^ not sure what you mean.

 

The Electoral college favors the interest of the large states by basing the number of votes on population only.  Wyoming only has 3 votes because its entire population is between 400 and 500,000.  If each state had the same number of votes, a small population like Wyoming would be equal to a large state like California or New York.

^I assume  your question was directed at diaspora, not me, yes? (i.e., you mean "^^")

 

But I'm pretty sure that diaspora's point was that low population states have significantly more electoral votes per capita, because the formula includes senate seats.  But I think that's a separate issue from Ohio's redistricting.

Yes, your post wasn't there while I was responding! 

^ not sure what you mean.

 

The Electoral college favors the interest of the large states by basing the number of votes on population only.  Wyoming only has 3 votes because its entire population is between 400 and 500,000.  If each state had the same number of votes, a small population like Wyoming would be equal to a large state like California or New York.

 

Like Straphanger said, Wyoming has a disproportionate say based on population. Their electoral vote/population ratio is much lower than a state like California.

 

I mention this only to say that rural areas have always had a disproportionate voice in our governments, it's not directly relevant to the redistricting, but i thought it might help explain what i think is an intentional emphasis on rural areas.

Your right, its not directly relevant to redistricting, because there is no advantage to rural areas.  It is strictly based on population determined by the party in charge.  A rural area will necessarily be larger than an urban area due to density.  If you look at some of the districts in the south, they are drawn in such a manner to allow for black delegates.  Without this, there would be little if any minority representation.

Of course a rural district will be larger, at the same time, it's strictly based on how to maximize the voters that will reelect the party in charge, or minimize the impact of voters that will vote for the minority party.

 

I guess i don't follow, but there aren't any black congresspeople from southern Ohio. In fact, there's only one from Ohio, and she's up in Cleveland.

I never said southern Ohio. I said the south

Last year, Democrats had a chance to take politics out of drawing new congressional boundaries and replace it with a plan that reeked of fairness.

 

Republican members of the legislature supported it. Most daily newspapers and good government groups strongly urged its adoption. And any Ohioan with a modicum of common sense instinctively knew the idea was a good one.

 

The Democrats killed it. Single-handedly.

 

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/drawing_the_line_on_democrat_g.html#incart_mce

Joe Hallett gets my vote for the best opening line in a political story for this one.  :clap: :clap:

 

Group says Ohio's new congressional map lacks competition, fairness

By  Joe Hallett

Columbus Dispatch Wednesday December 21, 2011 2:08 PM

 

Even the 450 members of Russia’s Duma are elected from districts that are fairer and more competitive than the 16 congressional districts drawn by Republicans controlling the Statehouse, an Ohio State University political scientist has concluded.

 

Richard Gunther today called the new congressional map signed into law last week by Gov. John Kasich “stunning” for its representational unfairness, saying it is twice as unfair as the next-worst democratic systems in the world.

 

“This is a very, very bad map,” said Gunther, a scholar of world democracies. “This is extremely unfair to the citizens of Ohio.”

 

Read more at: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/12/21/ohio-congressional-districts-hardly-competitive-group-says.html

lol

 

So is my understanding correct that any kind of a referendum vote is now dead?  More than embarrassing, this goes completely against what our country is built upon.  I can't believe enough Democrats in the statehouse agreed to this to save a few seats of power for themselves/minorities.  This is bad.  Real bad.

Last year, Democrats had a chance to take politics out of drawing new congressional boundaries and replace it with a plan that reeked of fairness.

 

Republican members of the legislature supported it. Most daily newspapers and good government groups strongly urged its adoption. And any Ohioan with a modicum of common sense instinctively knew the idea was a good one.

 

The Democrats killed it. Single-handedly.

 

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/drawing_the_line_on_democrat_g.html#incart_mce

 

Larkin's a notorious right winger so he's biased.  :)

 

Seriously, Lou Stokes got into Congress because of a deal between the state GOP and the black political establishment, brokered by W. O. Walker IIRC.  The mainstream Dems opposed it.  There's nothing at all new here no matter how much the white powers-that-be and Nina "Vote early, vote often, vote Democratic" Turner complain.

lol

 

 

AWESOME! This is his best work. I like this even more than those famous Cleveland Tourism videos. That graphic with "Toledo! You Could Do Worse!" was gold. What they did with the Ohio 9th is sickening.

New or not, it' still incredibly extreme (perhaps more so than any previous map), incredibly un-democratic, and incredibly unrepresentative of our state.

 

So the ceiling for the Democrats was a "fair" map (which would still likely favor Republicans), yet they failed, so that makes it acceptable for the Republicans to draw a ridiculous one?

 

I've been doing some reading on redistricting and gerrymandering and there are some arguments to be made that certain provisions of the VRA actually make it easier for Republicans to draw themselves these types of advantages in many states like Ohio.

VRA had its uses, but it made gerrymandering much worse and in Ohio it allows naked horsetrading like the creation of a 'minority' district in Columbus in exchange for dominance in the rest of the state. Of course, if the Dems had ruled the day, Cincinnati would have a 'minority' seat as well.

VRA had its uses, but it made gerrymandering much worse and in Ohio it allows naked horsetrading like the creation of a 'minority' district in Columbus in exchange for dominance in the rest of the state. Of course, if the Dems had ruled the day, Cincinnati would have a 'minority' seat as well.

 

I don't think Columbus had a "minority seat" from 2000-2010.

No they didn't, but we are about to get one.

No they didn't, but we are about to get one.

 

Congrats!

Has anyone heard about this? I was just at Broad and High and was approached by someone wanting me to sign a petition for "redistricting". I said, "What? We don't have control over that. Can I see a map of how this redistricting works?" She said, "No, it's for eliminating districting." I said, "I want to know more information about it. I hate signing these things because there's always some ulterior motive and they say it's for one thing but it's actually for another." She went on about how it would also allow (I think) for Independents to enter into the House more easily and that this legislation would require people to enter the race whose families are not affiliated with a political party.

 

THIS SOUNDS LIKE SOME EXTREMELY DANGEROUS LEGISLATION. Do people even understand how and why our government works? We don't have districting for the senate; we have it for the House Reps. I see that as a fair and balanced compromise. I do not want to ever see districting obliterated  as it would CLEARLY disenfranchise a lot of rural people. It bothers me that people sign petitions like that just to get these damn people they hire to harass you while you're walking downtown, out of their life.

 

We are a country of citizens but also of land and natural resources. People need to keep that in mind. Our country doesn't need urban sprawl. We don't need Mountain Top Removal. We don't need unskilled, uneducated workers who are out of work in rural areas who have no transportation. There are people in Ohio who have no physical infrastructure for internet access and cable (thank God for 4G, right?) There's folks in rural areas who don't even have plumbing for God's sake. Surely those folks need some clout through a f-ing representative!

 

I asked this woman who was funding this legislation. She named off some non-profit Organization whose name I can't even remember because they all sound the same. I said, "No, who is feeding money to this non-profit?" She said she didn't know. Hell, she didn't even know how this was going to benefit everyone and didn't know much about the stipulations, implications, ramifications, whatever, of this bill. All she knew was that she had a side gig getting people to sign a petition of which she knew very little about.

 

This sort of thing really irks me.

 

I said, "Have any other states done this yet?" She said, "Idaho, California, Arizona." Arizona is almost as ass-backwards as Texas.

I don't know anything about this attempt for undistricting and I just got called in to work but I'll be looking forward to your comments when I get back. Would love to know more about this if any of you have any information on it.

I understand your concerns but gerrymander districts and safe D or R district cause political divisiveness we have seen in the last few decades.

 

 

 

 

what the Toledo Blade says...

 

"November’s ballot already is so overcrowded that Ohio voters may just give up instead of trying to make sense of it. But a potential addition to the long list of state and local levies and questions is both timely and needed.

 

Every 10 years, after the national Census, Ohio adjusts the boundaries of state legislative and U.S. House districts to reflect population changes. Whether Republicans or Democrats control the General Assembly and hold the statewide offices that are charged with redrawing the lines, the party in power abuses its power to create more districts for itself and fewer for the other party.

 

The gerrymandering is often appalling. The new 9th Congressional District meanders along Lake Erie from Toledo to Cleveland. It is neither compact nor competitive, and is contiguous only because of a bridge that connects two parts of the district that are separated by water.

 

State lawmakers talk about making the process less political. This year, the GOP-controlled legislature created two panels — the Redistricting Task Force and the Constitutional Modernization Commission — to recommend changes.

 

But there is little hope for reform when Gov. John Kasich and state Senate President Thomas Niehaus, both Republicans, say they don’t think the Ohio Constitution requires neutrality in redistricting."

 

 

 

 

Voters First’s proposal will create an Independent Citizens Commission.  Politicians, lobbyists and political insiders are prohibited from serving on the commission. The Commission’s work will be open and it will be accountable to the public.  The Commission will empower voters to choose their politicians instead of politicians picking their voters.

 

    Citizens, Not Politicians. Instead of the current procedures (in which politicians draw district boundaries that unfairly favor their own party and/or protect incumbents), a 12-member Citizens Commission will create the districts. Any member of the public can submit a plan for consideration.

    Openness and Transparency. All meetings, records, communications and draft plans of the Commission must be open to the public. No more backroom deals.

    Balance and Impartiality. The Citizens Commission will include equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independents, and the approval of at least seven of the twelve members of the commission will be required for the adoption of any plan. This will ensure that the final plan fairly represents all Ohioans, not just those currently in power.

    Community Representation. Districts will be created that are geographically compact, and which minimize the division of counties, townships, municipalities and wards between different districts.

    Accountability & Competitive Districts. Politically balanced districts will be created, rather than “safe districts” which make it difficult or impossible for voters to hold elected officials accountable.

    Fairness. To the greatest extent possible, the share of districts leaning toward a party will reflect the political preferences of the voters of Ohio.

 

 

Summary of the Proposed Amendment

 

Amendment

 

TITLE

 

Ohio Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission Amendment

 

SUMMARY

 

This proposed amendment would add and repeal language in Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 13 of Article XI of the Ohio Constitution, repeal Sections 8 and 14 of Article XI and add a new Section 16 to Article XI, all regarding the process and criteria for the drawing of legislative district lines for Ohio’s congressional and state legislative house and senate districts. The proposed amendment’s provisions include among others, the following:

 

1. Create the Ohio Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission (“Commission”) to establish the boundaries for Ohio’s state legislative and congressional districts following approval of this amendment and again following each federal decennial census (“census”).

 

2. Any plan adopted by the Commission shall comply with all applicable Ohio and federal constitutional provisions and all federal statutory provisions, including, but not limited to, those dealing specifically with protection of minority voting rights. Each congressional and state legislative district shall be comprised of contiguous territory, and the boundary of each district shall be a single non¬intersecting continuous line and be in compliance with all other provisions of Article XI. The Commission shall adopt the redistricting plan that in its judgment most closely meets the following 4 factors without violating federal and state constitutional provisions, federal statutory provisions or the above contiguity requirement: a) community preservation by minimizing the number of governmental units that must be divided between different districts, combining areas of whole governmental units giving preference in order named to counties, municipalities, contiguous townships, and city wards; b) competitiveness by maximizing the number of districts where the average political party indexes, determined using actual election results from recent representative statewide elections, does not lean toward one party by more than 5%; c) representational fairness by balancing the number of districts leaning toward each political party so that the number of districts leaning toward each party closely corresponds to the preferences of the voters of Ohio as determined using actual election results from recent representative statewide elections; and d) compactness by creating districts that are compact. No plan shall be adopted with intent to favor or disfavor a political party, incumbent or potential candidate.

 

3. In no event shall any state House of Representatives district contain a population of less than 98% nor more than 102% of the ratio of representation in the House of Representatives, except where reasonable effort is made to avoid dividing a county in accordance with Section 9 of Article XI. In no event shall any state Senate district contain a population of less than 98% nor more than 102% of the ratio of representation in the Senate. Where the population of a county is not less than 95% nor more than 105% of the ratio of representation in the state House of Representatives, reasonable effort shall be made to create a House of Representatives district consisting of the whole county.

 

4. The Commission will consist of 12 members chosen as follows: by January 1 of the year the census is conducted, the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court will select by lot a panel of 8 judges of the Ohio courts of appeals (“judicial panel”), no more than 4 of whom may be members of the same political party; by April 1 of that year the judicial panel will appoint an independent auditor to assist the panel in determining the eligibility of potential members of the Commission; by May 1 of that year any Ohio citizen, not otherwise disqualified under the amendment, may apply for appointment as a member of the Commission; by August 1 of that year the judicial panel will select from among such applicants 42 to serve as potential Commission members, which shall include the 14 most qualified applicants affiliated with the two largest political parties based on the votes received by political party candidates at the most recent election for governor and the 14 most qualified applicants not affiliated with either of the two political parties during the 5 years prior to the selection; selection as a potential Commission member requires the affirmative vote of at least 5 of the 8 judges and is to be based on having relevant skills and abilities, including a capacity for impartiality, and reflecting the diversity of Ohio; by August 15 of the year the census is conducted, the speaker of the House of Representatives and the highest ranking member of the House not of the same party as the speaker may each respectively eliminate up to 3 persons from each of the three pools of 14 potential members selected by the judicial panel resulting in a final pool of not less than 24 potential members; from this final pool, the judicial panel will choose by lot 3 persons affiliated with the largest political party, 3 affiliated with the second largest political party and 3 not affiliated with either party to serve as Commission members; by October 1 of that year these 9 persons will select from the final pool of potential members 3 additional members, including 1 affiliated with the largest political party, 1 affiliated with the second largest political party and 1 not affiliated with either party; in making this selection of the final 3 members, the members shall seek a total Commission membership that has the relevant skills and abilities, including a capacity for impartiality.

 

5. Provide that certain persons will be ineligible to serve as Commission members as follows: a) a person who or whose immediate family member as defined in the amendment, within 10 years preceding the date of application, served as a federal or state elected official, was a paid employee of the Ohio legislature, the U. S. Congress, or the office of a federal or state elected official, was the director of a state department or agency, or was a paid lobbyist as defined under federal or state law; b) a person who, within 5 years preceding the date of application, was a candidate for federal or state office; was a paid employee or paid consultant of a campaign for a political candidate or or political committee as defined by federal or state law; was an official or paid employee of any political party organization; or made monetary contributions to political campaigns or political parties that exceed a total of $5,000 during a 2 year period, which amount shall be adjusted consistent with the consumer price index in future years; and c) any person who has not voted in at least 2 of the previous 3 general elections conducted in even numbered years.

 

6. In the event that a Commission member is unable to complete his or her term, the remaining members shall select a replacement member from the final pool of potential Commission members. The total membership of the Commission shall consist of 4 members affiliated with the largest political party, 4 members affiliated with the second largest political party and 4 members not affiliated with either party. Commission members shall not be subject to removal by the general assembly or any member of the executive branch. Commission members shall be ineligible to be elected or appointed to the state legislature for any districts established or modified by that Commission.

 

7. The Commission is authorized to hire staff, consultants and legal counsel and use the services of existing state employees to fulfill its responsibilities. The general assembly shall make appropriations to adequately fund the Commission, including, but not limited to, compensation for Commission members. All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public and all records, communications and draft plans of the Commission, its members and staff related to the establishment or possible modification of district boundaries shall be public records. The Commission shall make available to the public in a timely fashion all information that is available to any member of the Commission and that may be used in preparing or evaluating redistricting plans or maps, including measures for the factors required to be used under the amendment and the consideration to be given to all factors. The Commission shall adopt rules for its operation and to guide its application of redistricting factors.

 

8. The Commission shall provide reasonable opportunity for the public to submit proposed redistricting plans and the Commission shall give full and fair consideration to such plans. Proposed redistricting plans and maps shall be made available to the public a reasonable period of time before approval by the Commission and the Commission shall provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to testify about proposed plans or maps prior to their being approved. The Commission shall make publicly available with each proposed redistricting plan a report that identifies for each district: boundaries, population, racial and ethnic composition, compactness measure, governmental units that are divided, and political party indexes. The Commission shall also make publicly available statewide totals of the number of governmental units of each type that are divided, the number of politically balanced districts and the number of districts that lean toward each political party.

 

9. The affirmative vote of at least 7 Commission members shall be required to adopt any plan. The Commission shall establish and publish the new district boundaries by October 1 of the year prior to the year elections will be held in the new districts. In the event the Commission fails to establish district boundaries by this date, an action may be initiated in the Ohio Supreme Court for the adoption of district boundaries and the Court shall adopt from among the plans submitted to or considered by the Commission the plan that most closely meets the requirements of Article XI and complies with the rules and measures established by the Commission under Section 1(E) and (G) of Article XI.

 

10. Upon the approval of the amendment, new district boundaries shall be established for Ohio’s congressional and state legislative districts to be used in the next regularly scheduled federal and state elections that are held more than one year after adoption of the amendment. Upon approval of the amendment, the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court shall immediately select by lot a judicial panel in the manner described above. The remaining time frames described above shall be adjusted as necessary by the judicial panel to accomplish the selection of Commission members in time for the Commission to establish new districts for use in the next state or federal election.

 

11. The Ohio Supreme Court shall have exclusive, original jurisdiction in all cases arising under Article XI. In the event it becomes necessary for any court to establish any district boundaries, it shall select from among the plans submitted to or considered by the Commission and shall adopt the plan that most closely meets the requirements of Article XI and complies with the rules and measures established by the Commission under Section 1(E) and (G) of Article XI. In the event that a court invalidates any district boundaries established by a Commission, the Commission shall reconvene to establish new boundaries. The boundaries established by the court shall not remain in effect longer than one election cycle.

 

12. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Ohio Constitution or any law regarding residency of state senators and representatives, a redistricting plan adopted under Article XI shall allow 30 days for persons to change residence in order to be eligible for election.

 

13. Authority for drawing congressional districts will be placed with the Ohio Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission, rather than with the the state legislature where it presently resides.

 

14. Certain existing provisions of the Constitution, as set forth in the full text of the proposed Amendment, would be repealed.

I understand your concerns but gerrymander districts and safe D or R district cause political divisiveness we have seen in the last few decades.

 

If approved by voters the redistricting would take place in time for the 2014 elections for state senate and house and US congress. 

 

the goal is to open up the process and bring balance between the D and R by including the independents 

 

 

 

what the Toledo Blade says...

 

"November’s ballot already is so overcrowded that Ohio voters may just give up instead of trying to make sense of it. But a potential addition to the long list of state and local levies and questions is both timely and needed.

 

Every 10 years, after the national Census, Ohio adjusts the boundaries of state legislative and U.S. House districts to reflect population changes. Whether Republicans or Democrats control the General Assembly and hold the statewide offices that are charged with redrawing the lines, the party in power abuses its power to create more districts for itself and fewer for the other party.

 

The gerrymandering is often appalling. The new 9th Congressional District meanders along Lake Erie from Toledo to Cleveland. It is neither compact nor competitive, and is contiguous only because of a bridge that connects two parts of the district that are separated by water.

 

State lawmakers talk about making the process less political. This year, the GOP-controlled legislature created two panels — the Redistricting Task Force and the Constitutional Modernization Commission — to recommend changes.

 

But there is little hope for reform when Gov. John Kasich and state Senate President Thomas Niehaus, both Republicans, say they don’t think the Ohio Constitution requires neutrality in redistricting."

 

 

 

 

Voters First’s proposal will create an Independent Citizens Commission.  Politicians, lobbyists and political insiders are prohibited from serving on the commission. The Commission’s work will be open and it will be accountable to the public.  The Commission will empower voters to choose their politicians instead of politicians picking their voters.

 

    Citizens, Not Politicians. Instead of the current procedures (in which politicians draw district boundaries that unfairly favor their own party and/or protect incumbents), a 12-member Citizens Commission will create the districts. Any member of the public can submit a plan for consideration.

    Openness and Transparency. All meetings, records, communications and draft plans of the Commission must be open to the public. No more backroom deals.

    Balance and Impartiality. The Citizens Commission will include equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independents, and the approval of at least seven of the twelve members of the commission will be required for the adoption of any plan. This will ensure that the final plan fairly represents all Ohioans, not just those currently in power.

    Community Representation. Districts will be created that are geographically compact, and which minimize the division of counties, townships, municipalities and wards between different districts.

    Accountability & Competitive Districts. Politically balanced districts will be created, rather than “safe districts” which make it difficult or impossible for voters to hold elected officials accountable.

    Fairness. To the greatest extent possible, the share of districts leaning toward a party will reflect the political preferences of the voters of Ohio.

 

 

Summary of the Proposed Amendment

 

Amendment

 

TITLE

 

Ohio Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission Amendment

 

SUMMARY

 

This proposed amendment would add and repeal language in Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 13 of Article XI of the Ohio Constitution, repeal Sections 8 and 14 of Article XI and add a new Section 16 to Article XI, all regarding the process and criteria for the drawing of legislative district lines for Ohio’s congressional and state legislative house and senate districts. The proposed amendment’s provisions include among others, the following:

 

1. Create the Ohio Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission (“Commission”) to establish the boundaries for Ohio’s state legislative and congressional districts following approval of this amendment and again following each federal decennial census (“census”).

 

2. Any plan adopted by the Commission shall comply with all applicable Ohio and federal constitutional provisions and all federal statutory provisions, including, but not limited to, those dealing specifically with protection of minority voting rights. Each congressional and state legislative district shall be comprised of contiguous territory, and the boundary of each district shall be a single non¬intersecting continuous line and be in compliance with all other provisions of Article XI. The Commission shall adopt the redistricting plan that in its judgment most closely meets the following 4 factors without violating federal and state constitutional provisions, federal statutory provisions or the above contiguity requirement: a) community preservation by minimizing the number of governmental units that must be divided between different districts, combining areas of whole governmental units giving preference in order named to counties, municipalities, contiguous townships, and city wards; b) competitiveness by maximizing the number of districts where the average political party indexes, determined using actual election results from recent representative statewide elections, does not lean toward one party by more than 5%; c) representational fairness by balancing the number of districts leaning toward each political party so that the number of districts leaning toward each party closely corresponds to the preferences of the voters of Ohio as determined using actual election results from recent representative statewide elections; and d) compactness by creating districts that are compact. No plan shall be adopted with intent to favor or disfavor a political party, incumbent or potential candidate.

 

3. In no event shall any state House of Representatives district contain a population of less than 98% nor more than 102% of the ratio of representation in the House of Representatives, except where reasonable effort is made to avoid dividing a county in accordance with Section 9 of Article XI. In no event shall any state Senate district contain a population of less than 98% nor more than 102% of the ratio of representation in the Senate. Where the population of a county is not less than 95% nor more than 105% of the ratio of representation in the state House of Representatives, reasonable effort shall be made to create a House of Representatives district consisting of the whole county.

 

4. The Commission will consist of 12 members chosen as follows: by January 1 of the year the census is conducted, the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court will select by lot a panel of 8 judges of the Ohio courts of appeals (“judicial panel”), no more than 4 of whom may be members of the same political party; by April 1 of that year the judicial panel will appoint an independent auditor to assist the panel in determining the eligibility of potential members of the Commission; by May 1 of that year any Ohio citizen, not otherwise disqualified under the amendment, may apply for appointment as a member of the Commission; by August 1 of that year the judicial panel will select from among such applicants 42 to serve as potential Commission members, which shall include the 14 most qualified applicants affiliated with the two largest political parties based on the votes received by political party candidates at the most recent election for governor and the 14 most qualified applicants not affiliated with either of the two political parties during the 5 years prior to the selection; selection as a potential Commission member requires the affirmative vote of at least 5 of the 8 judges and is to be based on having relevant skills and abilities, including a capacity for impartiality, and reflecting the diversity of Ohio; by August 15 of the year the census is conducted, the speaker of the House of Representatives and the highest ranking member of the House not of the same party as the speaker may each respectively eliminate up to 3 persons from each of the three pools of 14 potential members selected by the judicial panel resulting in a final pool of not less than 24 potential members; from this final pool, the judicial panel will choose by lot 3 persons affiliated with the largest political party, 3 affiliated with the second largest political party and 3 not affiliated with either party to serve as Commission members; by October 1 of that year these 9 persons will select from the final pool of potential members 3 additional members, including 1 affiliated with the largest political party, 1 affiliated with the second largest political party and 1 not affiliated with either party; in making this selection of the final 3 members, the members shall seek a total Commission membership that has the relevant skills and abilities, including a capacity for impartiality.

 

5. Provide that certain persons will be ineligible to serve as Commission members as follows: a) a person who or whose immediate family member as defined in the amendment, within 10 years preceding the date of application, served as a federal or state elected official, was a paid employee of the Ohio legislature, the U. S. Congress, or the office of a federal or state elected official, was the director of a state department or agency, or was a paid lobbyist as defined under federal or state law; b) a person who, within 5 years preceding the date of application, was a candidate for federal or state office; was a paid employee or paid consultant of a campaign for a political candidate or or political committee as defined by federal or state law; was an official or paid employee of any political party organization; or made monetary contributions to political campaigns or political parties that exceed a total of $5,000 during a 2 year period, which amount shall be adjusted consistent with the consumer price index in future years; and c) any person who has not voted in at least 2 of the previous 3 general elections conducted in even numbered years.

 

6. In the event that a Commission member is unable to complete his or her term, the remaining members shall select a replacement member from the final pool of potential Commission members. The total membership of the Commission shall consist of 4 members affiliated with the largest political party, 4 members affiliated with the second largest political party and 4 members not affiliated with either party. Commission members shall not be subject to removal by the general assembly or any member of the executive branch. Commission members shall be ineligible to be elected or appointed to the state legislature for any districts established or modified by that Commission.

 

7. The Commission is authorized to hire staff, consultants and legal counsel and use the services of existing state employees to fulfill its responsibilities. The general assembly shall make appropriations to adequately fund the Commission, including, but not limited to, compensation for Commission members. All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public and all records, communications and draft plans of the Commission, its members and staff related to the establishment or possible modification of district boundaries shall be public records. The Commission shall make available to the public in a timely fashion all information that is available to any member of the Commission and that may be used in preparing or evaluating redistricting plans or maps, including measures for the factors required to be used under the amendment and the consideration to be given to all factors. The Commission shall adopt rules for its operation and to guide its application of redistricting factors.

 

8. The Commission shall provide reasonable opportunity for the public to submit proposed redistricting plans and the Commission shall give full and fair consideration to such plans. Proposed redistricting plans and maps shall be made available to the public a reasonable period of time before approval by the Commission and the Commission shall provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to testify about proposed plans or maps prior to their being approved. The Commission shall make publicly available with each proposed redistricting plan a report that identifies for each district: boundaries, population, racial and ethnic composition, compactness measure, governmental units that are divided, and political party indexes. The Commission shall also make publicly available statewide totals of the number of governmental units of each type that are divided, the number of politically balanced districts and the number of districts that lean toward each political party.

 

9. The affirmative vote of at least 7 Commission members shall be required to adopt any plan. The Commission shall establish and publish the new district boundaries by October 1 of the year prior to the year elections will be held in the new districts. In the event the Commission fails to establish district boundaries by this date, an action may be initiated in the Ohio Supreme Court for the adoption of district boundaries and the Court shall adopt from among the plans submitted to or considered by the Commission the plan that most closely meets the requirements of Article XI and complies with the rules and measures established by the Commission under Section 1(E) and (G) of Article XI.

 

10. Upon the approval of the amendment, new district boundaries shall be established for Ohio’s congressional and state legislative districts to be used in the next regularly scheduled federal and state elections that are held more than one year after adoption of the amendment. Upon approval of the amendment, the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court shall immediately select by lot a judicial panel in the manner described above. The remaining time frames described above shall be adjusted as necessary by the judicial panel to accomplish the selection of Commission members in time for the Commission to establish new districts for use in the next state or federal election.

 

11. The Ohio Supreme Court shall have exclusive, original jurisdiction in all cases arising under Article XI. In the event it becomes necessary for any court to establish any district boundaries, it shall select from among the plans submitted to or considered by the Commission and shall adopt the plan that most closely meets the requirements of Article XI and complies with the rules and measures established by the Commission under Section 1(E) and (G) of Article XI. In the event that a court invalidates any district boundaries established by a Commission, the Commission shall reconvene to establish new boundaries. The boundaries established by the court shall not remain in effect longer than one election cycle.

 

12. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Ohio Constitution or any law regarding residency of state senators and representatives, a redistricting plan adopted under Article XI shall allow 30 days for persons to change residence in order to be eligible for election.

 

13. Authority for drawing congressional districts will be placed with the Ohio Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission, rather than with the the state legislature where it presently resides.

 

14. Certain existing provisions of the Constitution, as set forth in the full text of the proposed Amendment, would be repealed.

federal

 

 

Wow, Akron gets 4 congressmen under the new plan.  That's better than some states.

The City of Columbus and its inner-ring 'burbs having its own district will help prevent the outer 'burbs from bullying us.

 

how Gerrymandering works.

 

 

Let's say there's a state with 100 people in it and 5 districts. 50% are registered democrat and 50% are registered republican.

 

If everything was split there would be 20 people in each district with 10 democrats and 10 republicans making each of the 5 district races competitive.

 

Now the Tom Delay redistricting plans come into play.

 

District 1 is created to contain 20 democrats and 0 republicans.

 

That leaves 50 republicans and 30 democrats.

 

The other 4 districts each get 7 or 8 democrats and 12 to 13 republicans.

 

That makes 4 very solid republican districts and 1 solid democrat district. This effectively guarantees that Republicans send 4 Congressmen to the House and only 1 Democrat.

 

Politicians do not want competitive district they want safe districts, and the party in power can make districts that are safer for them and usually makes adealt with the other party to make their district safe as well.

 

 

gerrymandering explained

 

Tell me you haven't felt there was something out of place in this state for a very long time. this and ODOT are Holding Ohio back.

 

The City of Columbus and its inner-ring 'burbs having its own district will help prevent the outer 'burbs from bullying us.

 

While your district is 90% democrat for that one seat in the house, there may be 3 seats that are 60% republican and 40% democrat.

 

instead of having 2 seat for each party you now have 1 Dem and 3 Republican seat.

 

Gerrymandering.

 

we wonder why we are so polarized when politicians never have to move to the political center to win elections anymore.

Yeah, I don't think this is about disenfranchising rural voters.  It's about setting up a different way of drawing up the districts so that they make more sense.  Iowa has the best system I've read about--non-partisan, divides everything as evenly as possible geographically.  It results in Iowa having a bunch of competitive House races, as opposed to here, where you know for most seats that Democrats or Republicans are going to cruise to victory. 

Are David's earlier posts from May and biker/jdm's posts talking about the same thing?  At first glance, at least, it doesn't look that way.  The former involved a proposal to eliminate districts entirely (which I presume to mean moving towards an at-large system of selecting representatives for the U.S. House of Representatives, akin to how we already select members for the U.S. Senate).  The latter posts appear to be discussing a proposal to create a new body to handle redistricting--a far cry from eliminating districts entirely.

Sorry--in reading David's post, I assumed that it was about the same plan.  I'm not aware of any plan to have no districts, and in fact I doubt that would even be legal under the constitution.  Since David was relaying what he was told by the signature collector, who talked about changing the district process and making it more likely independents would be involved, I assumed it was the same proposal. 

Some quick online research doesn't show anything but the redistricting plan that biker16 was discussing. 

I think a completely at-large system might be constitutional, actually--at least, the constitution assigns each state a number of representatives based upon its census, but doesn't mention "districts" at all (other than the District of Columbia, another topic).

 

Of course, it's a moot point.  A plan to abolish districts at the state level would go absolutely nowhere.  Both Republicans and Democrats like the current system, for establishmentarian reasons, and most people probably wouldn't be too receptive to the concept of "losing" their own exclusive Representative.  (After all, as mentioned earlier, you already have Senators elected on an at-large basis.)

 

As for the redistricting plan, if it's worded like that, it's going down in flames.  It appears to have been worded by a control-obsessed social engineer with no political instincts--in particular, someone completely unaware of the fact that people will almost always respond negatively to walls of text, especially technical text.  Heck, I'm an attorney and I found it dense reading.

 

Get it down to under 200 words, and it might have a chance.  Get it down to under 100, and it might have a pretty decent chance.  The drafter obviously couldn't stomach the thought of doing that because it would mean giving up control over specifics.  The result will be that the proponent will get neither its specifics nor its first principles enacted into law.  "Legislative districts shall be drawn to ensure maximum contiguity of incorporated municipalities and identifiable neighborhoods and minimum total perimeter," or something similarly general but reasonably comprehensible and substantive.  The fetishization of process in the upthread proposal is just grating.  The only section of it with actual substantive rules is section 2.

^I would agree, except I think recently awareness on "Issue" voting is becoming more prevalent.  People might not know what they are voting for..... but they know IF they are voting "No on (fill in the issue number" or "Yes on (fill in issue number)".  This past election, people generally didn't need to read the text of Issue 2..... which was a far cry from when we voted on the gay marriage ban which was worded so that you thought you were voting to illegalize all marriages if you didn't vote yes.

 

I did a survey on this redistricting procedure amendment.  The survey was testing out the effectiveness of arguments being planned by both sides.  Amusing was the theme being tested by the opponents in which the argument is that since the proposed plan takes some cues from California, if the measure is passed then Ohio will turn into California.  Has "California" become the new "New York City!"? (channeling the old Bullseye BBQ Sauce advertisement)

Some quick online research doesn't show anything but the redistricting plan that biker16 was discussing.

http://votersfirstohio.com/

I think a completely at-large system might be constitutional, actually--at least, the constitution assigns each state a number of representatives based upon its census, but doesn't mention "districts" at all (other than the District of Columbia, another topic).

 

Of course, it's a moot point.  A plan to abolish districts at the state level would go absolutely nowhere.  Both Republicans and Democrats like the current system, for establishmentarian reasons, and most people probably wouldn't be too receptive to the concept of "losing" their own exclusive Representative.  (After all, as mentioned earlier, you already have Senators elected on an at-large basis.)

 

As for the redistricting plan, if it's worded like that, it's going down in flames.  It appears to have been worded by a control-obsessed social engineer with no political instincts--in particular, someone completely unaware of the fact that people will almost always respond negatively to walls of text, especially technical text.  Heck, I'm an attorney and I found it dense reading.

 

Get it down to under 200 words, and it might have a chance.  Get it down to under 100, and it might have a pretty decent chance.  The drafter obviously couldn't stomach the thought of doing that because it would mean giving up control over specifics.  The result will be that the proponent will get neither its specifics nor its first principles enacted into law.  "Legislative districts shall be drawn to ensure maximum contiguity of incorporated municipalities and identifiable neighborhoods and minimum total perimeter," or something similarly general but reasonably comprehensible and substantive.  The fetishization of process in the upthread proposal is just grating.  The only section of it with actual substantive rules is section 2.

 

I undestand what you are saying but laws like this need alot of words in it to prevent the inevitable finding of loophole for some well paid lawyers. 

 

the concept of non politicized way of drawing districts is a powerful one in IMO. 

how Gerrymandering works.

 

 

Let's say there's a state with 100 people in it and 5 districts. 50% are registered democrat and 50% are registered republican.

 

If everything was split there would be 20 people in each district with 10 democrats and 10 republicans making each of the 5 district races competitive.

 

Now the Tom Delay redistricting plans come into play.

 

District 1 is created to contain 20 democrats and 0 republicans.

 

That leaves 50 republicans and 30 democrats.

 

The other 4 districts each get 7 or 8 democrats and 12 to 13 republicans.

 

That makes 4 very solid republican districts and 1 solid democrat district. This effectively guarantees that Republicans send 4 Congressmen to the House and only 1 Democrat.

 

Politicians do not want competitive district they want safe districts, and the party in power can make districts that are safer for them and usually makes a deal with the other party to make their district safe as well.

 

 

gerrymandering explained

 

Tell me you haven't felt there was something out of place in this state for a very long time. this and ODOT are Holding Ohio back.

 

I undestand what you are saying but laws like this need alot of words in it to prevent the inevitable finding of loophole for some well paid lawyers. 

 

the concept of non politicized way of drawing districts is a powerful one in IMO.

 

I'm a lawyer--working on my way towards becoming a well-paid one.

 

A common misconception is that more words are necessary to close loopholes.  That's often not the case.  Quite often, the more language you give me to work with, the more likely it is that I'll be able to find language that can be interpreted the way I want.  (The Internal Revenue Code is probably the worst offender, but it has ample competition.)  Also, a good lawyer knows how to make rigid, inflexible rules work for them as well as more open, flexible standards.

 

I stand by my original point.  If the amendment is that wordy, it's going down in flames--it will get nay votes even from possible supporters of the general concept.

I undestand what you are saying but laws like this need alot of words in it to prevent the inevitable finding of loophole for some well paid lawyers. 

 

the concept of non politicized way of drawing districts is a powerful one in IMO.

 

I'm a lawyer--working on my way towards becoming a well-paid one.

 

A common misconception is that more words are necessary to close loopholes.  That's often not the case.  Quite often, the more language you give me to work with, the more likely it is that I'll be able to find language that can be interpreted the way I want.  (The Internal Revenue Code is probably the worst offender, but it has ample competition.)  Also, a good lawyer knows how to make rigid, inflexible rules work for them as well as more open, flexible standards.

 

I stand by my original point.  If the amendment is that wordy, it's going down in flames--it will get nay votes even from possible supporters of the general concept.

 

then how would you write the rules for a complex governing board suggested by the proposed law? 

 

I like alot of Ohioans are tired of R and D gaming the system, and the absence of moderates on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

Some quick online research doesn't show anything but the redistricting plan that biker16 was discussing.

http://votersfirstohio.com/

 

Right.  Like I was saying, the only "redistricting" plan is the one you have been discussing. 

I undestand what you are saying but laws like this need alot of words in it to prevent the inevitable finding of loophole for some well paid lawyers. 

 

the concept of non politicized way of drawing districts is a powerful one in IMO.

 

I'm a lawyer--working on my way towards becoming a well-paid one.

 

A common misconception is that more words are necessary to close loopholes.  That's often not the case.  Quite often, the more language you give me to work with, the more likely it is that I'll be able to find language that can be interpreted the way I want.  (The Internal Revenue Code is probably the worst offender, but it has ample competition.)  Also, a good lawyer knows how to make rigid, inflexible rules work for them as well as more open, flexible standards.

 

I stand by my original point.  If the amendment is that wordy, it's going down in flames--it will get nay votes even from possible supporters of the general concept.

 

then how would you write the rules for a complex governing board suggested by the proposed law?

 

I wouldn't.  I would get rid of the entire concept of that governing board as part of the proposed constitutional amendment.  As I said above, it is fetishization of process.  As I also said above, basically the only substantive paragraph of the entire proposal is paragraph 2.  The rest is bureaucratic details, and proposed new bureaucracy is not something that voters want to wade through at the polling booth.  The board could be established by legislation or regulation after the fact, if the proposal passes (and yes, in that event, it would almost certainly not contain all the language about how many different categories of people are ineligible to serve, which probably excludes half of the mature, college-educated, politically interested voters in the state).  On the substance, I also have certain problems with paragraph 2, but I'm just talking the politics of passing such a proposal in the first place at this point.

 

On the substance: I think the authors include multiple contradictory priorities in paragraph 2.  (Those, too, are an insider and game-rigger's best friend, because they essentially allow one to do anything.)

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/08/ohio_campaign_to_overhaul_redi.html

 

Ohio campaign to overhaul redistricting process will be hard fought

Published: Saturday, August 11, 2012, 6:00 PM

By Joe Guillen, The Plain Dealer

 

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio – When Republicans who control Ohio government got together last year to draw the state's congressional boundaries -- a process that would affect elections for the next decade -- they holed up in a Columbus hotel room out of public view, taking cues from an aide to powerful U.S. House Speaker John Boehner.

 

The result? A collection of oddly shaped districts that seemed to guarantee overwhelming electoral success for the GOP.

 

Democrats and good-government advocates cried foul, but there wasn't much to be done.

 

 

 

Edited: Due to copyright laws, please do not post entire articles.

High court tells Ballot Board to rewrite Issue 2

The Republican-crafted ballot language for state Issue 2 would be “fatal” to the proposal and must be rewritten, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

The high court sided with Voters First, the coalition that includes the League of Women Voters, Democrats and unions. The Republican-dominated high court ruled 6-1 that the Ballot Board’s effort to trim the extensive proposal for redrawing legislative and congressional districts down to five paragraphs contained “material omissions and factual inaccuracies.”

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/13/high-court-tells-ballot-board-to-rewrite-issue-2.html

High court tells Ballot Board to rewrite Issue 2

The Republican-crafted ballot language for state Issue 2 would be “fatal” to the proposal and must be rewritten, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

The high court sided with Voters First, the coalition that includes the League of Women Voters, Democrats and unions. The Republican-dominated high court ruled 6-1 that the Ballot Board’s effort to trim the extensive proposal for redrawing legislative and congressional districts down to five paragraphs contained “material omissions and factual inaccuracies.”

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/13/high-court-tells-ballot-board-to-rewrite-issue-2.html

 

do you think they are trying to rig the vote or something?

I saw what I think was the first ad against this proposal on television yesterday.  I'm on the fence about this specific proposal (I have to read more about it), but the fact remains that Ohio's system for drawing districts is incredibly unfair and way too biased.  In a state that is as closely-split as Ohio, there's no reason that more than 60% of the delegation to DC or in the statehouse should be from one party or the other.

I'm no fan of gerrymandering, but I'm not a fan of this plan, either; I remember reading a thread about it on CU a while back.  For one thing, it sets mutually exclusive goals.  You basically cannot simultaneously prioritize competitive districts, preservation of existing communities, and minimum circumference, for example.  While gerrymandering turbocharges the effect, the fact remains that very few existing communities are closely split between the two major parties.  I'm generally supportive of districts that keep communities together, but if you make a district of Dublin, Powell, Worthington, Lewis Center, Westerville, Sunbury, Delaware, and however many additional Delaware County communities one needs to get up to the 760,000-population mark or so that a district is supposed to encompass, that district is almost certainly going to send a Republican to the House.  If you make a district of Columbus proper (which has right around that 760,000 mark within the city limits), that district is very likely to be sending a Democrat to the House.

 

By contrast, if you want to balance districts, then you are going to need to have oddly-shaped, amoeboid districts, in order to try balancing out suburbs with bits and pieces of bluer inner cities.

 

A measure that provides conflicting mandates might as well provide no mandates.

I'm no fan of gerrymandering, but I'm not a fan of this plan, either; I remember reading a thread about it on CU a while back.  For one thing, it sets mutually exclusive goals.  You basically cannot simultaneously prioritize competitive districts, preservation of existing communities, and minimum circumference, for example.  While gerrymandering turbocharges the effect, the fact remains that very few existing communities are closely split between the two major parties.  I'm generally supportive of districts that keep communities together, but if you make a district of Dublin, Powell, Worthington, Lewis Center, Westerville, Sunbury, Delaware, and however many additional Delaware County communities one needs to get up to the 760,000-population mark or so that a district is supposed to encompass, that district is almost certainly going to send a Republican to the House.  If you make a district of Columbus proper (which has right around that 760,000 mark within the city limits), that district is very likely to be sending a Democrat to the House.

 

By contrast, if you want to balance districts, then you are going to need to have oddly-shaped, amoeboid districts, in order to try balancing out suburbs with bits and pieces of bluer inner cities.

 

A measure that provides conflicting mandates might as well provide no mandates.

 

Conflicitng mandates are what we already have with current system , The method for resolving those conflicts is the what Issue 2 is trying to fix.

 

by law Redsitricting "provides conflicting mandates "  the difference is who controls the process for resolving those conflicts. it not perfect nothing is but it is much better than the current system.

I am not aware of any "mandates" under our current districting system akin to the ones set forth in this Voters First proposal.  And simply stating that the proposal is better than the current system isn't enough to convince me.

 

The Ohio State Bar Association, of which I am a member, also <a href="https://www.ohiobar.org/NewsAndPublications/News/OSBANews/Pages/OSBA-releases-statement-on-Ohio-Redistricting-Amendment.aspx">opposes the amendment</a>, though for different reasons than those I mentioned above; OSBA is concerned about the direct, institutionalized politicization of the judiciary that this amendment would establish.

the fact remains that very few existing communities are closely split between the two major parties.

 

Probably true, but I think it's interesting to note Hamilton County is probably such a place. It used to be very Republican, but it seems to lean a little bit Democratic now. And the population is about 800k, so right around the sweetspot for a district. But umm...take a look at the new 1st district, lol. It's probably the second worst in the state, behind district 9 that stretches from Cleveland to Toledo along the lake.

I am not aware of any "mandates" under our current districting system akin to the ones set forth in this Voters First proposal.  And simply stating that the proposal is better than the current system isn't enough to convince me.

 

The Ohio State Bar Association, of which I am a member, also <a href="https://www.ohiobar.org/NewsAndPublications/News/OSBANews/Pages/OSBA-releases-statement-on-Ohio-Redistricting-Amendment.aspx">opposes the amendment</a>, though for different reasons than those I mentioned above; OSBA is concerned about the direct, institutionalized politicization of the judiciary that this amendment would establish.

 

Law professors back proposed Ohio redistricting changes

Criteria

Like all states, Ohio must comply with constitutional equal population requirements, and with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

 

Ohio law further requires that state legislative districts be contiguous and compact. Districts must preserve whole political units -- counties, townships, municipalities, and wards, in that order -- where feasible. For counties sufficiently populous to contain entire legislative districts, such districts must be created wholly within the county, and any remaining territory in the county must be contained in only one legislative district. Where it is not possible to preserve political units whole, only one political unit may be divided between two legislative districts. [Ohio Const. art. XI, §§ 7, 9]

 

State House districts must be nested within state Senate districts, so that each Senate district is made up of three House districts. [Ohio Const. art. XI, § 11]

 

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_2/about_sec2.php#sec2

 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act. Most of the cases arising under Section 2 since its enactment involved challenges to at-large election schemes, but the section's prohibition against discrimination in voting applies nationwide to any voting standard, practice, or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Section 2 is permanent and has no expiration date as do certain other provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

 

In 1980, the Supreme Court held that the section, as originally enacted by Congress in 1964, was a restatement of the protections afforded by the 15th amendment. Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Under that standard, a plaintiff had to prove that the standard, practice, or procedure was enacted or maintained, at least in part, by an invidious purpose.

 

In 1982, Congress extended certain provisions of the Act such as Section 5 that were set to expire, and added protections for voters who required assistance in voting. At the same time, it examined the history of litigation under Section 2 since 1965 and concluded that Section 2 should be amended to provide that a plaintiff could establish a violation of the section if the evidence established that, in the context of the "totality of the circumstance of the local electoral process," the standard, practice, or procedure being challenged had the result of denying a racial or language minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

 

There are already Conflicting mandates.

 

which is how we get maps like this.

 

 

 

So the conflicting mandates you mean are putatively conflicts between the existing compact-and-contiguous requirement of the Ohio constitution and the nondiscrimination requirement of the Voting Rights Act?  I don't see how that is a conflicting mandate, or at the very least, it seems like much less of a conflicting mandate than the state would face under the Voters First proposal.  Moreover, the Voting Rights Act is a federal law; it cannot be changed by state constitutional amendment.  In fact, having pointed me to it, I like the Ohio constitution as written.