Did you all see we are going to have a ballot issue on redistricting this November? Unfortunately, it doesn't affect the US House, just districts for the state legislature. The commission would be composed of the governor, auditor, secretary of state, and two legislators from each party. It's not perfect but I think it's a step in the right direction and maybe set some precedent for further reform. The current system is a large reason for the polarized political environment we have today.

 

http://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Bipartisan_Redistricting_Commission_Amendment,_Issue_1_(2015)

Cliff notes version of Issue 1 (the redistricting amendment) cribbed from the following two Dispatch articles:

• Under Issue 1, a seven-member commission — the governor, auditor, secretary of state and four legislative appointees — will approve Ohio House and Ohio Senate maps drawn under a new set of criteria.  A 10-year map requires support from at least two minority-party members; otherwise, it must be redrawn again in four years.

• Under current law, a five-member committee draws the legislative districts after a new census.  The committee includes one legislative appointee from each party, along with the governor, auditor and secretary of state.

Couple of recent Dispatch articles about Issue 1.  This one gives an overview of it:

 

Issue 1 goal: Less politics in Ohio districting

By Jim Siegel, The Columbus Dispatch 

Sunday, October 11, 2015 - 6:05 AM

 

Issue 1 isn’t the sexiest proposal on the ballot in November, but it could have a profound effect on how the state is governed in the future.  The proposed constitutional amendment seeks to overhaul Ohio’s hyperpartisan system for drawing legislative district maps — a system that has helped one party hold firm control of the Statehouse for most of the past two decades.

 

Starting with new maps drawn in 2021, Issue 1 attempts to give the minority party a voice in the process, creating districts that are more competitive and more reflective of the state’s political leanings. The ultimate goal is a more effective and responsive state government.

 

The Ohio Democratic and Republican parties support the plan, as do business groups, unions, religious leaders and a variety of organizations that promote voting access.

 

MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/10/11/issue-1-goal-less-politics-in-districting.html

This one covers the campaign for Issue 1:

 

Issue 1 on Ohio redistricting not well funded but is well received

By Jim Siegel, The Columbus Dispatch

Wednesday, October 21, 2015 - 8:25 AM

 

The campaign to pass Issue 1 doesn’t have much money, and there have been reports of internal issues, but it does have wide-ranging support and no organized opposition.

( . . . )

Co-campaign chairmen, former state Reps. Matt Huffman, a Republican from Lima, and Vernon Sykes, an Akron Democrat, said polls have Issue 1 passing, especially when people hear the ballot summary.  A poll released on Tuesday by the University of Akron’s Bliss Institute found that Issue 1 is supported 55 percent to 16 percent, though a sizable group remains undecided.

( . . . )

Huffman said a key to the campaign has been getting organizations and the political parties to spread the message.  A separate Yes on Issue 1 campaign, led by the League of Women Voters of Ohio, Common Cause Ohio and Ohio Voice, has been gathering endorsements and using grass-roots efforts to promote the issue.

 

MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/10/21/issue-1-not-well-funded-but-is-well-received.html

Issue 1 passed with 71 percent voting yes:

 

Voters approve issue to reform Ohio's redistricting process

By Jim Siegel, The Columbus Dispatch

Wednesday, November 4, 2015 - 10:00 AM

 

Voters overwhelmingly backed a plan to reform Ohio’s hyper-partisan process for drawing legislative districts, and supporters are already looking ahead to passing the same reforms for congressional districts next year.

 

“Today's win was an important first step, but it only got us halfway there," said Carrie Davis, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio.  “We need to take these new anti-gerrymandering rules that Issue 1 applied to the General Assembly and extend them to congressional districts, which are even more gerrymandered.”

 

MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2015/election/ohio-state-issue-1-redistricting.html

Yay! Big win for all of us who want a more centrist, less polarized, more compromising government, and I do have to give props to the Ohio GOP for not fighting this.

 

Hopefully next year we can do the same thing for the congressional districts, but I do expect it to be more of an uphill battle. This was basically a trial run. Marcy Kaptur's district... the "Snake on the Lake..." has got to go.

Ohio's first congressional district is a joke.

 

It went from this:

 

To this:

 

They had to make sure to take out all of the Democrats from northern and eastern Cincinnati so that the conservative west side and conservative Warren County could override the scattered Democrats in the center of the city. Then they added those in the north and east of the city to 6 counties to the east in rural Appalachian areas so their votes wouldn't matter. Democracy!

 

Here is Ohio's 2nd Congressional District, which snakes into Hamilton County for the sole purpose of diluting the voters in Cincinnati (and also absorbs the Democrats in Portsmouth).

 

I would love to see Ohio's 1st, just basically be Hamilton County.

Here's a pretty funny breakdown of redistricting in Ohio (filmed in 2011). He swears once. NSFW because of that.

 

Really, no thread on gerrymandering and the redistricting needed to correct it? So let's start with this nearly democratic comment by our lieutenant governor....

 

"I'm not opposed to competitive districts." @MaryTaylorOH in response to question about #redistrictingreform #cityclub #Ohio2018

I don't see how, under current law, you can replace the majority-minority districts.  Especially when the GOP and BEDCO (or it's current equivalent) are 200% allied on this issue.

Possible effects of gerrymandering seen in uncontested races

SATURDAY , JUNE 24, 2017 - 10:00 PM

By DAVID A. LIEB Associated Press

 

When voters cast ballots for state representatives last fall, millions of Americans essentially had no choice: In 42 percent of all such elections, candidates faced no major party opponents.

 

Political scientists say a major reason for the lack of choices is the way districts are drawn — gerrymandered, in some cases, to ensure as many comfortable seats as possible for the majority party by creating other districts overwhelmingly packed with voters for the minority party.

 

“With an increasing number of districts being drawn to deliberately favor one party over another — and with fewer voters indicating an interest in crossover voting — lots of potential candidates will look at those previous results and come to a conclusion that it’s too difficult to mount an election campaign in a district where their party is the minority,” said John McGlennon, a longtime professor of government and public policy at the College of William & Mary in Virginia who has tracked partisan competition in elections.

 

MORE:

http://www.standard.net/National/2017/06/25/Democracy-with-no-choices-Many-candidates-run-unopposed

More breaking news: A North Carolina federal court struck down the state's congressional electoral map, saying it is so partisan it violated the United States constitution. Opinion is 191 pages https://t.co/QrNId6eXVq

Breaking News: In the first decision of its kind, federal judges threw out North Carolina’s congressional map, saying it was drawn to favor Republicans

https://t.co/jVThZTzqNp

Breaking News: In the first decision of its kind, federal judges threw out North Carolina’s congressional map, saying it was drawn to favor Republicans

https://t.co/jVThZTzqNp

 

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of North Carolina congressional maps

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-election/supreme-court-blocks-redrawing-of-north-carolina-congressional-maps-idUSKBN1F73C1

The GOP is anti-democracy...

 

"GOP lawmakers are moving at breakneck speed because they want to get their redistricting proposal on the May primary ballot to try to keep a competing citizen-initiated idea from prevailing."

https://t.co/0y0tqIFQS1

The legislature did the same thing with marijuana reform. They did nothing about it for years and years, until people started collecting signatures for ballot measures they didn't like. Then suddenly it became an emergency issue.

FiveThirtyEight has a big focus on redistricting right now, and they posted a great interactive map of Ohio showing the different ways our districts could be redrawn to achieve different goals or favor one party over the other.

 

They actually found a way to gerrymander the state even more in favor of Republicans than how the districts are currently drawn (Republicans would have 14 safe districts, Dems would have 2, and there would actually be zero competitive districts). If you redrew the map to favor Dems, there could be 7 safe Dem districts, 6 Republican, and 3 competitive.

 

The maps that maximize actual goals (competitiveness, compactness, or matching partisan breakdown of seats to electorate) make way more sense than what we have now. The map that maximizes the number majority-minority districts is pretty wonky since it cuts through highly rural areas to connect the downtowns of Cincinnati, Dayton, and Columbus.

North Carolina has the worst gerrymander; in January, a three-judge federal court ruled the redistricting work of NC General Assembly to be an intentional/hugely impactful violation of the Constitution.

 

Gerrymandering doesn’t get anywhere near the public’s attention it deserves.

 

Ohio referenced in this tweet...https://t.co/elSHqSUI62

Meanwhile next door in PA...

 

Breaking news: The Supreme Court DENIED a request for a stay in PA partisan gerrymandering case. GOP lawmakers wanted court to let them hold off on redrawing map before 2018, Court said no.

Whatever happens, can we move Jim Jordan's district over into Indiana?  :P

I wonder if the League of Women Voters will still put the citizen issue on the ballot as well...sounds like they’re undecided right now. The fact that if the legislature can’t come to an “agreement” it can pass a partisan map for four years is worrisome to me.

 

Also an independent panel would be so much more prefereable.

Meanwhile next door in PA...

 

Breaking news: The Supreme Court DENIED a request for a stay in PA partisan gerrymandering case. GOP lawmakers wanted court to let them hold off on redrawing map before 2018, Court said no.

 

Now the PA GOP wants to impeach the state Supreme Court. 

Yep. This is why Canada looks so attractive to me. Because America has become grotesque....

 

Woah. This is INSANE. The PA Supreme Court ruled that gerrymandered districts violated the state constitution. So now legislators are proposing to impeach the majority of the justices who ruled against them. https://t.co/NV5HBvJOFc

 

 

^ That is shameful. Why do Republicans consistently act so evil? Disagreement is normal in politics, but they are actively trying to subvert the government and established systems of law and order so they can cling to some shred of power. It's absolutely ridiculous.

A party that knows they're about to lose power will do desperate things to hang on to the remaining power they have. Redrawing district boundaries to benefit their party. Trying to impeach justices who rule against them. Blocking federal Supreme Court nominees and threatening to permanently keep the 9th seat empty if a Democrat won the presidency. Stripping the incoming governor of power...when the incoming governor just happened to be a Democrat. Refusing to hold special elections to fill vacant seats because you're worried Democrats might win. Etc., etc., etc.

Impeachment is a political remedy of the legislature against both the executive and judicial branches.  It is not evil.  People always seem to understand high school civics about checks and balances until it comes to the judiciary--they think of the judiciary as only checking the other branches, not being checked in turn by anything short of a constitutional amendment.  That is not the case.  The appointment process and the impeachment process are both political checks on the judiciary as a third coequal branch of the government.

 

Of course, impeachment is designed to be cumbersome to use in order to make it used only seldomly and only with the overwhelming support of the legislature.  But it's no more inherently evil than the ability to override a veto with a 2/3 vote.

^ We're not talking about any impeachment anywhere. If there is a corrupt or unstable judge, of course impeachment can work as a check on the judicial branch. Calling for the impeachment of multiple judges because they made a ruling you don't agree with is severely messed up, and something that should not happen in a civilized democratic nation. Also, not following judicial orders to turn over data to the courts is a terrible precedent to set, and the Senator should absolutely be held in contempt of court.

Impeachment is a political remedy of the legislature against both the executive and judicial branches.  It is not evil.  People always seem to understand high school civics about checks and balances until it comes to the judiciary--they think of the judiciary as only checking the other branches, not being checked in turn by anything short of a constitutional amendment.  That is not the case.  The appointment process and the impeachment process are both political checks on the judiciary as a third coequal branch of the government.

 

Of course, impeachment is designed to be cumbersome to use in order to make it used only seldomly and only with the overwhelming support of the legislature.  But it's no more inherently evil than the ability to override a veto with a 2/3 vote.

 

Theoretical question - say Democrats won supermajorities in both houses this coming November, and say Trump was squeaky clean. Democrats move to impeach and remove from office just because they don't like him... as a check on his power. No "high crimes and misdemeanors" are proven - is that impeachment legitimate or can it be challenged in court? Because that's a pretty key distinction. Is impeachment simply a congressional override or does wrongdoing have to occur? Obviously I know the PA constitution might be different than the federal one in how it's defined.

Impeachment is a political remedy of the legislature against both the executive and judicial branches.  It is not evil.  People always seem to understand high school civics about checks and balances until it comes to the judiciary--they think of the judiciary as only checking the other branches, not being checked in turn by anything short of a constitutional amendment.  That is not the case.  The appointment process and the impeachment process are both political checks on the judiciary as a third coequal branch of the government.

 

Of course, impeachment is designed to be cumbersome to use in order to make it used only seldomly and only with the overwhelming support of the legislature.  But it's no more inherently evil than the ability to override a veto with a 2/3 vote.

 

Theoretical question - say Democrats won supermajorities in both houses this coming November, and say Trump was squeaky clean. Democrats move to impeach and remove from office just because they don't like him... as a check on his power. No "high crimes and misdemeanors" are proven - is that impeachment legitimate or can it be challenged in court? Because that's a pretty key distinction. Is impeachment simply a congressional override or does wrongdoing have to occur? Obviously I know the PA constitution might be different than the federal one in how it's defined.

 

This is tough to grasp because people are used to seeing "wrongdoing" judged by a court.  In this particular process, Congress is the judge of what a "high crime and misdemeanor" is.  Think about it for a second.  It's clear that "misdemeanor" isn't using the ordinary criminal sense of the word here, and "high crimes" isn't even necessarily analogous to "felonies."  Therefore, yes, you are absolutely correct, Congress could remove him with supermajorities on any ground they felt that they could justify to their voters.  There is no redress to the federal courts, any more than a judge could sue Congress for an injunction against impeaching him.  I have no reason to believe that Pennsylvania's state constitution works any differently.

 

Of course, the people then get to decide if the reason was legitimate or if the reasoning was bogus, in which case they might very well oust the offending legislators from the legislature at the next election.  In fact, they can decide that even if the articles of impeachment were meritorious, or potentially meritorious, that the target in question did not deserve to be impeached, and express their ire at the ballot box anyway.  (The Republicans were arguably on the wrong end of this after voting to impeach Clinton for perjury.)  But note that even if the Republicans could potentially have obtained a criminal conviction in a courtroom on a perjury charge (and I'm not saying they could have, and in fact I'm really saying it doesn't matter at the end of the day), it was in no way a guarantee of a "conviction" (removal) or even a guarantee of public approval.  Think of it as functioning as a hybrid between a true criminal trial and a vote of "no confidence" in the British parliamentary system.

^ In this PA case though, impeachment of the judges wouldn't actually achieve their goal.  Wouldn't their decision still be precedent and wouldn't the legislature have to abide by it?

But the argument is being made that the gerrymandered districts are actually making the Republicans in the legislature too powerful, and not receptive to the wills of voters. If they gerrymander their way into a permanent position of power, how can the people fight back? PA has no ability for initiative constitutional amendments. Would the Republicans just be allowed to hold power forever?

^ In this PA case though, impeachment of the judges wouldn't actually achieve their goal.  Wouldn't their decision still be precedent and wouldn't the legislature have to abide by it?

 

That's actually a really interesting question.  Impeachment is a personal remedy, so my analogy to a veto override definitely has its limits.  The decision would obviously be on shaky ground because one would expect the new judges not to follow it after the old ones were impeached.  But it wouldn't necessarily be overturned.

 

I guess one possible flowchart would be (1) the legislature would propose new maps that are essentially identical to the old, overturned one; (2) a perfunctory challenge would be mounted based on the old opinion; (3) that would be appealed; (4) the new judges would take it and overturn the old opinion.  But that's just a possibility.  I'm not even completely sure how that would play out.

Bipartisan deal finalized, voters to decide congressional redistricting changes

By Jim Siegel, The Columbus Dispatch

Posted: February 6, 2018 at 2:33 PM

 

Ohio voters will decide in May whether to approve significant changes to Ohio’s partisan congressional redistricting process, the result of a bipartisan legislative agreement.

 

The Ohio House voted 82-10 Tuesday to place the plan on the primary ballot, ending two weeks of grinding negotiations among Republicans, Democrats and leaders of the Fair District = Fair Elections coalition that was pushing a proposal for the November ballot.  The approval followed a 31-0 vote by the Senate on Monday for a plan designed to significantly limit the ability of one party to gerrymander congressional districts to its benefit — as was done when the map was last drawn in 2011.

 

The proposed constitutional amendment sets up a bipartisan process to draw a new 10-year map, significantly changing the current map-drawing process that allows the majority to work alone, gerrymandering districts to its benefit.  Republicans have held a firm grip on 12 of Ohio’s 16 congressional districts since drawing the map in 2011, and few races have been competitive.

 

MORE:  http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180206/inside-story-of-how-ohio-got-rare-bipartisan-deal-on-congressional-redistricting

Recap of the bipartisan congressional redistricting deal from http://www.dispatch.com/news/20180206/bipartisan-deal-finalized-voters-to-decide-congressional-redistricting-changes

 

^I can get behind that. Gerrymandering leaves us with Jim Jordan and Marcia Fudge, and a Congress unable to function

It's a big improvement over what we have now, but it seems unnecessarily complicated and easy for the majority party to game. Why not just set up a nonpartisan commission to draw the map, period, instead of saying (1.) legislature takes the first stab at it, but if they can't figure it out, (2.) a commission of politicians takes a stab at it, but if they still can't figure it out, (3.) legislature gets another stab at it? The minority party basically has to agree to the what's proposed in Step 1, because they lose significant power if it goes to the commission defined in Step 2. In its current state, I don't see this as "terminating gerrymandering."

 

I would also like more details about the "18 counties can be split once, 5 counties can be split twice" bit. Does it specifically name counties that can be split? Or is that just an upper limit? Either way, those numbers seem way too high. If you go look at Vox's sample maps, you can see that they were able to "make districts compact while following county borders" and "promote highly competitive elections" without making anywhere close to 28 slices within county lines.

 

Adding in the ability for voters to invalidate the districts via referendum is a nice touch, but would be extremely difficult to do in practice.

 

I think legislators are realizing that you can no longer draw super ridiculously gerrymandered districts because they might be thrown out by the courts. So they are trying to put rules in place that still allow them to gerrymander quite a bit, but if they get taken to court, they can point to these rules and say "this was bipartisan!"

^ I think some counties will have to be split due to population.  Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Hamilton likely need to be split up to 3 ways based on their size.

It's a big improvement over what we have now, but it seems unnecessarily complicated and easy for the majority party to game. Why not just set up a nonpartisan commission to draw the map, period, instead of saying (1.) legislature takes the first stab at it, but if they can't figure it out, (2.) a commission of politicians takes a stab at it, but if they still can't figure it out, (3.) legislature gets another stab at it? The minority party basically has to agree to the what's proposed in Step 1, because they lose significant power if it goes to the commission defined in Step 2. In its current state, I don't see this as "terminating gerrymandering."

 

I would also like more details about the "18 counties can be split once, 5 counties can be split twice" bit. Does it specifically name counties that can be split? Or is that just an upper limit? Either way, those numbers seem way too high. If you go look at Vox's sample maps, you can see that they were able to "make districts compact while following county borders" and "promote highly competitive elections" without making anywhere close to 28 slices within county lines.

 

Adding in the ability for voters to invalidate the districts via referendum is a nice touch, but would be extremely difficult to do in practice.

 

I think legislators are realizing that you can no longer draw super ridiculously gerrymandered districts because they might be thrown out by the courts. So they are trying to put rules in place that still allow them to gerrymander quite a bit, but if they get taken to court, they can point to these rules and say "this was bipartisan!"

 

50% minority party requirement makes it next to impossible to have anything close to what we have now.

Hamilton County's 2010 population was 802,374. District 1 has 731,181 residents and district 3 has 713,709. District 1 should basically be Hamilton County minus just enough residents to get it down to the necessary threshold for equal representation. So there is really no reason to split Hamilton County, or any of the other big counties, more than once.

The ironic thing is that this bi-partisan deal was almost the same deal the GOP came up with in 2009 but the Democrats balked at because they were licking their chops at growing their power in 2010 and being able to draw them to their advantage.

^Any link to the proposed rules in 2009?

It's a big improvement over what we have now, but it seems unnecessarily complicated and easy for the majority party to game. Why not just set up a nonpartisan commission to draw the map, period, instead of saying (1.) legislature takes the first stab at it, but if they can't figure it out, (2.) a commission of politicians takes a stab at it, but if they still can't figure it out, (3.) legislature gets another stab at it? The minority party basically has to agree to the what's proposed in Step 1, because they lose significant power if it goes to the commission defined in Step 2. In its current state, I don't see this as "terminating gerrymandering."

 

I would also like more details about the "18 counties can be split once, 5 counties can be split twice" bit. Does it specifically name counties that can be split? Or is that just an upper limit? Either way, those numbers seem way too high. If you go look at Vox's sample maps, you can see that they were able to "make districts compact while following county borders" and "promote highly competitive elections" without making anywhere close to 28 slices within county lines.

 

Adding in the ability for voters to invalidate the districts via referendum is a nice touch, but would be extremely difficult to do in practice.

 

I think legislators are realizing that you can no longer draw super ridiculously gerrymandered districts because they might be thrown out by the courts. So they are trying to put rules in place that still allow them to gerrymander quite a bit, but if they get taken to court, they can point to these rules and say "this was bipartisan!"

 

50% minority party requirement makes it next to impossible to have anything close to what we have now.

 

So here's what could happen with our current elected leaders:

 

(1.) Legislature proposes a ridiculously gerrymandered map that has no chance of passing. It does not get 50% of the minority party's support, so it goes to step 2.

(2.) Commission consisting of the Governor, Auditor, SOS, and 2 lawmakers from each party gets to draw the districts. That's 5 Republicans and 2 Dems currently. They pass a map that's less gerrymandered than our current map, but still pretty gerrymandered.

(3.) Minority party could organize a petition drive and force it onto the ballot, but let's be honest, this is way too wonky of an issue for the average Ohio voter to care about, so it's going to fail.

 

Of course if you have a different party in the governor's seat than the majority party of the legislature, then it's a whole different story, because it can be vetoed.

The ironic thing is that this bi-partisan deal was almost the same deal the GOP came up with in 2009 but the Democrats balked at because they were licking their chops at growing their power in 2010 and being able to draw them to their advantage.

 

Sometimes you've gotta get burned to learn not to put your hand on the stove.

I wasn't around for the 2009 ballot issue but I did support the most recent one that put it in the hands of a nonpartisan commission. Unfortunately opponents spun that proposal as "big government betting bigger, paying a new commission with your taxpayer dollars, embiggening the deep state!!"

^Any link to the proposed rules in 2009?

 

This is an example of pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. I have no pity on the Dems for the mess that gerrymandering created because they had a chance to stop it and were too greedy for their own good.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2009/09/senate_republicans_pass_consti.html

No doubt the democrats were guilty of gerrymandering too.  Moving forward though it is best to move away from it altogether.  Gerrymandering hurts the part in the majority as much as it hurts the minority party. It allows for much more extreme views rather than moderate ones. I would rather have more moderate congressional representative than extreme ones even if it means a moderate Republican over an extreme Democrat.

KNOW YOUR BALLOT ISSUE: 2018 Ohio State Ballot Issue 1

 

No doubt the democrats were guilty of gerrymandering too.  Moving forward though it is best to move away from it altogether.  Gerrymandering hurts the part in the majority as much as it hurts the minority party. It allows for much more extreme views rather than moderate ones. I would rather have more moderate congressional representative than extreme ones even if it means a moderate Republican over an extreme Democrat.

 

This is what a lot of people miss. Gerrymandering doesn't only affect the number of Ds and Rs, it affects the views of those Ds and Rs, and how centrist or fringe they are. Gerrymandering gets you wackjobs who don't reflect the actual mainstream views of the population.

Give Nutjobs a Voice