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.

 

you said that "I (you) am not aware of any "mandates" under our current districting system akin to the ones set forth in this Voters First proposal."

 

you also said " You basically cannot simultaneously prioritize competitive districts, preservation of existing communities, and minimum circumference"

 

do you expect that leaving the details not explicitly laid out by mandate to people who have a vested interest in the outcome and expect a fair outcome.

 

to me It feels like you are looking for something that does not exist perfection or an absolute.  The redistricting process is full of contradictions always has been, the issue is who resolves those contradictions. 

 

it is the Who that has the power that controls the will of the 11.2 million residents of this state.  The intent of the this ballot initiative is to change the Who.

 

 

 

 

Ballot language

The ballot language of the measure reads as follows:[2]

“ The proposed amendment would:

1. Remove the authority of elected representatives and grant new authority to appointed officials to establish congressional and state legislative district lines.

2. Create a state funded commission of appointed officials from a limited pool of applicants to replace the aforementioned. The Commission will consist of 12 members as follows: four affiliated with the largest political party, four affiliated with the second largest political party and four not affiliated with either of the two largest political parties. Affirmative votes of 7 of 12 members are needed to select a plan.

3. Require new legislative and congressional districts be immediately established by the Commission to replace the most recent districts adopted by elected representatives, which districts shall not be challenged except by court order until the next federal decennial census and apportionment. In the event the Commission is not able to determine a plan by October 1, the Ohio Supreme Court would need to adopt a plan from all the plans submitted to the Commission.

4. Change the standards and requirements in the Constitution for drawing legislative and congressional districts.

5. Mandate the General Assembly to appropriate all funds as determined by the Commission including, but not be limited to, compensating:

1. Staff

2. Consultants

3. Legal counsel

4. Commission members

If approved, the amendment will be effective thirty days after the election.

Shall the amendment be approved?

Poltifact says Republican ad misleads voters about issue 2

 

 

Ohio Republican Party says Issue 2 would create a redistricting commission with a blank check to spend

 

 

A frequent criticism of Issue 2, the redistricting reform proposal before Ohio voters on Nov. 6, is its cost to taxpayers.

 

The Ohio Republican Party played that card when it sent out a campaign flier Sept. 11, 2012, with a warning about the 12-member redistricting commission that Issue 2 would establish. Its claim:

 

"They’ll have a blank check to spend our money."

 

The claim is a common theme used in the campaign against Issue 2. PolitiFact Ohio decided to check it out.

 

Issue 2 is a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would reform the way the state’s Congressional and legislative boundaries are drawn, a process known as redistricting that happens every 10 years.

 

Elected officials, including the governor and legislative leaders, control the current process. District boundary lines typically are drawn to favor whichever party is in power. Last year, Republicans, who control state government, drew new lines that grouped voters into districts designed to help Republicans win future elections.

 

Issue 2 would remove elected officials from the redistricting process and hand the responsibility over to a new redistricting commission. Should Issue 2 pass, a commission would be appointed next year to draw new maps for the 2014 election.

 

The GOP claim is based on language in Issue 2 that addresses funding for commission members’ salaries, staff, office space, legal counsel and other expenses. The proposal says "the General Assembly shall make appropriations necessary to adequately fund the activities of the commission."

 

But that that’s not the same as having a blank check. "Necessary to adequately fund" the commission’s activities indicates there must be some basis of support for funding.

 

Subsequent to the GOP sending out the mailer, the Ohio Supreme Court took that very position. 

 

The group supporting Issue 2, Voters First Ohio, sued to challenge a summary of Issue 2 that would appear on voters’ ballots. The Ohio Ballot Board, as it does with all state ballot issues, approved a summary ballot language.

 

Voters First said in its lawsuit that the summary was misleading -- specifically a portion that said Issue 2 would "mandate the General Assembly to appropriate all funds as determined by the commission."

 

That sounds similar to the Ohio GOP’s claim that the commission would have a blank check.

 

In its Sept. 12 ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court specifically said the proposal would not provide the commission with a "blank check." The court, by a 6-1 vote, agreed with Voters First that the ballot summary was misleading.

 

"The actual text of the proposed constitutional amendment does not state that the redistricting commission would have – as the ballot board’s language indicates – a blank check for all funds as determined by the commission. Rather, the proposed constitutional amendment expressly limits appropriations for the commission to those ‘necessary to adequately fund the activities’ of the commission," the ruling said.

 

A lawyer representing the Republican Party defended using the term blank check at a recent Ohio Elections Commission hearing. The commission held a probable cause hearing Sept. 20 on the GOP’s campaign literature after Voters First filed a complaint saying the mailer was inaccurate.

 

Attorney Terrence O’Donnell told the commission that blank check is a "well understood political figure of speech" and that the average voter would not infer that the commission literally would be allowed to fill in the dollar amount on a blank check.

 

The elections commission’s probable cause panel split along party lines, 2-2, about whether to hold a full hearing to examine whether Republicans’ claim about the blank check was accurate. Without a majority, the matter was dropped.

 

We asked the Ohio GOP if it wanted to offer any other arguments to support its claim. Spokesman Matthew Henderson directed us to Carlo LoParo, spokesman for the anti-Issue 2 group, Protect Your Vote Ohio.

 

LoParo said the claim was not meant to suggest to voters that the commission would have unlimited funds. He said the phrase was meant to convey "an amount that is unknown, yet substantial."

 

Citing a story published June 9, 2012, in The Sacramento Bee, LoParo said a redistricting commission in California, similar to the one proposed in Ohio, spent $10 million drawing political boundaries. The California redistricting commission initially estimated its work would cost about $3 million.

 

LoParo said Issue 2’s vague wording, which does not cap spending at a specific dollar amount, would allow the commission to sue for more money if it decided lawmakers did not give them enough.

 

That may be true, but it would still require a showing that additional money was "necessary to adequately fund the activities."

 

So, where does that leave us?

 

Issue 2 would provide the redistricting commission with funds "necessary to adequately fund the activities" of the commission. The Ohio Supreme Court said this qualification does not entitle the commission to a blank check. But the Ohio Republican Party and Issue 2 opponents argue the court was being too literal, that the term blank check is a figure of speech that conveys a large, unknown amount of money.

 

Even if most voters don’t take the Ohio Republican Party’s statement to mean an actual blank check would be presented to the redistricting commission, the phrase "blank check" does presume an unchecked spending authority.

 

But, as the Ohio Supreme Court ruled, the proposed amendment places a qualification on spending. If the commission were to ask for more money than initially provided, as LoParo hypothesized, it would have to show the spending is necessary.

 

There is no specific cap on spending in the amendment, but that does not mean the commission will be able to spend as much as it wants.

 

The GOP’s statement is not accurate. On the Truth-O-Meter, the claim rates False.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/issue-2-could-change-the-balance-of-power-in-ohio/nSTfg/

 

Issue 2 could change the balance of power in Ohio

Constitutional amendment is confusing voters and is not getting a lot of attention.

 

COMMENT  (10)

SHARE

FAVORITE

VOTE  (0)

By Jackie Borchardt

COLUMBUS — In the fog of a presidential election and hot U.S. Senate race, a ballot issue that could alter the balance of power in the statehouse and the Ohio congressional delegation is taking a back seat.

Many voters, if they’ve heard about state Issue 2 at all, say they are confused by the ballot language and direct mailings that are appearing on doorsteps.

In the Dayton Daily News/Ohio Newspaper Organization Poll released Sept. 24, too few people knew about Issue 2 to provide meaningful results: 35 percent said they had heard “nothing at all” about it.

If approved, Issue 2 would put the responsibility of drawing legislative and congressional districts in the hands of a new citizen panel. Redistricting isn’t a thrilling term, but small changes can move voters around and make districts lean more Republican or Democratic, become more competitive or safe for lawmakers in office.

Voters First Ohio, the group behind Issue 2, says the lines have been drawn for years to favor incumbents and have effectively made hyper-partisan primary elections more important than general elections. Their solution: Remove politicians from the process.

Districts are redrawn every ten years to reflect population changes noted in the once-a-decade Census. State Senate and House districts are mapped and approved by the Ohio Apportionment Board composed of the governor, secretary of state, auditor and one state legislator from each party — all but one were Republicans in 2011. State lawmakers decide the boundaries of Ohio’s 16 U.S. House districts.

Last year, Republicans held the redistricting pen, but politicians on both sides of the aisle have used their majority status to muscle the other into keeping incumbents safe in their districts and stacking more middle-of-the-road districts to lean one way. Politicians against the proposal admit the current system is broken, but say Issue 2 isn’t the answer.

The plan

Issue 2 would create the Ohio Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission, a new panel of 12 members chosen by lot from a candidate pool winnowed by appellate court judges and party officials.

Any Ohioan who has voted in two of the previous three even-year general elections could apply to serve on the commission, provided they or an immediate family member have not been elected to federal or state office, worked for lawmakers or state officials or been a paid lobbyist. Applicants could not have made monetary contributions greater than $5,000 per two years to political campaigns or parties in the past five years.

Local officials such as city councilmen and mayors would be eligible. Jim Slagle, an attorney for the Campaign for Accountable Redistricting, said those officials would likely be cut during the selection process that grants party leaders the opportunity to eliminate candidates.

The commission would meet in public to draft and review publicly submitted plans according to the four criteria from last year’s citizen challenge by the Ohio Campaign for Accountable Redistricting:

* Preserve existing communities such as counties and townships,

* Balance districts based on voting history so they do not lean toward one party by more than 5 percent,

* Balance the number of districts that lean each way,

* Keep districts compact.

“These are the criteria that best capture fundamental values in our democracy,” said Dan Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law who helped draft the ballot initiative. “They’re values that will serve the interests of voters rather than the interests of partisan politicians.”

Proponents of Issue 2 say each district should reflect Ohio’s swing-state status.

In the 2010 election, 70 of Ohio’s 99 state representatives won their races by 20 points or more. Only three of the 33 senators elected in 2008 and 2010 won by less than 10 percent of the vote.

Statewide, Ohioans tend to line up on each side in similar numbers. The top statewide races in 2010 were won by 5 or fewer percent. T

And what of the nearly unanimous opposition to Issue 2 from both Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning editorial pages statewide?

 

The Columbus Dispatch opposes Issue 2:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/10/14/no-on-state-issue-2.html

 

The Cleveland Plain Dealer opposes Issue 2:

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/10/issue_2s_pitfalls_are_too_deep.html

 

The Akron Beacon Journal opposes Issue 2:

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/editorials/no-on-issue-2-1.339927

 

The Canton Repository opposes Issue 2:

http://www.cantonrep.com/opinion/editorials/x493670497/Issue-2-is-not-the-right-solution

 

The Lima News opposes Issue 2:

http://www.limaohio.com/opinion/editorials/article_41d58dca-14fc-11e2-b575-001a4bcf6878.html

 

Last but not necessarily least (although probably least, now that I think of it, considering that it's Salem, after all ...), the Salem News opposes it:

http://www.salemnews.net/page/content.detail/id/559207/Voters-should--reject-Issue-2.html

 

In fairness, the Toledo Blade did come out in favor of it:

http://www.toledoblade.com/Editorials/2012/09/30/Yes-on-Issue-2.html

 

I haven't found the Cincinnati Enquirer's position on it yet, if they have one.

Meet State Senator Gerry Mander

 

This Place is My Place

^wow. 

Voters First has been endorsed by the following organizations:

ACT Ohio

ACTION OHIO Coalition For Battered Women

AFL-CIO

Alliance for Retired Americans in Ohio

America Votes

American Association of University Women

Applied Information Resources

Central Oho Democratic Women’s Caucus

Children’s Defense Fund

Coalition on Homelessness and Housing In Ohio

Common Cause Ohio

Environmental Health Watch

EqualityOhio

Independent Ohio

League of Women Voters of Ohio

Miami Valley Voter Protection Coalition

NAACP Ohio Chapter

NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio

National Organization of Women, Ohio Chapter

Ohio Citizen Action

Ohio Civil Service Employees Association

Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors

Ohio Council of Churches

Ohio Democratic Women’s Caucus

Ohio Education Association

Ohio Green Party

Ohio Libertarian Party

Ohio NOW Education & Legal Fund

Ohio Organizing Collaborative

Ohio Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Ohio Voice

Organize! Ohio

Planned Parenthood

ProgressOhio

SEIU 1199

Sierra Club Ohio Chapter

Summit County Progressive Democrats

Toledo Area Jobs with Justice and Interfaith Worker Justice Coalition

Upper Arlington Progressive Action

We Are Ohio

We Believe Ohio

Working America

Worthington Area Democratic Club

Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cincinnati Enquirer, Columbus Dispatch, Canton Repository Also endosed John Kasich in 2010

 

http://politics.ohio.com/2010/10/ohio-newspaper-endorsements/

 

The Plain Dealer and the Cincinnati Enquirer have endorsed Mitt Romney for president.

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-endorsed-by-two-major-ohio-newspapers-20120303

 

 

Is there a comprehensive list of who has been endoresed by each paper every year? That would be interesting to see. I doubt many papers have changed political lines on the presidential elections in a couple decades.

 

Because so many editorial boards are staunchly one-sided I take a newspaper's endorsements of anything with a grain of salt.

Cincinnati Business Courier supports Issue 2

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/print-edition/2012/10/05/issue-2-would-help-balance-districts.html

This might be one of those situation where there is no ideal 'cure' to a problem we undoubtedly have.  The status quo is unacceptable.  That said, I don't have a firm opinion on Issue 2 yet.

There is such a thing as a bad solution to a bad problem.

There is such a thing as a bad solution to a bad problem.

 

I don't disagree, but I think the net effect of this proposal would be positive.  The current arrangement is an embarassment.

The one thing that has me leaning towards voting yes is this:

 

If the worst thing that can happen is the political parties hijack the process and create "safe" districts, we are simply back to where we began. If the parties are unable to influence this process and districts follow city/county lines better and stay relatively simple (no snake districts or channels connecting different areas) it is a win for the state. It is hard to believe that the districts could represent the citizens any worse than now. I say let it happen and see what the result is. If it is as bad as the opponents say there will be enough support to offer a new redistricting process in a few years.

 

I agree with the Cleveland Plain Dealer that there needs to be an open race where two republicans or two democrats can run against eachother in the the general election. Primaries shouldn't decide the general election. Essentially, if you don't vote in the Republican primary in District 1 (Chabot's district including Western Hamilton County and all of Warren County) then the election is decided without your input. I think a moderate Republican could win over Chabot in the new first district if that person can take away enough Republican votes and get majority of Democratic votes in the general election. A moderate will never win the Republican primary for the First District under the current system.

 

Issue 2 is a step in the right direction IMO. By no means does it solve all of our election issues in Ohio.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned on this which is leading me not to vote for it is that its another amendment to the state constitution.  I don't like our state constitution being opened up & amended for things like this.  I didn't like it for the casino either.  In dozen reviews, it's been stated that this isn't perfect, but it's better than what we've got.  Well let's keep at it till it's perfect, THEN amend the state constitution.  Otherwise we'll be stuck with it.

State constitutions get amended at the drop of a hat.  In fact, Issue 1 proposes to have a convention and rewrite the whole thing.  I'm leaning toward Yes on that one as well.

 

I mean, we amended our state constitution to forbid gay marriage and civil unions, did we not?  Let's just start over.

I disagree, but we're getting off topic.  I'll just state I'm not in favor of amending the state constitution for much at all at this point.  If the redistricting is a good measure, then pass it as a law with bipartisan support, keep it off the ballot and leave the constitution as it is.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned on this which is leading me not to vote for it is that its another amendment to the state constitution.  I don't like our state constitution being opened up & amended for things like this.  I didn't like it for the casino either.  In dozen reviews, it's been stated that this isn't perfect, but it's better than what we've got.  Well let's keep at it till it's perfect, THEN amend the state constitution.  Otherwise we'll be stuck with it.

 

I would agree if our state constitution served the purpose of a constitution, which is to forbid the whims of the majority from having absolute control over the minority.  However, with our constitution being mob-rule, capable of being amended at any time with a vote of more than 50% of electors who show up for any given election, your concerns don't really apply.

Trouble is, no such measure will get bipartisan support because one side currently dominates the process.

^^Some things will never get bipartisan support. Things that will never get bipartisan support:

 

Election Reform

Presidential Debate Reform (Eliminate media's influence on debates and provide an honest debate between more than two candidates if someone is plausable)

Campaign Finance Reform

Term Limits on the House/Senate

 

There are simply some things that one or both parties benefit from too much to get bipartisan support. There will always be one party who is in power and will not agree to change the way we redraw the districts because they stand to benefit from it for a decade.

Ohio Libertarian Party

 

:clap:

with the proposed amendment the 9 person board is made up of

 

9 citizens

3 Republican

3 democrats

3 independents

 

the contentious part it seems isn't the board, but how the board is chosen, by the judiciary and not by elected officials. 

 

with this reform we can move the entire state towards the political center,  safe district encourage Zealots and ideologues in both parties.

 

It isn't perfect but it Is better than the current system, and to be honest We cannot trust democrats or republicans to do the right thing.

 

It is important to engage independents because they represent 27% of the electorate.  any bipartisan reform would continue to ignore almost 1/3 of the electorate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/13/ohio-redistricting-kucinich_n_959904.html

 

 

First Posted: 09/13/2011

Ohio Redistricting Plan Likely To Give GOP 12 Out Of 16 Seats, Create New Democratic District

 

WASHINGTON -- Under a new redistricting plan that will be unveiled by Ohio's GOP-controlled state legislature Tuesday afternoon, 12 of the state's 16 congressional districts are expected to become more favorable to Republicans, while currently serving Democrats may find their constituencies split up into multiple districts, according to reports about the plan.

 

Ohio currently has 18 U.S. House seats, 13 of which are held by Republicans. But because of the population losses recorded by the 2010 U.S. Census, the state will lose two congressional districts and the borders of the remaining districts will be redrawn. The new map will make many Republican districts safer for incumbents while forcing Democrats into tough reelection battles. The Ohio House of Representatives is expected to vote on the plan by the end of this week, and the state Senate will do so sometime next week.

 

While several Democrats could find themselves fighting with each other to stay in Congress, one new blue seat will likely be created. The map will create a district that combines Democratic areas of Franklin County, including parts of the capital city of Columbus.

 

A likely frontrunner in the race would be former congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy, a Democrat who lost reelection in the nearby 15th district in 2010. The district, now held by Republican Rep. Steve Stivers, currently includes the city of Columbus. Kilroy has also won two county-wide elections for Franklin County commissioner.

 

"One could say that the path to the U.S. Congress runs through Mary Jo Kilroy," said an Ohio Democratic insider.

 

Sources close to Kilroy told The Huffington Post the former congresswoman would be inclined to run if the district is drawn favorably.

http://www.ideastream.org/news/feature/49608

 

Cuyahoga County Executive Ed Fitzgerald has joined the fight to change Ohio’s system of drawing legislative districts.

 

A yes vote on issue 2 would take the power of drawing legislative maps away from partisan politicians and put it in the hands of a citizen’s commission.

 

Fitzgerald takes issue with the campaign against changing the redistricting rules that claims voters would be disenfranchised.

 

“You know, to have a system that you have rigged, and then you say don’t vote for a citizens based initiative that because somehow it’s going to disenfranchise the people is just absolutely the height of cynicism,” FitzGerald said.

 

Some opponents of the proposed constitutional amendment say it’s a fruitless attempt to de-politicize an inherently political process.  Others say the system needs to be changed, but this particular proposal is too complicated and full of pitfalls. 

 

 

 

Friends and Foes of Issue 2 Square Off in Columbus Debate

 

http://www.ideastream.org/news/feature/49650

 

Posted: Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Share on Facebook Share Share on Twitter Tweet Email Page Email

Download MP3

 

With all the ads, calls and fliers for the presidential and U.S. Senate races in Ohio, there’s little room for the two statewide issues that are also before voters. And Issue 2 has strong coalitions of supporters and opponents working for and against it. Ohio Public Radio's Karen Kasler moderated a debate over Issue 2 before the Columbus Metropolitan Club.

 

The complicated language in Issue 2 takes the authority to draw maps for Congressional and Statehouse districts out of the hands of lawmakers and the state apportionment board, and gives it to a 12 member commission of citizens who aren’t politicians or lobbyists. Former Congressman Zack Space from Dover in eastern Ohio said it’s about time people who aren’t politicians had a role in the process that determines who will represent them.

 

“The notion that citizens are somehow involved in the redistricting process as it now exists is utterly laughable. The process – and believe me, I’m not faulting the Republican Party, because frankly if the Democrats had control, they’d have done the same thing – but the process now is a back room process with no transparency and no accountability.”

 

But Jenny Camper, who speaks for Issue 2’s opponents, said a bad map isn’t a reason to change to a system that has the potential to be fraught with problems and dogged by lawsuits over its constitutionality.

 

“Certainly the map has raised questions and it’s up, it’s something that can be debated. But Issue 2, remember, Issue 2 is offered up as the solution for how we improve the map-making process. It’s offered up not just as a solution, but as a permanent solution – the last solution. It would get locked into our Ohio constitution.”

 

Republicans, business organizations and socially conservative groups have campaigned against the issue, saying the commission would be unlimited, unaccountable and unconstitutional, and that lawmakers are motivated now to look into the issue. Space said Issue 2’s backers have heard that over and over.

 

“The legislatures have time and time again had the opportunity to create that better way and have failed.  And they’ve failed for the primary reason that the partisanism and the polarization that exists that Issue 2 is designed to remedy prevents them from doing that. It’s a self-propagating system and the chain needs to be broken.”

 

Democrats, labor unions and progressive groups have said the commission would be accountable, transparent and balanced. But Republican former state senator Jeff Jacobson said voter turnout is volatile – Democrats come out big in some years, Republicans in others. So Jacobson said by requiring maps to be equal, the new maps would be just as partisan as the existing ones.

 

“If there’s a partisan sweep going on, it doesn’t matter if you were bipartisan. It didn’t matter if you voted against your party. All that matters is, you were on the wrong side. You’re going down. And if that’s the way that we’re looking at, then we have a parliamentary system. We don’t have a system where people get represented.”

 

Jacobson said the electorate is getting more extreme on both sides, but Space said that’s because the moderate voices in the ideological middle are being ignored in the current map-drawing system.

But Issue 2 backer Catherine Turcer said Jacobson knows the problem with redistricting inside and out. She quoted from his farewell speech when he left the Senate in 2008.

 

“My friend over there, Senator Jacobson, was on his way out. He was basically doing his farewell thing. And this is what he said: ‘Redistricting is the most fun anyone could ever have in politics without going to prison.’”

 

Jacobson responded by referencing a similar redistricting proposal from California.

 

“Let me start out by saying I agree with a lot of what you said. You are right – the problem is winner-take-all. The thing that I can’t understand in reviewing your issue is you took the California plan and you took out the part that requires bipartisan support.”

 

Turcer said the Issue 2 amendment wasn’t based solely on the California proposal or any specific plan, but was in the works for years. Issue 2’s opponents say they’d rather voters reject Issue 2 and let the lawmakers on the bipartisan Constitutional Modernization Commission come up with a proposal.

 

 

 

We need to do this.  It's the most direct way we can help Ohio's cities right now.  Rural interests should not get to make all the rules.

Voters First has been endorsed by the following organizations:

 

    ACT Ohio

    ACTION OHIO Coalition For Battered Women

    AFL-CIO

    Alliance for Retired Americans in Ohio

    America Votes

    American Association of University Women

    Applied Information Resources

    Central Oho Democratic Women’s Caucus

    Children’s Defense Fund

    Coalition on Homelessness and Housing In Ohio

    Common Cause Ohio

    Environmental Health Watch

    EqualityOhio

    Independent Ohio

    League of Women Voters of Ohio

    Miami Valley Voter Protection Coalition

    NAACP Ohio Chapter

    NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio

    National Organization of Women, Ohio Chapter

    Ohio Citizen Action

    Ohio Civil Service Employees Association

    Ohio Conference of the American Association of University Professors

    Ohio Council of Churches

    Ohio Democratic Women’s Caucus

    Ohio Education Association

    Ohio Green Party

    Ohio Libertarian Party

    Ohio NOW Education & Legal Fund

    Ohio Organizing Collaborative

    Ohio Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

    Ohio Voice

    Organize! Ohio

    Planned Parenthood

    ProgressOhio

    SEIU 1199

    Sierra Club Ohio Chapter

    Summit County Progressive Democrats

    Toledo Area Jobs with Justice and Interfaith Worker Justice Coalition

    Upper Arlington Progressive Action

    We Are Ohio

    We Believe Ohio

    Working America

    Worthington Area Democratic Club

 

Ohio statewide voted

President 50% 48% Democrat won

Senate 50% 45%  Democrat won

 

 

but at the congressional race level the OHIO Delegation will be 12 Republicans and 4 Democrats

 

Or 75% Republican representation in the US House of Representatives

 

If you look deeper at the numbers

 

you will see that of the 4 districts won by Democrats 3 were contested and the average margin of victory was 43 points the average democrat won 70% of the electorate in their district

 

for the GOP the average margin of victory for the 11 contested Seats was 18 points, the average Republicans won only 58% of the electorate.

 

 

more telling is if you averaged the results of all Contested races Democrats won 48% of all house votes and the Republicans won 52% of those votes.

 

 

The effect of Gerrymandering is to dilute the opposition Vote by making overwhelmingly democratic or republican districts which in our case to make 4 70% Democratic districts, and 12 56% Republican Districts.

 

The question is how can 48% of all ohians that voted in house races voted Democratic but that only resulted in 25% of all house seats.

 

is this fair?

 

 

I'm very disappointed about Issue 2, but I realized it had no chance when I saw that it took up a page and a half on the ballot.  That don't fly.  If not for gerrymandering the Republicans are a regional fringe party. 

I'm very disappointed about Issue 2, but I realized it had no chance when I saw that it took up a page and a half on the ballot.  That don't fly.  If not for gerrymandering the Republicans are a regional fringe party. 

 

A satisfying theory, I'm sure, but in order to be able to gerrymander for federal races, you've got to be able to win at the state level.  The Ohio Apportionment Board is always composed of one Republican chosen by the General Assembly, one Democrat chosen by the General Assembly, the governor, the secretary of state, and the state auditor.  In other words, whoever wins two out of the three elected positions on that list, since the automatic Republican and Democratic representative balance each other out.

 

There's no gerrymandering in statewide elections.  You either win or lose the entire state.  You can't say that the GOP would be a regional fringe party without gerrymandering when they're winning the un-gerrymandered elections as well.

^You're ignoring the temporal aspect though. The lines are only drawn once every ten years and are frozen during the interim, regardless of statewide political outcomes.  Whoever happens to win before the decennial census can lock in gains for a decade, to some extent.

There's no gerrymandering in statewide elections.  You either win or lose the entire state.  You can't say that the GOP would be a regional fringe party without gerrymandering when they're winning the un-gerrymandered elections as well.

 

But the GOP lost the electoral college and the senate, all statewide races.  And they seem positioned to keep losing those.  They do win some un-gerrymandered elections, hence the governorships, but the divergence between statewide and jiggered races at the federal level is telling.

And we're also talking about Ohio House and Senate districts, which ought to be more competitive than they are in many respects.

^You're ignoring the temporal aspect though. The lines are only drawn once every ten years and are frozen during the interim, regardless of statewide political outcomes.  Whoever happens to win before the decennial census can lock in gains for a decade, to some extent.

 

I'm not ignoring the temporal aspect.  However, that temporal aspect doesn't affect any statewide races that happen in the intervening years between the critical decennial ones.  The GOP has been competitive in statewide races both during the decennial years that determine control of the Apportionment Board, and in statewide races in other years as well.

 

There's no gerrymandering in statewide elections.  You either win or lose the entire state.  You can't say that the GOP would be a regional fringe party without gerrymandering when they're winning the un-gerrymandered elections as well.

 

But the GOP lost the electoral college and the senate, all statewide races.  And they seem positioned to keep losing those.  They do win some un-gerrymandered elections, hence the governorships, but the divergence between statewide and jiggered races at the federal level is telling.

 

Yes, Josh Mandel lost to Sherrod Brown.  How much do you really intend to read into that?  Should I read the same into the 2010 victory of Rob Portman over Lee Fisher for the other U.S. Senate seat from Ohio?  You imply that "they seem positioned to keep losing those"--does that mean that you're taking the as-yet-unspecified challenger to Rob Portman over Portman in 2016?  He already survived a challenge from Lee Fisher, who was a very able challenger.

 

Kasich remains generally unpopular as a governor and could certainly be vulnerable in 2014, certainly.  But he's actually faded from the spotlight over the past year (though admittedly part of that might simply be being overshadowed by the presidential race), which is a good thing, for him.  At any rate, with the exception of Strickland, a fairly conservative Democrat, the GOP has controlled the governor's mansion in Ohio for a decent length of time now, even under the Clinton and Obama administrations.

 

It really isn't extraordinarily rare for a state to go one way in national elections and another in its own state elections.  Romney was governor of Massachusetts, after all.

You imply that "they seem positioned to keep losing those"--does that mean that you're taking the as-yet-unspecified challenger to Rob Portman over Portman in 2016? 

 

Yes.

 

He already survived a challenge from Lee Fisher, who was a very able challenger.

 

No.  I like Lee Fisher, but he's never been a strong candidate.  Even so, Portman was carried on the Tea Party tide.  He's not a strong candidate at all... even tone-deaf Mitt Romney was able to recognize that.  Portman's biggest problem is supporting an economic theory that less and less people believe in.  Aside from that, the other trend I'm pointing to is demographics.  Things do not look good for the GOP as it's currently constituted.   

Just some numbers I thought were interesting about the state of Ohio politics and the direction it's going.

 

On a county basis, Democrats lost an average of 1% support vs 2008 while Republicans gained and average of 3%.  D 42% to R 56% was the margin this election. 

 

Here are the top 10 counties that moved the furthest Right 2008-2012.

 

1. Monroe County: 16%  This county was won by Obama in 2008, but Romney took it this time.

2. Harrison County: 12%

3. Tuscarawas County: 12%  Obama in 2008, Romney in 2012.

4. Van Wert County: 12%

5. Mercer County: 11% The epicter for Republicans in Ohio, Romney won by 55%, the highest margin of any county.

6. Auglaize County: 10%

7. Homles County: 10%

8. Putnam County: 10%

9. Noble County: 9% 

10. Shelby County: 9%

 

Top 10 counties that moved to the Left 2008-2012.

 

1. Licking County: 7%

2. Ross County: 6%

3. Madison County: 4%

4. Pickaway County: 4%

5. Scioto County: 4%

6. Franklin County: 3%

7. Vinton County: 3%

8. Clark County: 2%

9. Fayete County: 2%

10. Mahoning County: 2%

11. Marion County: 2%

 

Central and South-central Ohio had the majority of counties move more towards the Democrats this election, mirroring a long-term trend that has been ongoing since then 1980s.

 

In total, 62 counties moved further right, 15 moved left and the remaining 11 saw no change.  You'd think, given those numbers, that Romney would've won, but the 7 largest metro areas still far overwhelmed the Republican increases.  What's interesting is that the long-term trend shows there are more counties trending more Democratic than Republican, and the ones that are already blue are becoming moreso.  Columbus and Franklin County are going to be an increasingly important Democratic stronghold for the state, and the metro is gradually trending less strongly Republican, even during an election where Republicans made significant gains elsewhere.

 

 

No.  I like Lee Fisher, but he's never been a strong candidate.  Even so, Portman was carried on the Tea Party tide.  He's not a strong candidate at all.

 

We're just going to have to disagree on that.  I think both he and Strickland were good candidates, even if they lost their most recent campaigns.  (I voted for Mandel over Brown, but I'd gladly have voted for Fisher over Mandel.  I admit that that preference pattern may be somewhat unique, though.)

 

jbcmh: Nice stats!  Where'd you find those?

^You're ignoring the temporal aspect though. The lines are only drawn once every ten years and are frozen during the interim, regardless of statewide political outcomes.  Whoever happens to win before the decennial census can lock in gains for a decade, to some extent.

 

I'm not ignoring the temporal aspect.  However, that temporal aspect doesn't affect any statewide races that happen in the intervening years between the critical decennial ones.  The GOP has been competitive in statewide races both during the decennial years that determine control of the Apportionment Board, and in statewide races in other years as well.

 

I think I misconstrued your point.  I agree that the GOP is not some "fringe regional party" but for gerrymandering.  But I do think that even at the state politics-level, the state is far more competitive than the current statehouse and congressional delegation suggest, and this is partly do to the randomness of the political cycle (or more precisely, its random relationship to the decennial census).  Had dems controlled the governor's and SOS office and one of the branches of legislature in 2011, as they did a couple years prior, the congressional and state rep districts could very well have looked very differently, and produced different results.  It's not "unfair" in the sense that past performance and gerrymandering handicaps the pre-census election, but it is in the sense that a single cycle's results are locked in for a long period, rewarding random timing.

^You're ignoring the temporal aspect though. The lines are only drawn once every ten years and are frozen during the interim, regardless of statewide political outcomes.  Whoever happens to win before the decennial census can lock in gains for a decade, to some extent.

 

I'm not ignoring the temporal aspect.  However, that temporal aspect doesn't affect any statewide races that happen in the intervening years between the critical decennial ones.  The GOP has been competitive in statewide races both during the decennial years that determine control of the Apportionment Board, and in statewide races in other years as well.

 

I think I misconstrued your point.  I agree that the GOP is not some "fringe regional party" but for gerrymandering.  But I do think that even at the state politics-level, the state is far more competitive than the current statehouse and congressional delegation suggest, and this is partly do to the randomness of the political cycle (or more precisely, its random relationship to the decennial census).  Had dems controlled the governor's and SOS office and one of the branches of legislature in 2011, as they did a couple years prior, the congressional and state rep districts could very well have looked very differently, and produced different results.  It's not "unfair" in the sense that past performance and gerrymandering handicaps the pre-census election, but it is in the sense that a single cycle's results are locked in for a long period, rewarding random timing.

 

That's more accurate, though I don't like the use of the word "random" because the years are not random, so all parties know in advance when the next high-stakes race will be.  Looking forward, we already know that the 2018 races are huge because they will control the branches in 2021 when the next reapportionment happens.

^I considered that, but I think the broader political cycle (e.g., 2008, 2010 waves) is a much stronger force than any kind of "gearing" up state parties can do, especially since that gearing up is more or less mutual. I concede it's debatable, but I'd still argue that the political cycles overlap with the last digit of the calendar year more or less randomly. Mostly I'm just annoyed by the lopsided congressional delegation.  And I am sure there is a republican somewhere in New England equally annoyed by his or her state.

Mostly I'm just annoyed by the lopsided congressional delegation.  And I am sure there is a republican somewhere in New England equally annoyed by his or her state.

 

Oh, absolutely, and there's plenty to be annoyed about there.  Realistically, as purple as Ohio is, anything other than an 8-8 split (9-7 either way at most) is going to be basically unrepresentative.  I'm no fan of gerrymandering.  (I was just even less of a fan of Issue 2.)  I wasn't defending gerrymandering as a practice; I was taking issue with 327's statement that "If not for gerrymandering the Republicans are a regional fringe party."

 

I'd say that if not for gerrymandering, we'd be split pretty closely 8-8 in the U.S. House and pretty close to 50-50 in the Ohio General Assembly.  Neither party would be a fringe party.

I think Hamilton County is permanently blue now. Just as the city of Cincinnati has developed a progressive voting bloc which has effectively flexed its muscles several elections in a row, HamCo has shown a slight but definitive liberal bent. This runs contrary to decades and decades of being a red stronghold.

 

Republicans have fled to formerly greener pastures, in tax havens on subdivided farmland in Butler and Warren counties. Good riddance. It is no coincidence their diminishing numbers coincide with a city making strides towards greatness, like the streetcar, OTR redevelopment, and the county-owned Banks and riverfront park projects.

 

Never been prouder to be a Hamilton County native. Keep up the good work.

By regional fringe party, I meant nationally rather than state.  Our state is notable for being about 50/50.  The electoral college isn't, however, and my analysis of trends is that more states are becoming reliably blue, even as most red states become even more reliably red.  These trends point to a Republican party that is consistently strong in the SE, plains and mountain states... but consistently below majority in most other states, and therefore nationwide.

By regional fringe party, I meant nationally rather than state.  Our state is notable for being about 50/50.  The electoral college isn't, however, and my analysis of trends is that more states are becoming reliably blue, even as most red states become even more reliably red.  These trends point to a Republican party that is consistently strong in the SE, plains and mountain states... but consistently below majority in most other states, and therefore nationwide.

 

The national popular vote is also about 50-50.  To any extent that the Republicans might have been a regional fringe party in the Rockies, Great Plains, Old South, and Southwest, the same could be said of the Dems in the Middle Atlantic, New England, and Pacific Coast regions, with the Midwest (and maybe Colorado and Florida) as the only real battleground.

These places you list as future battlegrounds... I do not think they are. 

 

The national popular vote wasn't quite 50/50 and neither was Ohio's.  Electorally, the difference is substantially wider.  And that's WITH a non-quantifiable bigotry edge against the winner.  Just imagine without.  I'm perfectly fine calling the Democrats a regional fringe party, so long as we recognize that their region is where most of the people live and their fringe is the majority of the electorate.

These places you list as future battlegrounds... I do not think they are. 

 

The national popular vote wasn't quite 50/50 and neither was Ohio's.  Electorally, the difference is substantially wider.  And that's WITH a non-quantifiable bigotry edge against the winner.  Just imagine without.  I'm perfectly fine calling the Democrats a regional fringe party, so long as we recognize that their region is where most of the people live and their fringe is the majority of the electorate.

 

If anything there is a pretty clear cut bigotry edge FOR the winner of the election: black turnout has been at record highs the past two presidential elections and Obama secured some 98% of black votes.  Not to mention the few thousand people in the entire country that may vote against someone because he is black probably wouldn’t vote for a white democrat either, so the effect is nil. 

These places you list as future battlegrounds... I do not think they are. 

 

The national popular vote wasn't quite 50/50 and neither was Ohio's.  Electorally, the difference is substantially wider.  And that's WITH a non-quantifiable bigotry edge against the winner.  Just imagine without.  I'm perfectly fine calling the Democrats a regional fringe party, so long as we recognize that their region is where most of the people live and their fringe is the majority of the electorate.

 

If anything there is a pretty clear cut bigotry edge FOR the winner of the election: black turnout has been at record highs the past two presidential elections and Obama secured some 98% of black votes.  Not to mention the few thousand people in the entire country that may vote against someone because he is black probably wouldnt vote for a white democrat either, so the effect is nil. 

 

A few thousand???  Ram is in that bubble again! 

The first black president gets most of the black votes in a country that openly oppressed blacks for centuries?  OMG!  They're all racist!