They Have Every Right to Run. But Why Are They Running?

by Abdul-Hakim Shabazz, Esq.

Let me start with the obvious: everyone has every right to run for public office. That is, after all, the point of elections and representative government. But having the right to run is one thing; exercising that right responsibly is something else entirely. It requires knowing — and, more importantly, explaining — why you are running in the first place.

When I ran for Mayor of Indianapolis, I ran on three core issues: public safety, public works, and public trust. More importantly, I laid out detailed proposals on how to achieve each of those goals. That is what a serious candidacy is supposed to look like. You tell voters what problem you are trying to solve, why you are the right person to solve it, and what you intend to do once you get there.

That is why Turning Point USA’s endorsement of a slate of primary challengers against Senate Republicans raises an important question: why are they running?

By and large, these incumbents followed the wishes of their constituents and voted against drawing new congressional maps. And frankly, those proposed maps would have been a political disaster. Under the proposed redraw, my home in northwest Marion County would have moved from the 7th Congressional District to the 4th. Yet the Target literally four blocks from my house would somehow have landed in the 9th. That is not representation. That is cartography by Rorschach inkblot.

No one should begrudge these candidates the right to put their names on the ballot and make their case. But having the right to run and having a reason to run are two very different things. If the answer is simply redistricting, that is not enough.

Yes, the failed redistricting fight lit a fire under part of the activist base. Some legislators took heat for not going along with the push to redraw congressional lines, and some national groups and grassroots activists have not let that go. Fine. Politics is often driven by passion and disagreement.

But let’s be honest about what most voters are actually thinking about.

Voters in Senate Districts 11, 19, 23, 39, and 41 are not waking up every morning worried about legislative maps. They are worried about property taxes, schools, roads, utility costs, economic development, public safety, and increasingly what data center expansion means for their communities — from energy consumption and water use to zoning, traffic, and long-term tax implications.

They are worried about whether their communities are being heard at the Statehouse.

And while we are on the subject of taxes, for those anti-property-tax folks who want them eliminated altogether, here is a simple request: show your math.

Show voters how you plan to replace the revenue that funds schools, police, fire protection, roads, libraries, and local government services. Show us the numbers. Show us what gets cut, what gets shifted, and who ultimately pays — especially as communities are also being asked to absorb new infrastructure demands like roads, substations, and services for large-scale data center projects.

Because slogans are easy. Budgets are hard.

This is exactly the kind of policy conversation voters deserve to hear.

If you are challenging an incumbent senator, tell voters what you would do differently on property tax relief. Tell them where you stand on school funding, curriculum fights, data center development, local zoning authority, and the continued debate over school choice. Tell them what your district-specific priorities are and how your community would be better served by you than by the incumbent.

Because if the campaign message begins and ends with being mad about maps, that may energize a slice of the activist base, but it is a very thin foundation for public service.

To be fair, there is at least one candidate in this group who clearly understands how this is supposed to work.

Representative Michelle Davis gets it.

She already serves in the Indiana House and has a legislative record. Voters can look at her votes, her committee work, and the issues she has taken up. That means if she is making the case for moving from the House to the Senate, voters have something tangible to evaluate.

That is what a serious challenge is supposed to look like. It is not just branding. It is not just a slick endorsement graphic. It is not just social media applause and fire emojis. It is an actual governing case. Frankly, the others should take notes.

Because too much of what we have seen so far feels less like a district-based campaign and more like a nationalized grievance exercise. Legislative districts are not props in somebody else’s ideological production. They are real communities with real concerns.

Senate District 23 voters want to know about roads, schools, economic growth, and land use. Senate District 19 voters care about taxes and local development. Senate District 39 and 41 voters are dealing with suburban growth, traffic, schools, property taxes, and increasingly the local impact of major development projects. Those are not abstract talking points. Those are daily realities.

There is also a larger political risk here that Republicans ought not ignore.

And that risk may now be getting even bigger.

According to a new Playbook scoop first reported by Adam Wren, Governor Mike Braun is making good on his promise to support President Trump’s efforts to recruit, endorse, and finance primary challengers against the senators who opposed redistricting.

Braun is expected to endorse challengers, while his HOPE Super PAC is reportedly preparing to spend $500,000 in the May primaries, on top of the more than $5 million in outside national money already moving into these races.

That is real money.

And it raises an even bigger question: is this smart politics, or a death knell?

With Braun’s own political standing still very much a work in progress — and his latest statewide approval rating reportedly sitting at just 25 percent — attaching his name, his political capital, and half a million dollars to an intra-party civil war is a significant gamble.

Those are not exactly numbers that scream political mandate.

At 25 percent, Braun is not entering these primaries from a position of overwhelming strength.

That makes this less about flexing muscle and more about testing whether the governor still has enough influence inside his own party to shape the General Assembly heading into the next session.

If the challengers win, Braun may well walk into the next session with a more compliant Senate caucus.

But if they lose, the message from Senate Republicans will be unmistakable: the governor, the Trump machine, and national outside money all came in, and it still was not enough.

That would only strengthen the hand of the Senate leadership heading into next session and make future fights over taxes, education, data centers, and any renewed redistricting effort far more difficult for the governor.

And if Braun-backed challengers lose badly, that is no longer just a policy setback.

That becomes a referendum on Braun’s standing inside his own party.

If the Turning Point USA-backed candidates win these primaries, there is a very real chance that could create openings for Democrats who are also fielding candidates in these districts. Primary voters may be thinking about ideology and grievance politics, but general election voters often think differently.

I have spoken with Republicans who believe that if a 20-year incumbent who has represented the district well is beaten by a Trumpaphant with more slogans than substance, they may very well give the Democrat a second look.

And for those who simply cannot bring themselves to vote for a Democrat, they may skip that race altogether.

See where this is going?

That is how seats that should not even be competitive suddenly become competitive.

Now, if these candidates do have well-developed positions on taxes, schools, roads, growth, data centers, and the other issues facing their districts, I would be more than happy to sit down and chat. Seriously. Come on the show. Sit down for an interview. Walk me through your case. Tell voters not just why you are running, but what you intend to do once you get there.

That is how this is supposed to work. And as someone who has spent more than three decades covering politics, I am always willing to give candidates a fair opportunity to make their case. But here is one small piece of friendly advice: if you are going to step into this arena, come prepared.

Don’t bring a plastic knife to a Gatling gun fight.

Indiana voters deserve more than slogans and grievance politics. They deserve substance, specifics, and a clear understanding of what changes for their communities if you win. Running for office is a right. Representing a district is a responsibility.

And as a wise philosopher once reminded us, with great power comes great responsibility. That responsibility begins with having your crap together.

Know why you are running. Know what you want to do. Know how you plan to pay for it. And most importantly, be able to explain to the people you seek to represent why their lives will be better because you are asking for their vote.

Abdul-Hakim Shabazz is the editor and publisher of Indy Politics. He is also an attorney licensed in Indiana and Illinois.