A better idea - House plan would eliminate gerrymandering of legislative districts

Paper: Columbus Dispatch, The (OH)

Date: May 10, 2006

Five years from now, Ohio might experience something remarkable: legislative districts that aren't stretched and twisted to suit a political party.

In this new world, congressional and state legislative districts, which are redrawn at the start of every decade, would be compact, minimizing the splitting of communities into multiple districts. Wherever possible, consistent with compactness and preserving communities of interest, districts would also be drawn to be competitive.

A plan to construct a better system was unveiled last week by State Rep. Kevin DeWine, R-Fairborn, and it merits support. His proposed constitutional amendment needs three-fifths approval in both houses of the General Assembly to be placed on the November ballot.

That's not to say that lawmakers shouldn't criticize aspects of the bill. Their constructive suggestions should be welcomed. What they should not try to do is shoot down a meaningful improvement before it gets off the ground. After years of one major party or the other reshaping districts for partisan gain, this reform would be groundbreaking.

The measure is solidly researched and carefully crafted and contains the elements needed to ensure bipartisan cooperation. It would create an independent seven-member commission to approve redistricting every 10 years. Both parties would appoint two members, with the remaining three needing unanimous approval of the first four. That's a common-sense method of guaranteeing balance.

The legislative maps would have to be approved by at least five of the seven members, and that supermajority would need at least one yes vote from the three groups: Democratic appointees, Republican appointees and the three remaining members.

Although the formula is intended to emphasize district compactness, competitiveness also will be a factor.

Under the current system, the party in power uses the latest demographic data to try to ensure that it retains a majority of seats. State Issue 4, which voters soundly defeated in November, was intended to end that practice, but it emphasized competition over compactness. Issue 4 opponents were successful in convincing Ohioans that the amendment would create districts even more contorted than the current gerrymandered maze.

Reform Ohio Now, the group that promoted Issue 4, was consulted in the planning of a new system.

Other positives in the measure: meetings of the independent commission would be open to the public; any Ohioan can submit a remapping plan; mid-decade redistricting, such as that done recently in Texas, is disallowed; and the General Assembly would have oversight and funding authority over the commission.

Currently, the State Apportionment Board draws state-legislative boundaries while the General Assembly approves the design of Ohio's 18 congressional districts. The redistricting plan correctly transfers authority for both to the independent commission and requires that, whenever possible, a congressional district be located in one county.

Some Democrats see 2006 as their year and might be reluctant to approve this plan. They'd like to do to Republicans what the GOP did to them after the last Census. That shortsighted view does not serve the public good.

Ohioans have every reason to expect more than that from their elected representatives. Good-government measures should override a desire for partisan advantage.

Lawmakers who try to block this worthwhile effort should have to answer for failing to do what's right for Ohio's voters.

Section: Editorial & Comment

Page: 10A