynamics of political campaigns. It seems likely no one involved in constructing these maps really cares. It is almost as if the national GOP is unconcerned about the state or local effects of their policy.

This raises questions about Hoosier policymakers' motivations.

I am certain there are GOP members who honestly support redistricting on the merits and required no pressure from the national MAGAsphere, no calls or threats from the president’s men. This has mostly focused on the national policy outcomes they wish to preserve. This is politics, after all, and they have to defend their position before voters, who can judge their integrity and good faith, along with the effect of their policies.

But one aspect does puzzle me.

As of this writing, only one GOP member of the Indiana House of Representatives has argued against redistricting. In contrast, only a tad bit more than one-third of GOP senators publicly support redistricting. How could there be such wildly different perspectives among Republicans on the same issue?

One likely explanation: All representatives are up for reelection in 2026.

Many state representatives clearly have been cowed into supporting redistricting. There may also be a few senators who’ve been pressured or threatened into supporting the effort.

That speaks very poorly for the men and women who are too afraid to vote their principles. At best, it makes our legislature beholden to forces outside the state who care not at all for our representation in Congress. At worst, it amplifies the risk of political threats and violence against other legislators.

C.S. Lewis tells us that “courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.” Many Hoosier (or should I say, Indianan) legislators are failing that test.

There is no window into the souls of these legislators, but it seems reasonable that voters demand that they detail their positions on redistricting.

The opposition to redistricting by GOP legislators has been both principled and pragmatic. The principled argument is mostly what I’d call “small-c” conservatism that Hoosiers tend to value. We just aren’t people who like changing rules at halftime or submitting to bullying. That is easy to respect.

The pragmatic argument is also smart and easy to respect. In Virginia, New Jersey and Tennessee, post-Trump elections have swung by double digits toward Democrats, at least two of whom were poor candidates. This means any jiggering of congressional districts must result in lower expected GOP vote margins in most districts.

The midterms are going to be brutal for Republicans. The 2028 elections could be very harsh as well. Proponents of redistricting are trumpeting a 9-0 map if it passes the courts. But the cold hard arithmetic of midterms with a deeply unpopular president makes it possible that they are really crafting a 5-4 map.

Note: The views expressed here are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of funders, associations, any entity of Ball State University, or its governing body.