In 2018, Ohio voters demanded that new redistricting anti-gerrymandering reforms be amended to the state Constitution. The reform included mandates for redistricting, a proposal for a bipartisan redistricting commission, and stated that no new plan would “favor a political party over another.” These mandates were in response to 2011’s redistricting plan, which resulted in gerrymandered congressional districts. Senator Cecil Thomas, of the Democratic Party, emphasized the consequences of the past district lines where gerrymandering coupled with Ohio’s winner-take-all system, allowed for Republican advantage: 12 Republicans and 4 Democrats.
In accordance, with these new constitutional reforms, the Ohio Supreme Court recently rejected a new congressional district reapportionment plan, in a ruling 4-3. The court ordered for the redrawing of the congressional plan within 30 days, after which the responsibility would then be passed to the Ohio Redistricting Commission(panel of elected officials). The map presented to the Ohio Supreme Court allowed Republicans a 12-3 advantage and was called out for not following the wishes of Ohio voters. The proposed plan unnecessarily split counties like Hamilton, Cuyahoga, and Summit, and the congressional district lines were drawn to be unfairly Republican-leaning. The plan also altered current districts which resulted in more GOP-leaning congressional districts, and even connected counties like Akon to high populated Republican areas “almost 70 miles away.” The ruling was supported by Ohio Supreme Court Justice Michael Donnelly who pointed out the “skewed results” from the past congressional district lines. The skewed results were highlighted by the statistics as the Republican party won around 55% of the popular votes, yet won approximately 75-80% of congressional delegation seats. Similarly, Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, of the Republican Party, wrote in her opinion piece that the congressional map plan brought in front of the Court presented a “partisan advantage…that favor[ed] the Republican Party.” Ohio lawmakers continue to work on creating a new congressional district plan in compliance with Ohio’s constitutional reforms.
Questions:
Do you think the Ohio Supreme Court made the right or wrong decision in their ruling? Why or why not?
What do you think about the 2018 redistricting reforms?
How should the congressional districts in Ohio be redrawn to be representative and follow redistricting reforms?
What other steps can be taken to prevent partisan gerrymandering?
Sources:
2 comments:
I agree with the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision because the proposed reapportionment plan clearly violated the state’s Constitution, as it “favored one political party over another,” as evidenced by the difference between the Republican share of the votes and their share of the congressional delegation seats. As a whole, gerrymandering is a huge threat to equal representation and democracy and I am glad that Ohio passed reforms to prevent this, as many other states have not, and consequently are allowed to suppress the vote of their people through unfair maps. I highly support the 2018 reforms, however, on their own, they will not be enough to prevent an unfair Republican takeover of the House. Other states must join Ohio in preventing gerrymandering, however I doubt they will, as Republican states are unlikely to support diminishing their power, however wrong that power may be. As for redrawing Ohio’s congressional districts, and the districts of other states, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, the makeup of the commission drawing the maps is very important: it suggests 15 commissioners, 5 of each party: Democrat, Republican, and Independent/Other, who “reflect the state’s geographic and demographic diversity.” This would prevent a Republican-controlled body having all the power over the state’s maps. Commission meetings should also be open to the public and the Commission itself should be a transparent public body with all its communication, documents, and records disclosed to the public. In addition to the map not favoring a political party, it should “provide racial and language minorities with an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and… elect candidates of choice,” and “ respect the integrity of communities of interest to the extent practicable.” Hopefully this will produce a more representative map that will be closer to 55% Republican, and prevent voter suppression.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/better-way-draw-districts
Ella brings up very valid points. I also agree with the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision as it is their duty to ensure that there is no bias towards one party, as stated in the new plan from 2018. I also agree with the 2018 redistricting reforms as it helps prevent an undemocratic voting process. In this case, I think that it was obvious that the redistricting was favoring a political party as Sakshi mentioned that they split counties and had connections to areas almost 70 miles away. I’m glad that the Supreme Court was able to recognize this and not stand with the outrageous redistricting plans. I think another way other than what Ella mentioned to help prevent partisan gerrymandering is to ensure transparency and also accountability in the redistricting process. I think knowing how officials measure and draw the lines would be a great way to not only keep officials in check, but to understand why they made their decisions.
Post a Comment