On Sept. 26, Ohio’s Redistricting Commission, dominated 5-2 by Statehouse Republicans, reached a surprise 7-0 bipartisan consensus on new state legislative maps. The maps were still heavily gerrymandered, just not as much as before. The decision by the commission’s two Democrats — state Sen. Nickie Antonio of Lakewood and state Rep. Allison Russo of suburban Columbus — to sign off on the maps drew praise from many Statehouse Democrats because of alterations benefiting Democrats in the Cleveland, Columbus and Dayton areas, but criticism from Democrats in places like Cincinnati and the Toledo area where blatant gerrymanders remained. And former Ohio Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, a key reformer seeking to put an amendment on the 2024 ballot to create an independent redistricting commission from which politicians will be barred, heaped scorn on what she saw as gerrymanders benefitting both parties.
Antonio and Russo suggested that, with such a heavy GOP legislative advantage backed up by a GOP-dominated Ohio Supreme Court, they judged it more practical to go for improved maps rather than risk having even worse districts imposed on them. The problem, though, is that, given the bipartisan vote, the districts will last much longer than partisan maps — possibly as long as eight years, until the 2030 Census, although that may be disputed, according to cleveland.com’s Jeremy Pelzer.
The Democrats’ gamble is that voters will adopt redistricting reforms in 2024, setting the stage for a sea change in the process. Unclear, though, is whether the deal will help induce voters to favor ballot reforms — or sour them on the process. Cleveland.com’s editorial board weighs in on the issue.
“I’m ambivalent about the Democrats’ acceptance of these still-lopsided maps,” Leila Atassi, manager of public interest and advocacy said. “On the one hand, widespread dissatisfaction with the outcome could be fodder for the anti-gerrymandering campaign – proof that politicians can’t be trusted with the process. On the other hand, it appears, to the uninitiated, that it all went smoothly. And Republicans are all too masterful at manipulating Ohio’s uninitiated.”
Thomas Suddes, editorial writer, said, “The so-called deal was a bad deal: It gives foes of 2024′s likely proposed redistricting reform ballot issue an opening to claim that, if Democratic commissioners approved the current districts, then what’s the problem?”
“My guess is that Ohio’s voters have become so suspicious of the redistricting process that a majority will vote for O’Connor’s proposed 2024 amendment, even though few will truly understand it,” said columnist Ted Diadiun. “And the result will be a nightmarish conglomeration of supposedly apolitical citizens flailing around that will make us long for the good old days when politicians drew the maps.”
Editorial board member Lisa Garvin said, “Democrats are hedging their bets on the 2024 ballot amendment, a risky but pragmatic move. Republicans on the Redistricting Commission have refused to negotiate in good faith, and the Ohio Supreme Court is now tilted to their advantage. Ohioans have voted twice to end gerrymandering, and they know that an independent commission would be another nail in the coffin.”
“Redistricting is, inherently and inexorably, a messy political process because of its political implications,” said Mary Cay Doherty, editorial board roundtable. “Blessedly, however, Ohio’s redistricting commission compromised, and the new maps just might hold for the next eight years. The comical irony: Democrats who spent months accusing Republicans of gerrymandering were OK with gerrymandering when it benefited them. So goes politics on both sides of the aisle.”
Finally, Elizabeth Sullivan, opinion director, said, “This was a disappointing duck by the Democratic commissioners, signing off on grossly gerrymandered maps just because they helped some Democrats. It smacks of the backroom dealmaking that angered Ohio voters enough after 2011 that they overwhelmingly passed two constitutional redistricting amendments aiming to make the process fairer and less partisan. Either the maps are fair and lawful, or they aren’t. It’s possible the unpleasant taste could linger into 2024. Bad call.”
