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 > 28 > Entry
Editorial: House right on redistricting — for now
The long, frustrating effort to reform the way the Ohio draws legislative districts showed remarkable signs of life last week. The Ohio House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly, 69-28, for a strong plan.
Reform is necessary because political parties can stack the deck in ways that all but prevent lawmakers from having to compete for their jobs. Some districts are drawn so they’re always won by Republicans, no matter what; others are drawn so they’re safe for Democrats.
Sixty votes were needed to approve putting the plan on the November ballot.
A different reform proposal had already passed the Senate. Now the Legislature has to get very busy about finding a compromise.
Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering, chief sponsor of the Senate plan and chief negotiator for the Republicans, says the 17 House Republicans he helped round up to vote “yes” deserve special credit for “courage.”
He says some don’t really like the House plan, but voted — against much flak from colleagues — to move the process along. Proponents are in a time crunch because the Legislature has until August to act, but it wants to recess for the summer this week or next.
It was good to see both Democrats and some Republicans from the Dayton area on board.
At various stages in the process, black legislators have been identified as leery of reform, seeing it as a threat to safe districts they have been given even by Republican map drawers (who like to concentrate Democratic voters in a few districts).
But Democratic Reps. Clayton Luckie and Roland Winburn, who together represent most of Dayton, as well as other central parts of Montgomery County, voted for reform.
So did Republicans Rep. Peggy Lehner and Terry Blair, who represent mainly the south suburbs of Montgomery County.
Of the Montgomery County delegation, only Rep. Seth Morgan, a Republican representing mainly northern suburbs, voted “no.”
In adjacent counties, “no” votes came from Rep. Jarrod Martin, from Greene County; Peter Beck and Ron Maag, from Warren County; and Richard Adams, from Miami County. Rep. James Zehringer, representing Preble and part of Darke county, voted “yes.” All are Republicans.
Ironically, legislators from the surrounding counties have the least at stake. Those areas will be represented by Republicans under any map.
Just how much credit for courage the “yes” voters should get depends on how things play out. Yes, they voted to move the process toward compromise. But they might also have wanted to get credit for being for reform in the abstract, even if they vote against the final product, saying that they don’t like the specifics.
Such switches — by Democrats or Republicans — would be a shame. It’s difficult to imagine anything arising out of negotiations that could reasonably be considered a deal-breaker by real advocates of reform.
Under current law, districts in the Ohio Legislature are drawn every 10 years by, in effect, whichever political party has two of the following three offices: governor, secretary of state and state auditor.
Congressional districts are drawn by the governor and legislature. Sen. Husted would put responsibility for both kinds of districts in the hands of a seven-person bipartisan commission, with at least two votes from each party necessary to create a map.
The Democratic plan (which applies only the state Legislature, not Congress) entails a map-drawing contest open to the public. Points would be awarded for, among other things, keeping districts compact and competitive. (A competitive district is one that can be won by either party without a miracle.)
Both sides seem open to using the Husted commission and the Democratic contest, with the commission having some leeway to pick from among the best entries.
That still leaves at least one big question: what about deadlocks? What if the commission can’t agree?
Democrats don’t want the state Supreme Court, now dominated by Republicans, to settle the fight. They have proposed a new tribunal. Republicans say that’s a new branch of government and an unacceptable precedent.
The legislators ought to be able to agree to a plan that gives the Supreme Court the power to reject a map on constitutional grounds or to send the two parties back to work, but not to actually impose a map.
What’s needed now is good faith. And fast work.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics, Ohio government, Ohio politics
Comments
By Max
May 28, 2010 6:49 PM | Link to this
The Supreme Court option in case of a deadlock is, in my opinion, an improper use of the court and places the deadlock in the hands another party dominate body, the Supreme Court. The Democrats are wrong on the splitting of districting between Congress and the Legislature which sounds suspiciously of teetering the balance of power of the two bodies. This, aside from board of elections nightmares, is little more than posturing to maintain Democrat-friendly districts. Husted’s proposal is premised the 10-year interval of redisdricting with the National Census data is flawed because whichever party is in the leadership can shape party-friendly blocks. In an age of mathmatical algorithms used to target electorate groups, the same process - absent of any party bias - can be used to redistrict every 10 or five years without a commission, with the Supreme Court, and without a revival of the issue in both houses. Math is party blind and that Husted or the Democrats still argue this issue is evidence both parties are goal driven to obtain an advantage.
By David Esrati
May 30, 2010 9:52 PM | Link to this
And why can’t the so called third parties have a seat at the table instead of the courts? Why not let the libs and the greens etc- help divvy up the districts- can’t be any worse than the bi-partisan mockery we have now.
By Miles
June 2, 2010 11:10 AM | Link to this
Ohio is already gerrymandered—that’s how the Senate is 2/3 Republican and the House is 53/46 Democrat. Any proposal needs to keep the GOP from being able to preserve the current gerrymander.
By David Esrati
June 2, 2010 1:23 PM | Link to this
A much simpler proposition- that will end gerrymandering: http://esrati.com/a-simple-redistricting-proposal-a-bigger-table/5028/ But, it’s also time to consider instant-runoff ballots too.