In a recent interview with Axios, Erik Nisbet, Director of Northwestern University’s Center for Communication & Public Policy (CCPP) and Owen L. Coon Professor of Policy Analysis and Communication, argues that Indiana’s decision not to pursue mid-decade redistricting could have ripple effects far beyond the state.
According to Nisbet, Indiana’s move may “stop or at least mitigate” similar efforts elsewhere—signaling that the political costs of redistricting ahead of the midterms may now outweigh the benefits.
Why Indiana Stepped Back
In the Axios interview, Nisbet points to shifting political incentives facing Republican lawmakers. With Democrats increasingly focusing their messaging on affordability and economic concerns, he notes that former President Trump’s popularity is becoming “a drag on Republicans,” especially in competitive environments.
That reality, Nisbet explains, is forcing state legislatures to reassess whether redistricting is worth the disruption:
“State legislatures are asking, ‘Is it worth it?’ If we go through the midterms, this entire process, and potentially reorganize our state politics simply to gain one or two seats — what’s the point?”
Republicans were favored to gain two additional seats had Indiana lawmakers moved forward. But Nisbet suggests the calculus changed as leaders weighed modest gains against internal backlash, legal risks, and the optics of catering to national political pressures.
A Signal to Other States
Nisbet also frames Indiana’s decision as a potential brake on a broader tit-for-tat dynamic. If one state resists redistricting, it weakens the justification for retaliatory moves elsewhere. That restraint, he argues, may help prevent an escalation that would further erode public trust in electoral fairness.
As Nisbet puts it, lawmakers are increasingly questioning whether “making Trump happy” is worth it when their own political power—and electoral security—could be diminished in the process.
Why This Matters for Democracy
The Axios interview highlights a core theme of CCPP research: how strategic political decisions, shaped by communication and public sentiment, influence democratic norms. Indiana’s choice suggests that political actors may still respond to reputational costs and voter perceptions—creating openings for restraint even in a highly polarized era.
Read the full Axios interview here:
https://www.axios.com/2025/12/13/trump-indiana-illinois-texas-redistricting-midterms