Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > May > 26 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: Can ‘do the right thing’ prevail on redistricting
They say there’s still hope for redistricting reform.
“They” are Ohio legislators in both parties who recognize the indefensible absurdity of letting one party draw all the legislative districts, the current system.
The reformers say change might still happen this year.
For those who’ve been following the issue for half a decade, it’s a little hard to believe. So far, the fact that the case for reform is overwhelmingly strong has not proved important.
Most legislators continue — despite everything — to show little understanding and little interest in the whole issue.
The effort of reformers to get something on the ballot has slipped and slipped again. November is the last hope, because the redistricting process — which will draw districts to be used for the next decade — starts when the current U.S. Census is complete.
To get on the ballot, a measure must be approved by 60 percent of each house of the Legislature. Summer recess is around the corner. The House Democratic leadership is — belatedly — trying to get something passed so that a compromise might be worked out with the Republican Senate.
The Senate has approved a ballot measure pushed by Jon Husted, R-Kettering. Instead of leaving all power in the hands of whichever party holds a majority of certain statewide offices, it would set up a commission on which neither party has a majority. It would require that any new map be approved by a super-majority that includes members of both parties.
The Democratic proposal would go further. It would set up a contest in which the public is invited to submit maps, with entries getting points for, among other things, maximizing (1) the number of districts that are reasonably well balanced between Republicans and Democrats and (2) the number that are compact.
The Democratic proposal — bringing in the public — has the advantage of keeping the parties from colluding. Otherwise, they could agree to divide the state into a bunch of districts that are safe for one party or the other.
One possible compromise would entail using the Democratic contest and giving the commission in the Husted proposal some leeway to chose among the highest-scoring entries.
Absurdly, the Democrats want to exclude congressional elections from reform. (Under current law, congressional districts are handled between the Legislature and the governor, like a regular law. That is, the process is separate from the one involve districts in the state legislature. That would continue.)
There’s no good case for exempting Congress. But party headquarters, labor and some representatives from majority-black districts have had qualms about reform. This resulted in reformers settling for a half a loaf, as a way of getting something done.
A big problem now is simply getting legislators to focus, to learn the issue. Some are under the impression that reformers want to make all districts competitive. Not true. Not even possible.
Take, for example, in all the counties surrounding Montgomery County. The Republican districts there will remain Republican. There’s no way to change that without gerrymandering.
Montgomery County itself, though, is a classic case of where reform would matter. It leans slightly Democratic as a whole but has had three safe Republican House districts and two safer Democratic districts for 20 years.
Look at the district of state Rep. Seth Morgan, of Huber Heights. He gave up his safe Republican seat to run unsuccessfully for state auditor. If reform happens, that oddly shaped district would likely change a lot. It stretches westward across the northern suburbs, takes a left when its well west of Dayton, and goes to the southern reaches of the county. Non-partisans would have no motive to build such a district.
(Interesting to contemplate: Would a more competitive district produce somebody as conservative as Morgan, or would the Republicans look more to the center?)
As that case suggests, a lot of politicians have reason to worry about reform. But figuring out how their interests might be affected is complicated, partly because of term limits. House members are always looking ahead and thinking about Senate and congressional districts. Moreover, for those who want to stay in the House a while, reform would not eliminate the advantages of incumbency.
In that kind of murkiness, the reformers dare to hope that a lot of legislators might actually decide to simply do the right thing. Imagine.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics, Ohio government, Ohio politics
Comments
By KevinJ
May 26, 2010 12:19 PM | Link to this
Martin, Usually I disagree with most of opinions. But on this one I agree. Through gerrymandering we have ended up with partisan based districts whose only purpose is to keep a given political party in or out of control. Districting itself has become a bargaining tool for the political parties. All of that crap needs to stop. Districting needs to and should follow existing city, township, and county lines.
By David Esrati
May 26, 2010 1:53 PM | Link to this
Not only are the districts not-competitive, they are overly expensive to market to, gpiving incumbents an unfair advantage. OH-3 includes 4 media markets, making it a very expensive campaign.
By David Esrati
May 26, 2010 1:54 PM | Link to this
Not only are the districts not-competitive, they are overly expensive to market to, gpiving incumbents an unfair advantage. OH-3 includes 4 media markets, making it a very expensive campaign.
By J
May 26, 2010 4:29 PM | Link to this
Simple answer to the headline: No. No matter how much something is the right thing to do, Washington is incapable of doing it, regardless of which party has power. They both profit and thrive on this messed-up system, and will fight tooth and nail to keep it.
By Max
May 27, 2010 8:29 AM | Link to this
I agree with KevinJ’s comments. Husted’s idea of a ‘super majority’ required for changes will just assure the status quo will prevail. Ersati’s concern about OH-3’s media markets (campaign costs)is easily remedied by campaign finance reform with term limitations and more active use of internet-based campaigns. The U.S. Census is going to be an interesting motivator at the U.S. House level and it would be wise for the OH General Assembly to use the preliminary data (population changes) to redistrict with a simple majority.
By Kurt
May 28, 2010 6:30 AM | Link to this
For once——-you wrote a decent piece Marty. Will you please write about something interesting, the difference in news coverage between Bush(Katrina), and Obama,(Gulf Oil Spill), and also what would the lame stream press be doing right now if President Bush had offered somebody a job to drop out of a race??
By ramjet
May 28, 2010 7:39 PM | Link to this
I, too agree with Marty that redistricting not only needs to occur, but needs to be in a non-partisian, and create contiguous geographical boundaries. Our two block, street in a plat in Riverside was designated Republican aligned with Troy, Tipp City and areas of Southern and Eastern Ohio assigned to Now, John Boehner. Our vote is negated in national elections if we voted with our neighbors in the rest of our city. That districting was contoversial at the time and frustrating every since. Why can’t we be treated the same as our neighbors?
By Bebe
June 5, 2010 1:11 PM | Link to this
I would like Dayton to reform into districts that are real and fair. Real election reform would create two electoral districts in Dayton each with one city commissioner for representation. Eastside would elect one commissioner, westside one commissioner, and one at-large election for mayor. Dayton doesn’t need 5 city commissioners; three are adequate. Also, no gerrymandering allowed, eastside-westside districts should be permanent.
By kikus
June 13, 2010 4:06 AM | Link to this
отлично написано, у автора прям талант