The New Ohio Redistricting Proposal
Last year, a plan to establish an independent redistricting commission in Ohio was resoundingly defeated at the polls, with only about 30% of voters supporting it. That measure (Issue 4) was supported by Reform Ohio Now and most Democrats, but opposed by Republicans, who currently dominate the state's redistricting commission. Issue 4 would have created a new, bipartisan commission to handle redistricting, subject to a formula that placed heavy emphasis on creating competitive districts, as described here.

Now the shoe's on the other foot. This year, the Republicans are supporting redistricting reform, and Democrats are opposing it. Republicans in the state assembly have introduced a new proposal to create a state apportionment commission and to change the rules for how districts are drawn. In a nutshell, the new commission would be composed of seven members. The two major parties would each have two appointees (one appointed by the house speaker, one by the house minority leader, one by the senate president, and one by the senate minority leader), and those four commissioners would then have to agree on the other three. A supermajority of five members -- including at least one member of each party -- would be required to adopt a plan.

Because it would amend the state's constitution, the new proposal requires approval of three-fifths of each house. It would then have to go before the Ohio electorate, and sponsors are hoping to get it on the November ballot. Stories on the amendment have appeared in the Columbus Dispatch, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and Toledo Blade. There was a hearing before a state house committee today, at which my colleague Ned Foley testified in support of the plan, and election consultant Dave Becker testified against it.

The idea here is a good one: at the "center" of the commission would be three people upon whom representatives of both parties agree. That would enhance the likelihood that the commission as a whole will draw lines that are fair, rather than ones that serve the interests of one party or the other. By contrast, under Ohio's current system, each party has one appointee on the five-person commission; the other three are the governor, auditor, and secretary of state. As it happens, all three of those constitutional officers are currently Republicans, so Republicans currently dominate the commission.

So why would Republicans support redistricting reform? One reason is that, at the time they opposed Issue 4, some Republicans stated publicly that the process was in need of reform, and they're now making good on their promise to come back with a reasonable proposal. That's the explanation given by Rep. Kevin DeWine, who's sponsoring the new proposal.

A more realpolitik explanation is that Republicans are worried that they'll no longer control the commission by the time the next round of redistricting rolls around, after the 2010 elections. All three of the offices mentioned above are up for grabs, and the conventional wisdom is that Democrats have a good chance at capturing two of three. If they do so, and can hold those offices four years from now, then they'll control the post-2010 redistricting process.

Of course, that's a lot of "if's." The uncertainty surrounding what will happen, both this year and in 2010, makes this a golden opportunity for real redistricting reform in Ohio -- in fact, probably the best opportunity that will exist in the next decade. After this November's elections, the parties will have a much better sense of where they stand. If Republicans keep at least two of the three state offices with a seat on the commission, they won't be inclined to deal; if the Democrats get two of the three, they probably won't be inclined to deal either. The uncertainty of both parties' present situation would appear to present an ideal situation for bipartisan agreement.

Unfortunately, it's not at all clear that this will happen. House Democrats are strenuously opposing the Republicans' reform proposal. Their own self-interest is almost certainly a big part of their motivation for doing so -- more specifically, their confidence (perhaps overconfidence) that they'll be in control of the redistricting process in 2010.

Nevertheless, there are at least two significant concerns about the current proposal on the Democratic side that may be legitimate. The first is that the proposal would place heavy emphasis on compactness and conformity with exisiting county and municipal boundries, making competitiveness a second-order priority. This is in contrast to Issue 4, which put a priority on competitiveness. Democrats may be concerned that these requirements will have the effect of packing their voters, helping Republicans in the aggregate.

The second concern is that, in the event the new seven-member panel can't reach agreement, line-drawing could wind up in the hands of the state supreme court, which is dominated by Republican judges. This would give Republicans an advantage in any negotiations between Republican- and Democratic-leaning commissioners -- remember that a plan has to be approved by a supermajority of the commission, including at least one commissioner from each party. Having a friendly court to fall back on, in the event the commission stalemates, would give Republicans a significant bargaining advantage on the commission. On the other hand, it's possible that the matter could wind up in federal court in the event of a stalemate, which wouldn't so clearly favor Republican interests. Thinking ahead, it's quite possible that we could see a race to the courthouse, in the event that there's no supermajority for any one plan.

My own tentative view of the proposal is that it's an improvement over the status quo ... but it could be better. Personally, I'd like to see a proposal that places greater emphasis on competitive districts, as did Issue 4, and less on preserving traditional jurisdictional boundaries. I hope that Republicans and Democrats will sit down to hammer out an agreement that can achieve broad agreement across the aisle. This will probably be necessary, if the amendment is to succeed at the polls in November. One of the lessons from last year is that, without bipartisan support, it's easy for one party or the other to muck up the issues sufficiently to convince voters to vote "no." Given the uncertainty as to who will control the commission (as currently constituted) in 2010, reaching a bipartisan consensus would be in the interests of both major parties.

Update: I've written this letter to the office of Representative DeWine, recommending amendments to his proposal -- including ones to deal with the two issues identified above. While one might quibble over details, incorporating amendments along these lines would, in my opinion, address any legitimate concerns the Democrats might have. - posted by Dan Tokaji @ 10:32 PM