Identical Twins on Opposite Sides of Indiana Redistricting Debate Highlight Civility in Politics

Identical twins Nick and Nathan Roberts found themselves on opposite sides of a high-profile Indiana redistricting debate, a moment that underscored how politics can divide even the closest relationships yet still allow for civil discussion. The public hearing on Dec. 2 at the Indiana Statehouse brought the brothers to opposing sides of a bill that Republicans had introduced at the request of former President Donald Trump. The measure was ultimately defeated in the state Senate, but the day’s exchange drew attention to how family loyalties can endure even as policy differences harden.

Nick Roberts, 25, serves on the Indianapolis City-County Council as a Democrat, emphasizing public safety, mental health initiatives, and infrastructure in his first term. Nathan Roberts, who does not hold public office, this year co-founded Save Heritage Indiana, a nonprofit that campaigns against what it calls mass migration and argues it dilutes Indiana’s identity. The brothers spoke on opposite sides of the redistricting proposal, which sought to redraw congressional boundaries in a way that aligned with the Trump administration’s efforts to favor Republicans in several states.

During the hearing, the moment of tension was almost routine: the committee chair appeared to consider whether a speaker had already taken the floor. Nathan recounts, “the guy who was running the committee was like, ‘didn’t you already go?’ And I said ‘no that was my twin but you said his name twice so he said I could go in his place.’” He described the exchange as incidental to the substantive debate that followed, a reminder that the public process can be noisy without eroding the underlying civil norms.

The public debate that day became a national talking point not just because of the policy question, but because of the twins’ visibly divergent political paths. After the hearing, Nick posted a video to clarify that he and his twin had not swapped sides and that the public should not mistake a single moment for a broader political realignment. “If you see somebody that looks like me at a Republican event, or definitely if they're wearing a MAGA hat, it is not me, it is him,” Nick said in the video. “He's still my brother, and I care about him.” He added that he had received “nonstop” messages from people who assumed he’d changed teams and wanted to set the record straight.

The response to Nick’s video was largely supportive, with many praising the twins’ willingness to address confusion publicly. Nick told TIME that the episode presented an opportunity to model a constructive approach to disagreement. “A lot of people didn’t know I had a twin or Republican brother at all,” he said. “So I decided it would be easier just to address everyone, because once I’ve been able to talk to people about the very odd situation, they understand.” He also stressed that isolating people over politics is ineffective and that parties should welcome debate and conversation, especially when it isn’t easy, in order to try to change hearts and minds.

Nathan, who describes his brother as “the smartest liberal I know,” said their discussions seldom become heated despite major disagreements on roughly nine of every ten issues. “I don’t think we have really ever had any heated discussions about stuff, despite me and him disagreeing on 90% of things,” Nathan said. He added that Nick can challenge him when his arguments are inconsistent, a dynamic that both brothers say helps keep their relationship intact. Nathan asserted that his confidence in Nick’s arguments comes from the research behind them, which he respects even when he disagrees.

The twins’ story is notable in part because it contrasts with the increasingly polarized political climate that has defined much of national discourse in recent years. Their relationship underscores a broader truth: families, employers, and neighbors remain capable of civil engagement amid disagreements that would elsewhere provoke withdrawal or hostility. Nick emphasized that civility online often deteriorates when people cannot see one another in person, whereas in real life it is easier to maintain respect even in disagreement. He said the aim is to promote positivity, discussion, and Democratic participation rather than to—and this is a crucial distinction—turn conversations into personal battles.

As the redistricting debate unfolded in Indiana, the broader political environment amplified the twins’ attention. The bill was part of a broader, nationwide push to redraw districts in ways that could improve Republican performance in elections, a strategy that drew pushback not only from Democrats but also from some Republicans who argued the maps could undermine core democratic norms. Indiana’s Republican leadership introduced the measure, and its trajectory through the state Senate ultimately ended without passage. The outcome did not erase the day’s human dimension, however; it highlighted how a single policy question can become a proving ground for dialogue within families and communities alike.

In the months leading up to the hearing, the brothers’ paths diverged in ways that reflected larger political currents. Nick’s political activism began in earnest after the 2016 presidential election, when he sought internships in the Democratic Party and volunteered on campaigns before running for office in 2023. In his first term on the council, he has worked to prioritize public safety, mental health, and infrastructure investment while navigating the practical realities of a city preparing for growth and reform. Nathan’s activism has centered more on policy positions that align with conservative and nationalist frames, including immigration and cultural identity. His involvement with Save Heritage Indiana, formed in September, mirrors the kinds of policy conversations that federal leaders have been pursuing at various scales, and his public stance has included support for Trump since his 2015/2016 campaigns and participation in protests against COVID-19 policies.

The brothers’ shared history stretches back to childhood in Indiana, where they learned to navigate differences within a family that values dialogue more than dogma. They describe a relationship in which disagreements are processed through careful listening and a willingness to correct one’s own positions when presented with new information. Nick’s leadership on the council and Nathan’s advocacy work outside government illustrate how two people with very different political orientations can contribute to the state’s civic life without losing the sense of family that anchors them.

The Dec. 2 hearing did not resolve the redistricting question, but it did succeed on its own terms by placing civility at the center of a contentious public policy debate. For Nick and Nathan, the episode has become a case study in how political differences need not invert family bonds or friendships. As Nick put it, the goal is to convince others through reasoned argument and mutual respect, even when the outcome is not in one’s favor. And for now, both brothers say they will continue to engage with each other and with the public, modeling a form of discourse that could help soften the sharper edges of political life in Indiana and beyond.

In a moment when national politics often feels defined by sound bites and online fealty to party, the Roberts siblings offer a different template: a family that agrees to disagree—and a public that watches, learns, and perhaps reconsiders what it means to participate in a democracy that values both conviction and civility.