On 10/30/2021 at 1:43 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

I’m sure they are now extremely regretting this decision

I'm wondering what they will do as well. IIRC, the thought at the time seemed to be beggars can't be choosers.

 

4 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

 

Well...that is a map. Would that leave 2 Democratic districts in Cleveland and Columbus? Is Akron split across 3 districts?

2 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

 

Well...that is a map. Would that leave 2 Democratic districts in Cleveland and Columbus? Is Akron split across 3 districts?

It appears that both are yes. Toledo is also split in 2. Dayton is not split but lumped in with a cracked Springfield, with a lot of rural area to weigh them down.

Was waiting to get Dave's input, absolutely insane map

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/ohio/house_gop_proposal/

 

Here is 538s breakdown of the districts lean. Republicans are claiming that it's an 8R, 2D with 5 competitive districts. Looks like only one competitive district to me. 

Edited November 3, 20213 yr by Luke_S

4 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/

 

Here is 538s breakdown of the districts lean. Republicans are claiming that it's an 8R, 2D with 5 competitive districts. Looks like only one competitive district to me. 

 

OH-1?  It's nearly identical to 2011-2020's OH-1, which Chabot won every election.  He had one election within ~5% but that was it.

3 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

OH-1?  It's nearly identical to 2011-2020's OH-1, which Chabot won every election.  He had one election within ~5% but that was it.

Yeah, according to this analysis though it favors Republicans by only 2pts, the other 4 "competitive" districts favor Republicans by at least 11pts.

 

4 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

OH-1?  It's nearly identical to 2011-2020's OH-1, which Chabot won every election.  He had one election within ~5% but that was it.

Maybe when you look from 50,000 feet it's basically the same, but those little border shifts include tens of thousands of people. I believe the new map includes all of Cincinnati, whereas the old one did not.

2 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Maybe when you look from 50,000 feet it's basically the same, but those little border shifts include tens of thousands of people. I believe the new map includes all of Cincinnati, whereas the old one did not.

 

This is correct. New map includes the whole city and is actually a 51-48 Biden win. Would be hard for GOP to hold on to that district for the whole decade if trends continue. It's still a sh*tty map.

This map is visually appalling although it's an improvement on the current map. Rightly or wrongly, I judge gerrymandering based primarily on the visual compactness of districts, and by that standard this is an improvement but still woefully lacking.

 

Politically, this looks kinda like a high-risk, high-reward play for the Republicans. They're whittling the Democrats down to 2 safe districts, but creating a few new districts that could be lost depending on who the candidates are. The district the Democrats are losing is Tim Ryan's which would probably be a Republican district anyway were it not for Tim Ryan's incumbency. The new 15th District particularly looks very precarious. Mike Carey just won the old 15th 58-42, and the new 15th has a whole lot more Columbus and a whole lot less cornfield in it.

The Republicans' proposed map is illegal according to the constitutional amendment passed in 2018 by voters. "If the biggest city in a county is smaller than one district and larger than 100,000 people, it may not be split." The map is illegal because it splits Toledo and Akron.

 

The Ohio Supreme Court would knock it down pretty quickly.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/ohio/senate_gop_proposal/

 

Ohio Senate Republicans have proposed their map and somehow it's worse. 

On 11/3/2021 at 10:23 PM, Luke_S said:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/ohio/senate_gop_proposal/

 

Ohio Senate Republicans have proposed their map and somehow it's worse. 

Good Lord, that drops Jim Jordan's district into Clintonville, campus and the Short North like a nut sack (to own the libs). Rural western Ohio has nothing in common with the densest part of Columbus.

https://www.cleveland.com/politics/2021/11/ohio-republicans-introduce-final-congressional-redistricting-proposal-aiming-to-give-it-first-set-of-approvals-today.html

 

Looks like this is probably the one. Some of these districts I'm not fond of, but in the grand scheme of things, the map isn't THAT bad. Interestingly enough you have six districts (1st, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th) that are basically tossups in the long run. Seems like Republicans are putting all their eggs into the basket of a map that will give them a 13-2 advantage in 2022--and this map probably will do that. But, particularly as demographics evolve throughout the next decade, this map could realistically be 8-7 Democrat if there were a blue wave election.

Edited November 16, 20213 yr by LlamaLawyer

I’m confused wouldn’t the Cincy district be blue and the Akron/Dayton ones be toss up/lean blue?

13 minutes ago, Clefan14 said:

I’m confused wouldn’t the Cincy district be blue and the Akron/Dayton ones be toss up/lean blue?

Long term, the Cincy district probably will be, but polling is looking like a red wave in 2022. Akron/Dayton just aren't big enough to offset the other counties in their districts, but both districts should be fairly competitive.

44 minutes ago, Clefan14 said:

I’m confused wouldn’t the Cincy district be blue and the Akron/Dayton ones be toss up/lean blue?

 

Trump narrowly won the Cincy district in 2016 but Biden won it by 3 in 2020. With changing demographics it'll continue to get more blue, but it would basically be a toss up in 2022. 

2 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

https://www.cleveland.com/politics/2021/11/ohio-republicans-introduce-final-congressional-redistricting-proposal-aiming-to-give-it-first-set-of-approvals-today.html

 

Looks like this is probably the one. Some of these districts I'm not fond of, but in the grand scheme of things, the map isn't THAT bad. Interestingly enough you have six districts (1st, 9th, 10th, 13th, 14th, 15th) that are basically tossups in the long run. Seems like Republicans are putting all their eggs into the basket of a map that will give them a 13-2 advantage in 2022--and this map probably will do that. But, particularly as demographics evolve throughout the next decade, this map could realistically be 8-7 Democrat if there were a blue wave election.

That may be true if they don't end up having to redraw these districts in 4 years. 

Probably a good time to move to a state that still believes in democracy. Maybe New England before it secedes or joins with Canada....

 

 

The map could be better but a disadvantage of democrats in general is that cities is where most democrats live so you could have 1.2 million in a county that is  70% Democrat and then have another 3.6 million spread out among counties that is only 55% republican on average but still enough to make it so you have a 3 red to one blue ratio. 

1 hour ago, cle_guy90 said:

The map could be better but a disadvantage of democrats in general is that cities is where most democrats live so you could have 1.2 million in a county that is  70% Democrat and then have another 3.6 million spread out among counties that is only 55% republican on average but still enough to make it so you have a 3 red to one blue ratio. 

 

Yes. But that's not what is happening with these maps. They split Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Hamilton three times. You don't need to do that. You don't do that unless you are trying to crack Dems. In fact, David Niven, UC political scientist, notes that these maps are in the 96th percentile of all possible maps for Republican advantage. You could have a computer randomly draw 100 maps and 96 of them would be better for Dems than this one.

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Yes. But that's not what is happening with these maps. They split Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Hamilton three times. You don't need to do that. You don't do that unless you are trying to crack Dems. In fact, David Niven, UC political scientist, notes that these maps are in the 96th percentile of all possible maps for Republican advantage. You could have a computer randomly draw 100 maps and 96 of them would be better for Dems than this one.

Agreed. I think a fair map would be more like 5 strong republicans, 3 strong Democrat, and the rest toss up with a little more leaning republican than democrat but with the potential of that changing depending on the whims of the peope.

13 hours ago, cle_guy90 said:

The map could be better but a disadvantage of democrats in general is that cities is where most democrats live so you could have 1.2 million in a county that is  70% Democrat and then have another 3.6 million spread out among counties that is only 55% republican on average but still enough to make it so you have a 3 red to one blue ratio. 

 

Correct.   But the VRA all but dictates racial gerrymandering, which inevitably leads to the concentration of Democrats.  As long as black voters go 90% Democrat, a 51% black district is where the white vote splits 50-50 is going to be at least 70% Democrat, that's basic math. It ends up being more because of other minority groups and because urban whites are more likely to be Democrats.
 

So serious redistricting reform is going to need the support of black Democrats, which hasn't been seen in earnest.   They would end up diluting their power within the Democratic Party, and why should they?

People forget that W.O. Walker and the Stokes brothers saw this well in advance, and that's why the deal was made with the state GOP to form the 21st District.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

Correct.   But the VRA all but dictates racial gerrymandering, which inevitably leads to the concentration of Democrats.  As long as black voters go 90% Democrat, a 51% black district is where the white vote splits 50-50 is going to be at least 70% Democrat, that's basic math. It ends up being more because of other minority groups and because urban whites are more likely to be Democrats.
 

So serious redistricting reform is going to need the support of black Democrats, which hasn't been seen in earnest.   They would end up diluting their power within the Democratic Party, and why should they?

People forget that W.O. Walker and the Stokes brothers saw this well in advance, and that's why the deal was made with the state GOP to form the 21st District.

 

This is not true at all. Racial gerrymandering is illegal under VRA. Section 2 of VRA requires minority opportunity districts to be maintained where they already exist. For example, if a district had a majority Black population it would be unconstitutional to draw a new map that splits that district in two to "crack" the Black vote. If minority populations grow, it may be required to draw more minority opportunity districts. In a situation where states are granted an additional congressional seat it is not required to draw an additional minority opportunity district (unless minority population growth comes into play). It's all very confusing and a bit subjective. It does not require racial gerrymandering though, it does quite the opposite. 

 

But this is not even related to what is happening in Ohio. In fact, the Ohio GOP has successfully "cracked" Democratic counties. Just look at Hamilton County being broken into three different districts. The Black vote (and Democratic vote) is completely diluted. This would be potentially illegal under VRA if the existing district was already majority Black (there are other considerations, this is a simplification) but the existing district is not. If this was challenged in federal court then Republicans could argue that their tactics constitute political gerrymandering (which is legal) and not racial gerrymandering (which is illegal).

 

However, this will not be challenged in federal court, because it is likely legal based on current federal law. Instead, it will be challenged in state court, where it has a good chance of being struck down as a violation of the Ohio Constitution. 

17 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Yes. But that's not what is happening with these maps. They split Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Hamilton three times. You don't need to do that. You don't do that unless you are trying to crack Dems. In fact, David Niven, UC political scientist, notes that these maps are in the 96th percentile of all possible maps for Republican advantage. You could have a computer randomly draw 100 maps and 96 of them would be better for Dems than this one.

The flip side is that the map is fairly risky. The Republicans could easily have drawn a 11-4 advantage map where the 11 R districts would all be fairly safe long term. Instead we have basically a 13-2 map, but only 7 Republican districts are really safe. 2022 looks to be a good year for Republicans everywhere, but 2024 (and later if the map survives that long) could see Republicans losing several seats.

Here's a useful resource. It's worth pointing out that the lean R districts are +8 - +11, and it would take a pretty big D wave to flip them. The toss ups also still have a Republican advantage. 

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/ohio/senate_gop_proposal_2/

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

The flip side is that the map is fairly risky. The Republicans could easily have drawn a 11-4 advantage map where the 11 R districts would all be fairly safe long term. Instead we have basically a 13-2 map, but only 7 Republican districts are really safe. 2022 looks to be a good year for Republicans everywhere, but 2024 (and later if the map survives that long) could see Republicans losing several seats.

 

This is true. Though I think they are banking on being able to redraw them in 2024.

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

Here's a useful resource. It's worth pointing out that the lean R districts are +8 - +11, and it would take a pretty big D wave to flip them. The toss ups also still have a Republican advantage. 

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/ohio/senate_gop_proposal_2/

 

First district is labeled as R+3 but it has been moving left. Biden won it by 3 points. In a red wave year, Chabot is probably safe. But in a neutral environment it probably flips.

2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

First district is labeled as R+3 but it has been moving left. Biden won it by 3 points. In a red wave year, Chabot is probably safe. But in a neutral environment it probably flips.

Sure, it could flip. If the math is right, it would take a D+3 year, which isn't too hard. By the final numbers Biden was more than +4, so in a similar election it would likely flip. 

13 hours ago, Ethan said:

Sure, it could flip. If the math is right, it would take a D+3 year, which isn't too hard. By the final numbers Biden was more than +4, so in a similar election it would likely flip. 

 

Right, based on 2020 it would take a D +3 year. But the population isn't static. Hamilton and Warren Counties are both two of the fastest growing counties in the state. And the new population added each year are more diverse and more liberal. So, in a hypothetical situation where current trends continue and this map lasts ten years, by the end of the decade it would likely be a safe blue seat. Of course, this map won't last that long.

 

EDIT to add: If the national mood is good enough for Dems to hold on to the Presidency in 2024 my prediction is that this seat would flip, and both Biden and the Dem House candidate would win it by at least 5 points.

Edited November 18, 20213 yr by DEPACincy

17 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

This is true. Though I think they are banking on being able to redraw them in 2024.

 

Is there anything to stop them from redrawing the districts every four years?  If not, then all the gerrymander "reform" legislation did is allow them to gerrymander even more effectively by tailoring the districts to every other election.

18 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

First district is labeled as R+3 but it has been moving left. Biden won it by 3 points. In a red wave year, Chabot is probably safe. But in a neutral environment it probably flips.

It also should be noted that Chabot is 68 right now. I assume he runs and wins in 2022 because of the favorable map, but how many competitive races does he have left? I cant see him sticking around much beyond 2024 anyway. Look at all the older members of Congress in their 70s and 80s from both parties, How many of them actually have to run in competitive races? Probably very few would be my guess. They have essentially become fatcat country club congressmen at that point and just rely on their name recognition to win. 

 

My bet is that when things turn for Chabot and it looks as if he is in another slugfest, he decides to step down at that point. The seat may flip at that time, but he does not go out on a loss.

43 minutes ago, X said:

Is there anything to stop them from redrawing the districts every four years?

 

Bipartisan support for the proposed maps would stop it. Ironically, Democrats have complete control over this particular aspect. 1/3 of them need to approve these maps, or else Republicans get to fine tune them again in 4 years.

 

Its an interesting twist. The 4-year clause was meant to be a punishment and incentive to get the maps approved by the committee, but now really seems to be more of an opportunity than a threat.

54 minutes ago, X said:

 

Is there anything to stop them from redrawing the districts every four years?  If not, then all the gerrymander "reform" legislation did is allow them to gerrymander even more effectively by tailoring the districts to every other election.

 

Bingo. The only limitation is what the courts will allow. Otherwise they can draw a new one every four years. A fatal flaw in the law (or maybe purposeful?). We really need another referendum to establish a truly nonpartisan commission.

 

Opinion piece on the matter, pushing for federal reform.   

 

 

There's only 1 real solution to partisan gerrymandering

Time to get rid of single-member districts

 

https://theweek.com/republicans/1007226/theres-only-1-real-solution-to-partisan-gerrymandering?utm_campaign=afternoon_newsletter_20211118&utm_source=afternoon_newsletter&utm_medium=email&refid=062F5F8702142E2FD3D4534530AD0535

I've been saying something similar for a while. My thought:

 

Still have districts with primaries, and when you go to the polls you vote for your candidate.

 

But when the votes are tallied, the seats are distributed according to the number of votes the party gets. If you receive 1/15 of the vote in Ohio (6.67%), your party receives at least one representative, and that goes to the candidate from that party with the most votes in any district. Then go to the next party and do the same thing until that party has reached the appropriate number of seats (giving the candidates with the highest vote share of their party the victory).

 

So if you have:

45% Republican
40% Democrat
8% Libertarian
5% Green
2% Other

 

Keeping in mind the minimum 6.67% threshold to reach a seat, you would get:

6.75 Republicans

6.00 Democrats
1.20 Libertarians

 

If you accounted for only votes that resulted in seats being allocated (in this case, 93% of votes were allocated), you would see:

45/0.93 = 48.39% Republicans = 7.26 Republicans elected

40/0.93 = 43.01% Democrats = 6.45 Democrats elected

8/0.93 = 8.60% Libertarians - 1.29 Libertarians elected

You end up with:
1 Libertarian rep (the best performing candidate from any district)
6 Democratic reps (the top 6 vote getter not from the first district given to the Libertarian)
8 Republican reps (from the remaining districts, which, by default, they would have performed the best in anyway)

This method would also give the party with the most votes the ability to get 1 or 2 extra seats than their party would regularly get since some of the votes (in this case Green/Other) didn't reach the threshold of 1/15 (or 6.67%). Further, by rounding down the parties that didn't get the plurality, you further boost the party who gets the most votes.

 

I think most people would agree this would be fairly equitable share for Ohio considering the demographics. You still get a proportional representation (not perfect), you still get local representation (even if a few candidates don't receive a plurality in their district), and it allows third parties a chance to win elections, which is currently almost impossible.

 

Obviously, this does not work for states that only elect 2 representatives. But for states with 5+ seats, I think this works pretty well. Suddenly, the districts can be very compact, but not mess with the actual representation based on the state's voters.

On 11/17/2021 at 3:02 PM, LlamaLawyer said:

The flip side is that the map is fairly risky. The Republicans could easily have drawn a 11-4 advantage map where the 11 R districts would all be fairly safe long term. Instead we have basically a 13-2 map, but only 7 Republican districts are really safe. 2022 looks to be a good year for Republicans everywhere, but 2024 (and later if the map survives that long) could see Republicans losing several seats.

I agree with this and think the Dems need to just bite the bullet and not fight this and make this the 10-year map. Doing so, could make it 13-2 in 2022, but Ohio 1, Ohio 9 and Ohio 13 will be tossups, so it could be 11-4, and actually a +1 for them since that would be the GOP losing the seat the state lost.

 

The long-game in this map looks encouraging for Dems and I think the GOP misplayed their hands if this isn't challenged. I think they fully expect this only to be a four-year map then redraw them to secure an 11-4 advantage in 2026/2028/2030. Plus, it seems like the GOP is basing these maps a lot on results of Trump year elections in 2016 and 2020. But if you look at the results in 2018 (yes, a big Dem year and it had two marquee races in governor and the Brown-Renacci U.S. Senate Race). The results from that year shows signs that while Ohio was a Trump state, it still remains a purple state. 

 

I looked up what the results of 2018 would have been if these districts were in place then (I also looked at the 2020 presidential results).

 

Ohio 1: Sherrod Brown carried the district by more than 22,000 votes (+7) and DeWine carried the Gov. race by 4,500 (+1.5). In 2020, Biden won it by 10,000 votes (+3). Obviously, Chabot is an incumbent and will be tough to beat. But this is a district that will continue to move blue and probably would be one of the most competitive House races in the country in 2022. Maybe Chabot holds it for one more cycle, but doubt this one can stay red from 2024 and beyond. 

 

Ohio 9: Sherrod Brown carried this district by 47,000 in 2018 (+16) and Cordray carried it by 8,000 (+3). In 2020, though Trump carried it by 17,000 (+4.5). That seems like bad news for Macy Kaptur, but like Chabot, she is an incumbent. Plus, I wouldn't underestimate her support in what the GOP thinks are now solid red counties of Ottawa, Sandusky and Erie. However, those are areas that Kaptur is a known commodity and counties that supported Brown in 2018 (well, Sandusky was essentially 50/50 but Ottawa and Erie were blue). This will be another very competitive race, but take Trump out of the equation, and I don't think Kaptur is in danger in 2022. The map is a lot less favorable, but she still won the snake on the lake by +26 in a Trump year in 2020. Then, lets remember that 2024 is setting up to be a doozy. Sherrod Brown will be up for re-election and there is a possibility Trump is on the GOP ticket again (those are the two most popular politicians in Ohio and both have support from blue collar whites, which make up a big chunk of this district). If that happens, I could see a lot of Trump/Brown/Kaptur votes out of this district.

 

Ohio 13: Brown carried this district by 43,000 in 2018 (+14) and Cordray carried it by 12,500 (+4). Trump and Biden essentially split in 2020 with Biden winning by 2,200 (+0.5). Dems have to really like there chances here because like Ohio 1, the demographics will continue to get more blue. And unlike Ohio 1, there isn't an incumbent in the race. The issue may be finding a candidate who can get the support from both the city of Akron and the suburban Cleveland suburbs. I think that is what the GOP is banking on here in that Akron voters won't show up to support a suburban Cleveland candidate and suburban Cleveland voters won't show up for a city of Akron candidate. But this is a district that realistically is a lean Dem district in 2022 and should continue to shift safer Dem as the decade progresses.

 

Not sure all could go blue by 2022, but all seem very realistic by 2024, which would make the overall split 10-5, even if nothing else changes. Now, a +3 change for Dems compared to the current make-up.

 

Then you have a couple more districts that you have to closely monitor.

 

Ohio 10: Brown carried it by 21,000 in 2018 (+7) and DeWine carried it by 18,000 (+6). I didn't look up the Clark County portion in 2020, but just between Montgomery and Greene, Trump carried it by 11,000 (+3). I don't think Clark would have changed it too much since that portion includes the city of Springfield. Mike Turner, as an incumbent, doesn't have much to worry about in 2022 or even 2024, but this is one that could very much be in play by 2026 if demographics take their course. Montgomery should continue to trend more blue and the demographics of Greene don't look promising for the GOP to offset it there. 

 

Ohio 14: Brown carried it by 18,500 in 2018 (+6) and DeWine carried it by 19,000 (+7). Trump carried it by 48,000 (+12) in 2020. This is another one that is safe for incumbent Dave Joyce for 2022 and 2024, but adding Parma/Parma Heights to this district is a big risk for Republicans. Alone, those cities make up about 13 percent of the district and while that area took a big swing toward Trump, they aren't areas that I would consider solid GOP yet, especially since the demographics there are changing faster than any of the west side Cleveland suburbs (old blue collar whites dying/moving away and being replaced by blacks and especially Puerto Ricans in pretty big numbers). Like Ohio 10, this is one that could look very good toward the end of the decade for Dems.

 

I didn't even try to add up Ohio 15 since that one would take forever to try to figure out which places in Franklin County are there and which ones are in Ohio 3. But indications are that it profiles similar to Ohio 10 and Ohio 14.

 

Just flipping one could make it a 9-6, which is the best Dems could have hoped for (and never were going to get now anyway). Flip two and you are looking at the state basically mirroring how it should go. 

 

Plus, there are two others, that I'll throw out (though don't see either being realistic, but you don't know what the situation will be like 6-plus years from now.

 

Ohio 6: Brown carried it by 10,000 in 2018 (+4) and DeWine carried it by 26,000 (+10). Trump carried it by 93,000 in 2020 (+24). The Trump numbers make this one appear a foregone conclusion. But Trumbull and Mahoning counties make up more than 50 percent of the district and like Parma/Parma Heights it may be too early to put them in solid red territory. It's a longshot, but if the Dems can find a Joe Manchin type, it  could put it in play. 

 

Ohio 5: Renacci carried it by 10,000 in 2018 (+4) and DeWine carried it by 53,500 (+18). In 2020, Trump carried it by 102,000 (+24). This is a stretch, but Lorain County up until 2020 was reliably Blue and usually by a significant margin. Trump did flip it though and won by 4,000 there in 2020. But the fact that northern Lorain County makes up almost 1/3 of the district's population (and less than 5 percent of the land area) at least makes it one to monitor. Especially since Lorain County is growing pretty quickly and the rest of the district contains rural counties that mostly are losing population at a pretty big rate. If Lorain County can get to 40 percent of the population within the district and returns to its +15 to +20 blue rate, it could make things interesting way down the line. 

 

This is long, but hopefully somewhat informative. IMO, if I had any say in the Dem party, I would just take this map and then use the next couple of years building up a pool of candidates that could really compete in four years. The GOP is playing with some pretty thin margins in a lot of these races (which is a breathe of fresh air overall because the last decade has been a joke ... you didn't even need an election to know who was winning any of the 16 races). You do that and not only does the national GOP have to start putting money into these races, but the national Dem party will also start putting money in a lot of these races. As much as putting money in races can be seen as candidates being "bought" seats, the reality is money being put into a race also means an incumbent is not comfortable and knows my seat isn't a given. On that front, while a foreign concept currently in Ohio, seeing some competitive races would not be a bad thing for the state, regardless of "which side" ends up winning. 

Edited November 19, 20213 yr by Rando Sinclair

Great write up! And yeah, despite this being 95% favorable to the GOP, at least there's a chance in 3 years for this to be decent. My only question is: if this goes to the Ohio SC, would that automatically place this map in 4 year territory?

 

Also, unless we get another ballot initiative, the state rep maps are going to make the current rep % even more red, meaning this process is doomed to be controlled by the GOP for the foreseeable future.  This process will ALWAYS be controlled by the red team here in the state. Is a 4 year Ohio SC map worth it if it can narrow those margins for a 4 year map in 2026?

Edited November 19, 20213 yr by 10albersa

@Rando Sinclair Wow! Incredible write up. I had forgotten that Marcy Kaptur will presumably be running again in 2022. That will be a really tight race.

 

What people sometimes forget is that congressional elections aren't just generic Republican vs. generic Democrat. There are always two candidates. While Trump won Ohio by 8 points in 2016 and 2020, Sherrod Brown won by 7 points in 2018. A lot of these districts will come down to the personalities. While there are 13 districts that a generic Republican could win, someone like Jim Jordan would have a really tough time in the districts we're talking about. People see +10 R district and think that's a shoe-in Republican district, but it's really not. From Trump in 2016 to Sherrod Brown in 2018 to Trump in 2020, you have a 15-point Democrat swing followed by a 15-point Republican swing. Swings like that happen all the time, because people also vote for people, not just parties.

 

And that's why the Republican-drawn map is risky. Because while a +10 R district can mean a lot of close elections, a +30 R district almost never would.

It feels like folks are talking themselves into this being a good map in the off-chance it may introduce competitive races in the future. Sounds like wishful thinking to me. Especially considering they'll get the chance to redo it again in a few years.

There's only 2 ways out of this:

1. Ohio SC forces a more fair map

2. New ballot initiative for fair maps

 

Is a the proposed 10yr map a best-case (given the makeup of the statehouse). Yes. Is it fair? No.

 

If we're stuck with a 4 year map, then I want the Ohio SC approving it, obviously.

Great write-up and I appreciate you taking the time. It's very well thought out. However, I still think that a lot would have to go right to end up in a good situation with this map. Ultimately, the map is unconstitutional on its face and the Dems should challenge it. Get the SC to force the GOP into a fair map and then work like hell to change the process again so we can have a truly independent commission going forward.

48 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

Great write-up and I appreciate you taking the time. It's very well thought out. However, I still think that a lot would have to go right to end up in a good situation with this map. Ultimately, the map is unconstitutional on its face and the Dems should challenge it. Get the SC to force the GOP into a fair map and then work like hell to change the process again so we can have a truly independent commission going forward.

Agreed.  There are racial and political-balance problems with these maps -- this is not just partisan nitpicking, it's part of the Voting Rights Act and the new Ohio Constitutional district-drawing rules.

 

Quote

 

Senate President Matt Huffman (R-Lima) said the mapmakers on his staff were instructed to not take racial and demographics data into consideration.

"It's illegal to use race in drawing districts. That's a violation of federal law. Now, there's a mention of the Voting Rights Act. If the government sees that there's a compelling state interest based on evidence presented, to do that. But if we said, use race and drafting these districts, the federal government's going to say you can't do that," said Huffman.

 

https://www.statenews.org/2021-09-09/redistricting-commission-adopts-district-maps-that-appear-to-retain-republican-supermajority

 

Quote

If lawmakers can't agree and must pass a four-year map for congressional districts, the new districts cannot "unduly favor" a political party or its incumbents. Congressional districts also must abide by the federal Voting Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on race.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2021/09/23/redistricting-lawsuit-triggers-ohio-supreme-court-review-4-year-statehouse-maps/8418902002/

Well, we got some national attention. And it's not flattering. 

 

https://youtu.be/nxUf4Lplj94

 

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2021/12/06/ohio-lawmakers-hire-lawyers-who-defended-largest-racial-gerrymanders-ever-encountered/

 

Quote

Defending themselves against accusations of gerrymandering, the Ohio House speaker and Senate president hired a team of lawyers with a history defending North Carolina against what a federal court called one of the “largest racial gerrymanders ever encountered.”

 

A spate of special interest and voter advocacy groups have filed four lawsuits alleging that Ohio officials produced maps that segment voters to give Republicans an unfair partisan advantage and cement in a veto-proof majority. House Speaker Bob Cupp and Senate President Matt Huffman, both Republicans from Lima, opted against retaining counsel through the attorney general and hired their attorneys from the Nelson Mullins law offices in North Carolina.

 

Oh, good.

A little perspective from 300 miles away.  The Maryland Legislature has produced a map that should eliminate the last Republican congressman.  (Statistically there could be two or three.)  The Democrats are high-fiving each other and totally unappologetic.   🙂