43
Issue would change the way Ohio draws its legislative maps
By Marc Kovac
COLUMBUS
Issue 1 represents the latest attempt at changing the way Ohio draws its legislative maps after each decennial census.
Though it’s not garnering as much vocal debate as marijuana-related issues to be decided in next month’s general election, Issue 1 has the backing of Republicans and Democrats and no organized or vocal opposition to date.
“The vast majority of people I talk to are supportive of it,” said Sen. Frank LaRose, a Republican from Copley. “There may be disagreements about the solution, but there’s a wider understanding of the cost of gerrymandering.”
Redistricting reform has been attempted numerous times, via failed efforts in the Legislature and on the ballot.
“The tale of redistricting reform is long and fairly painful,” said Catherine Turcer of Common Cause Ohio, an advocate of reform.
Turcer recalled efforts in the late 1990s that fell short of qualifying for the ballot and the Reform Ohio Now issues that were defeated by voters in 2005, plus then-House speaker (and now-secretary of state) Jon Husted’s attempts in the Legislature.
The most-recent ballot issue was in 2012, just after Republicans drew the maps that are now in effect. That year’s Issue 2 failed, with 65 percent of voters opposing.
This year’s Issue 1 has something that past efforts didn’t have: wide bipartisan support, with groups normally on opposite sides of issues backing the proposal.
The list is lengthy and includes business groups (the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and Ohio Manufacturing Association), political parties (both the Ohio Republican and Ohio Democratic parties), the League of Women Voters, the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, the Ohio AFL-CIO and many others.
Seeking Bipartisan Agreement
Ohio redraws its legislative district lines every 10 years via a five-member panel – the governor, auditor, secretary of state and majority and minority party members of the Legislature – that places power over the process in the hands of whichever political party controls state government.
In 2011, Republicans controlled most of the seats at the table, and Democrats say that led to districts drawn to make it easier to elect GOP candidates.
This year’s Issue 1 would expand the membership of the redistricting panel to include seven members, ensuring minority party representation.
The new setup would expand the legislative membership to include two lawmakers from the majority party and two from the minority.
The new Ohio Redistricting Commission initially would meet every decade, in years that end in “1,” to develop new maps, with bipartisan support required for any resulting plan.
In cases where plans don’t receive support from Democrats and Republicans, the maps would remain in effect for four years, after which the commission would be required to reconvene and draw lines again.
“This is a very difficult process,” Deidra Reese, from Ohio Voices, said of the redistricting process. “It’s a lot of work and a lot of effort. ... You’re not going to know what’s coming the next time you run, so I think it is a great incentive for them to actually work together and get to a decision that doesn’t force them to a four-year plan.”
Issue 1 also outlines criteria for map-drawing aimed at avoiding gerrymandered lines that snake across cities or counties and requiring better political balance in any resulting districts.
Proponents of the plan say some of those districts would lean Republican, some would lean Democrat, but more would be competitive and reflective of how Ohioans voted over the previous 10-year period.
“There’s good transparency, they keep communities together, there’s a prohibition on gerrymandering so no General Assembly plan shall favor or disfavor one political party over another,” Turcer said. “At the end of the day, this is going to allow real, genuine representation, district by district. Legislators are going to be forced to interact and listen to what the constituents in that particular district care about.”
House Joint Resolution 12, the legislation that placed Issue 1 on the November ballot, passed by wide margins, with Republicans and Democrats vocally supporting it.
Opposition
Rep. John Becker, a Republican from Clermont County, was among the handful of legislators who opposed the resolution when it moved late last year.
During the floor debate in December, he said he agreed with the overall goals of the measure, and he said he understood why Democrats would support it.
But he questioned the potential unintended consequences that come from “crafting a bill at 2, 3, 4 in the morning,” with wording left open to interpretation.
“As we all know, there are some federal judges in this town ... who [make] it their mission in life to pick apart our election laws and change our laws to what is in their preference, what they like, what they think is best,” he said during the House debate on the resolution. “My concern with all this is that we’re giving them some fodder to do that once again.”
Rep. Ron Hood, an Ashville Republican, said during the House debate that districts should be drawn for the decade; otherwise, the political parties could use the system to force new districts more often.
“Should it be fair? Yeah, it should be fair,” he said. “But it should still be a 10-year plan. The problem ... with any plan that’s not 10 years is, now both sides are going to read the tea leaves.”
Becker and Hood were among nine lawmakers who opposed the resolution.
However, there has been no active campaign against Issue 1 on the ballot, and the ballot board actually wrote the argument against the resolution after no opponents stepped forward to offer comments.
The argument against the issue reads, “The gerrymandering that results from partisan control is not a bad process, because it leads to one-party control of government, and voters can know who to hold responsible. Competitive districts are not a virtue because politicians have to spend so much time campaigning for re-election and are not able to do as much legislative work.”