On 12/10/2021 at 11:55 AM, Cleburger said:

How is this either concise, or geographically sensible?   It also includes an ultra liberal college town.  

 

 

 

 

It's an absolutely ridiculous district! My parents live in the "duck bill" part of the 4th District....if you go 5 miles north you're in the 9th District or 5 miles south you're in the 7th District. The new maps that were proposed thankfully puts them back in the 9th, but for the sake of democracy, gerrymandering has to stop.

 

 

21 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

My question is what exactly does this mean. The Court invalidated the educational funding like 20 years ago and really not much has changed.  O'Conner essentially said for Ohio to pass an amendment to have a non-partisan commission draw the lines. That is the long term solution. But......

 

The court cannot mandate that. All the Court can do is send it back to the legislators to make minor tweaks and essentially submit the same or very similar map. I feel this decision is more or less a phyrric victory at best. 

Key point in their ruling is that the Ohio Supreme Court retains their jurisdiction in approving the updated maps that the Legislature is now tasked with re-drawing in the next 10 days. So the Legislature can't just keep sending obviously rigged maps.

 

I know this ruling only applies to the statehouse maps, but this is a VERY good sign that the congressional maps will probably be found unconstitutionally gerrymandered as well. 

Huge win for Ohio and America. 

Hugely important in a state where you have a reasonable Republican governor and an unhinged legislature. If DeWine can hang on in the primary, we will see the positive effects of this over the next four years as the legislature tries to do crazy stuff but gets vetoed and can't override it.

 

I would encourage everyone to review the background section of the Ohio Supreme Court's opinion, because it demonstrates how completely bad faith the Republican argument for these districts was. The Secretary of State privately referred to the statements surrounding the plan as "asinine."

 

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the congressional redistricting case. The rationale for the Ohio Supreme Court's decision above is not directly applicable to the congressional redistricting, so it's quite possible that map will still be upheld.

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

 

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the congressional redistricting case. The rationale for the Ohio Supreme Court's decision above is not directly applicable to the congressional redistricting, so it's quite possible that map will still be upheld.

 

This is true. But given the language of the opinion and O'Connor's concurrence I would bet that the congressional maps are going to be overturned as well. 

I had heard that if the maps that the Republicans come back with doesn't satisfy the court, that the court can draw a 10 year map? Anyone know off the top of their head if that's true? 

 

If it is, I'm sure we get a legal slight R gerrymander so they can lock in a 4 year map and O'Connor will be gone the next time this hits the court, but wow would it be amazing if the court could draw a 10 year for us if the "committee" screws the re-draw up.

19 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

My question is what exactly does this mean. The Court invalidated the educational funding like 20 years ago and really not much has changed.  O'Conner essentially said for Ohio to pass an amendment to have a non-partisan commission draw the lines. That is the long term solution. But......

 

The court cannot mandate that. All the Court can do is send it back to the legislators to make minor tweaks and essentially submit the same or very similar map. I feel this decision is more or less a phyrric victory at best. 

 

Ohio "constitutional" is very different from federal "constitutional", and everyone involved is aware of it.   A simple majority in a statewide referendum is enough to change the Ohio Constitution, subject to the limits of the Bill of Rights as applied by the Fourteenth Amendment.

2 hours ago, 10albersa said:

I had heard that if the maps that the Republicans come back with doesn't satisfy the court, that the court can draw a 10 year map? Anyone know off the top of their head if that's true? 

 

If it is, I'm sure we get a legal slight R gerrymander so they can lock in a 4 year map and O'Connor will be gone the next time this hits the court, but wow would it be amazing if the court could draw a 10 year for us if the "committee" screws the re-draw up.

I would expect a 10-year map. The Supreme Court isn’t going to draw the map, but there’s no limit on how many times they can require a redraw. Democrats have every incentive to support a slight R gerrymander, because there is no reason to think a map drawn in 4 years will be better. I expect the commission to produce a pretty good map, because they risk a disastrous timeline if they have to do a second revision.

Law and order:

Direct link to that section of Ohio Revised Code:
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-3.07

I sure hope the congressional districts get the boot, too.  I mean, how is the 14th district that they are proposing even legal????  I'd be in the part just south of Cleveland.

11 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Hugely important in a state where you have a reasonable Republican governor and an unhinged legislature. If DeWine can hang on in the primary, we will see the positive effects of this over the next four years as the legislature tries to do crazy stuff but gets vetoed and can't override it.

 

 

He'll be fine. All the old ladies that love him are going to show up and the Harley Guys won't since Trump isn't on the ballot.

8 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

 

He'll be fine. All the old ladies that love him are going to show up and the Harley Guys won't since Trump isn't on the ballot.

It will also be interesting to see how many Dems ask for a GOP primary ballot to vote for Dewine.    I remember in 2016 there was a movement to do this to vote for Trump in the primary, which of course backfired!  

Another win for Ohio and America:

 

Ohio Supreme Court strikes down new Republican-drawn congressional map as illegal gerrymander

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- For the second time this week, the Ohio Supreme Court has thrown out a Republican-drawn political map as an illegal gerrymander.

 

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/01/ohio-supreme-court-strikes-down-new-republican-drawn-congressional-map-as-illegal-gerrymander.html

 

A message from the business community to OH republicans:

Crain's editorial: Try again

 

Fairness and accountability.

 

Is that too much to ask for? Apparently it is, when it comes to trying to apply those standards to Ohio's redistricting process.

 

The Supreme Court of Ohio last Wednesday, Jan. 12, struck down newly drawn district maps that had retained Republican supermajorities in both the state House and Senate. (On Friday, Jan. 14, the court also rejected maps for congressional districts.) In doing so, the court sided with voting rights advocates who argued that the maps so favored the Republican Party that they violated the state constitution.

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/editorials/crains-editorial-try-again

 

Edited January 15, 20223 yr by Clefan98

FiveThirtyEight: Ohio’s Overturned Congressional Map Shows How Lawsuits Might Scramble Redistricting.

 

"In this way, the decision in Ohio could be a turning point for the overall narrative of the 2021-22 redistricting cycle. Up to this point, it was somewhat ambiguous which party had gained seats from redistricting (going by FiveThirtyEight partisan lean, 1 there were six more Democratic-leaning seats and the same number of Republican-leaning seats; going by which party currently holds the seat, Republicans had gained about three seats and Democrats had lost about two). In the big picture, this meant the preservation of a Republican-leaning status quo. 

 

The nullification of Ohio’s map, though, raises the possibility that this status quo won’t be preserved and that Democrats could emerge from this redistricting cycle on a more even House playing field. Of course, a lot still needs to happen for this to come true. First, Democrats would need favorable court decisions in North Carolina or other states. 

 

Another big factor will be what Ohio’s eventual map looks like. A proportional map — say, one with eight Republican-leaning seats and seven Democratic-leaning ones — could net Democrats three additional seats on its own, but this is unlikely to become reality. The court ordered that the Ohio legislature take another crack at drawing the lines, and since the legislature is controlled by Republicans, it will likely still draw a map that buoys the GOP, but modestly enough to pass legal muster." 

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ohios-overturned-congressional-map-shows-how-lawsuits-might-scramble-redistricting/

 

Ohio voters asked for fairer districts, and Republican politicians decided otherwise in a move reminiscent of "poor winners" in Little League.

 

It will be interesting to see what the Ohio Supreme Court says about these new maps.  Will they look at all of the proposed maps that have been shown to be compliant and force the Republicans to choose?  Will they throw up their hands and say "we can't legislate from the bench?"  Will they reject these maps and ask for another redo?  (My bet is on #2)

 

Race issues are yet to be litigated in the federal courts, and that may yet toss out these maps.  What a mess.

18 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Ohio voters asked for fairer districts, and Republican politicians decided otherwise in a move reminiscent of "poor winners" in Little League.

 

It will be interesting to see what the Ohio Supreme Court says about these new maps.  Will they look at all of the proposed maps that have been shown to be compliant and force the Republicans to choose?  Will they throw up their hands and say "we can't legislate from the bench?"  Will they reject these maps and ask for another redo?  (My bet is on #2)

 

Race issues are yet to be litigated in the federal courts, and that may yet toss out these maps.  What a mess.

Unless I missed something, they have not redone the congressional maps yet. The ones that were released yesterday were for the Ohio legislature, and they (like the original maps) blatantly violated the OH constitutional amendment that we overwhelmingly passed. I suspect that the revised Congressional redistricting maps will also be terrible. I have no idea how either the state or congressional redistricting will work out in the end. 

Oh, so they were able to draw more Democratic districts while still adhering to the other rules for redistricting. I'm sure Cupp and Huffman were fair and reasonable this time around....

 

ideastream: Competitive districts in new Ohio House and Senate maps disproportionately hurt Democrats.

 

https://www.ideastream.org/news/competitive-districts-in-new-ohio-house-and-senate-maps-disproportionately-hurt-democrats

The process is going great!
 

 

 

What Ohioans are fighting. The twisted few who want Ohio to become a theocracy of chrtistofascism....

 

I mean, the legislature is just going to keep gerrymandering until we get to the point of no return and then LaRose will just enforce unconstitutional maps, right?

 

Fav this tweet.

 

2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

So this presents an interesting connumdrum. The SC has stated they will not approve the maps preseneted to them, but they will also not draw the maps themselves and therefore leave it to the commission to  draw maps that satisfy them. 

58 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

So this presents an interesting connumdrum. The SC has stated they will not approve the maps preseneted to them, but they will also not draw the maps themselves and therefore leave it to the commission to  draw maps that satisfy them. 

 

On 2/8/2022 at 11:55 AM, DarkandStormy said:

I mean, the legislature is just going to keep gerrymandering until we get to the point of no return and then LaRose will just enforce unconstitutional maps, right?

 

Fav this tweet.

 

Republicans are incapable of governing within the law, yes.

Or the voters....

 

 

https://www.statenews.org/government-politics/2022-02-17/ohio-redistricting-commission-disregards-court-order-by-failing-to-adopt-new-legislative-maps

 

Quote

There have been suggestions that the court has the ability to hold the commission accountable, such as holding members in contempt of court.

 

I'm not sure who's making those suggestions.

 

But all around the country, the GOP has shown when faced with having to choose to alter their platform to win elections or disregarding democracy they will disregard democracy every time.  Ohio is no different.

Imagine stilll being a GOP voter in Ohio after this and the HB6 debacle. Yikes.

Edited February 18, 20223 yr by Clefan14

If I were on the Redistricting Commission, I'd simply draw constitutional maps.

32 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

I'm not sure who's making those suggestions.

 

But all around the country, the GOP has shown when faced with having to choose to alter their platform to win elections or disregarding democracy they will disregard democracy every time.  Ohio is no different.

I think that would be a tall ask of any court. While both parties are clearly acting with certain bias's to improve their standings, it is a difficult position for the court to be in to not treat both sides equally as far as intent (i.e. when the GOP says they are trying to comply then it is hard for a court not to give them the benefit of the doubt, just as it is hard for the court to not give the dems the benefit of the doubt if they say the maps are purposefully rigged). 

 

obviously, that is not the case in the court of public opinion, but I would think the SC would be loathe to hold anyone in contempt here because it would be akin to placing their hand on the scale one way or another. Which means we will likely continue to see the current stalemate unless the politicians can agree on some sort of compromise on their own. 

31 minutes ago, taestell said:

If I were on the Redistricting Commission, I'd simply draw constitutional maps.

Crazy talk. How are you supposed to pack the legislature then?

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I think that would be a tall ask of any court. While both parties are clearly acting with certain bias's to improve their standings, it is a difficult position for the court to be in to not treat both sides equally as far as intent (i.e. when the GOP says they are trying to comply then it is hard for a court not to give them the benefit of the doubt, just as it is hard for the court to not give the dems the benefit of the doubt if they say the maps are purposefully rigged). 

 

obviously, that is not the case in the court of public opinion, but I would think the SC would be loathe to hold anyone in contempt here because it would be akin to placing their hand on the scale one way or another. Which means we will likely continue to see the current stalemate unless the politicians can agree on some sort of compromise on their own. 

 

Dear Both-Sider -- the Republicans adjourned yesterday saying that it was not possible to draw a map that would satisfy the court; meanwhile the Democrats produced several maps that they said would comply. 

 

It seems like the Court could weigh in on whether it is possible to draw suitable maps.    But I don't see how the court can resolve this matter if Republicants really stick to their guns.

3 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Dear Both-Sider -- the Republicans adjourned yesterday saying that it was not possible to draw a map that would satisfy the court; meanwhile the Democrats produced several maps that they said would comply. 

 

It seems like the Court could weigh in on whether it is possible to draw suitable maps.    But I don't see how the court can resolve this matter if Republicants really stick to their guns.

No matter what side your on, to act like either side is pure and acting solely in the common good is naïve. Both sides are going to seek to maximize their political advantage where they can. To say the Democrats are acting solely in the interest of democracy is comical on its face. Now I will admit, as someone who Liens center right, the Republicans are acting more disingenuous than the Democrats. But neither side is pure. Let’s at least acknowledge thatLiens center right, the Republicans are acting more disingenuous than the Democrats. But neither side is pure. Let’s at least acknowledge that

36 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

No matter what side your on, to act like either side is pure and acting solely in the common good is naïve. Both sides are going to seek to maximize their political advantage where they can. To say the Democrats are acting solely in the interest of democracy is comical on its face. Now I will admit, as someone who Liens center right, the Republicans are acting more disingenuous than the Democrats. But neither side is pure. Let’s at least acknowledge thatLiens center right, the Republicans are acting more disingenuous than the Democrats. But neither side is pure. Let’s at least acknowledge that

 

Please look up the state constitutional amendment voters passed in 2018 before trying to convince absolutely no one that you're some pure "both sides are bad" voter.

39 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Please look up the state constitutional amendment voters passed in 2018 before trying to convince absolutely no one that you're some pure "both sides are bad" voter.

Read what i said. I said neither side is pure. Let’s at least acknowledge that fact. Too often people need to remove their blue tinted glasses from time to time and acknowledge that fact. 
to act like dems are the ultimate warriors of good and republicans are morally rotten or vice versa only contributes and makes the dialogue problem worse. So at least acknowledge that both sides possess their share of glass houses.

 

In this particular case I acknowledged that Republicans certainly bear more blame and are less innocent. They are the majority and hold the power so certainly they are more responsible. If the tables were reversed it would certainly be the dems fault. Look no further than the redistributing battles that are playing out in other states to see that dems do not really have any moral high ground on the issue. If you are unwilling to at least acknowledge that, you are not serious in your argument 

But one party nationally is agreeing to do away with this altogether?

 

I thought at least four of the seven jurists on the Ohio Supreme Court were Republican? 
 

Why/how could this be a “both sides” argument when the Ohio Supreme Court is dominated by Republican judges? And that it is the Republican legislature and the Republican governor who are going against the findings of the court which is Republican dominated? 
 

Could anyone find another instance in the State of Ohio where a political party sued to stop checks and balances from being enforced at the state level? It may have happened before- but I’d like to at least give people who live on both sides of the fence the chance to back up their claim.

28 minutes ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

I thought at least four of the seven jurists on the Ohio Supreme Court were Republican? 
 

Why/how could this be a “both sides” argument when the Ohio Supreme Court is dominated by Republican judges?

To be fair, only one Republican appointed judge is voting against these maps.

 

The best "both sides" argument is to look at New York and Illinois. NY is a particularly good analog as it also recently passed an anti-gerrymandering initiative that the legislature ignored. It will be interesting what their entirely Dem appointed court does with it. If nothing, the "both sides" argument with respect to gerrymandering will be hard to dismiss.  

Just now, Ethan said:

To be fair, only one Republican appointed judge is voting against these maps.

 

The best "both sides" argument is to look at New York and Illinois. NY is a particularly good analog as it also recently passed an anti-gerrymandering initiative that the legislature ignored. It will be interesting what their entirely Dem appointed court does with it. If nothing, the "both sides" argument with respect to gerrymandering will be hard to dismiss.  

No. Just no. One party is actively trying to end political gerrymandering via federal law. As long as Republicans actively fight against these laws, it would be stupid for Democrats to unilaterally disarm by not gerrymandering federal seats in states they control. Especially since CA laws are such that it can’t be gerrymandered (for Congress). Other D states must gerrymander right up until all political gerrymandering is banned. Democrats cannot afford to hand unearned power to Republicans, especially when Republicans are actively passing laws all over the country to undermine democracy. 
 

Furthermore, it is completely horrifying that 3 of the 4 R judges in the Ohio Supreme Court are so willing to overrule a recent Ohio law that was passed by 71%(!!!) of the voters. It passed by a 40 point margin!

3 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

it would be stupid for Democrats to unilaterally disarm by not gerrymandering federal seats in states they control.

I agree. But you can't engage in a practice and simultaneously claim the moral high ground for opposing the practice...

 

Gerrymandering is a democratic evil, and we should end it, but it's a tricky knot to untangle. Especially since it isn't obvious whether or not Congress even has the authority to dictate this to the States. Realistically this will have to be solved one state at a time, which as you correctly stated is figuratively equivalent to disarming oneself.

 

Plus it's really hard to define gerrymandering. Even though we all know it when we see it (See recent OH map). Most of the initiatives leave some wiggle room for legislatures. Even an independent commission could theoretically produce a gerrymander (though I haven't seen it yet), either by accident or through capture. Personally I favor defining an algorithm and leaving it to computers. 

24 minutes ago, Ethan said:

I agree. But you can't engage in a practice and simultaneously claim the moral high ground for opposing the practice...

 

Gerrymandering is a democratic evil, and we should end it, but it's a tricky knot to untangle. Especially since it isn't obvious whether or not Congress even has the authority to dictate this to the States. Realistically this will have to be solved one state at a time, which as you correctly stated is figuratively equivalent to disarming oneself.

 

Plus it's really hard to define gerrymandering. Even though we all know it when we see it (See recent OH map). Most of the initiatives leave some wiggle room for legislatures. Even an independent commission could theoretically produce a gerrymander (though I haven't seen it yet), either by accident or through capture. Personally I favor defining an algorithm and leaving it to computers. 

The Democrats have all voted for Federal legislation that would ban political gerrymandering. If even a handful of Republican senators voted for it, or if Manchin and Synema supported reform of the filibuster, the practice would be banned. So yes, absolutely the Democrats can claim the moral high ground. 
 

As to ending it state by state - that’s EXACTLY what Ohioans voted overwhelmingly to do. The R’s on the redistricting committee and in the statehouse, along w 3 out of 4 R OH SC judges, are blatantly ignoring the will of the people. We Ohioans thought we did do what you are proposing we should do, yet you’re here trying to “both-sides” this issue. 

Why does Illinois whataboutism keep popping up for? There is no comparision here. Ohio citizens VOTED to end gerrymandering by a large margin, and it has been blatantly ignored by the party in power. Illinois has not held a vote yet, therefore there is no comparision to what is going on in Ohio. 

39 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

The Democrats have all voted for Federal legislation that would ban political gerrymandering. If even a handful of Republican senators voted for it, or if Manchin and Synema supported reform of the filibuster, the practice would be banned. So yes, absolutely the Democrats can claim the moral high ground.  

The main point of my post was that New Yorkers also voted to end gerrymandering, and yet they're doing the same thing. That was the "both sides" argument I presented.

 

51 minutes ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

yet you’re here trying to “both-sides” this issue

Also, I'm not "trying" to do anything. If you are going to identify me with the arguments I present, and assign unstated intentions to me, then I don't judge this discussion as having any chance of being worth my time. Have a good weekend! 

5 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

No matter what side your on, to act like either side is pure and acting solely in the common good is naïve. Both sides are going to seek to maximize their political advantage where they can. To say the Democrats are acting solely in the interest of democracy is comical on its face. Now I will admit, as someone who Liens center right, the Republicans are acting more disingenuous than the Democrats. But neither side is pure. Let’s at least acknowledge thatLiens center right, the Republicans are acting more disingenuous than the Democrats. But neither side is pure. Let’s at least acknowledge that

 

Honest question, were you drunk when you wrote this?

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Honest question, were you drunk when you wrote this?

The fact that you can’t even conceive that a political party you support may not have pure intentions all the time is laughable