Dennis Willard: Democrats stall on redistricting compromise

Dennis J. Willard

February 2, 2010

You can thank Ohio House Democrats for missing a deadline to place a constitutional amendment on the May ballot to reform the undemocratic practice of gerrymandering that undermines the value of a citizen’s vote in this state.

State Rep. Tom Letson, D-Warren, broke out his often-talked about, never-before-seen resolution Monday to change the way the lines are drawn following the U.S. census every 10 years.

Letson said work on the resolution will not be done in time for May, and the goal now is to have a ballot question before voters in November.

For 40 years, the apportionment process has been designed to pack voters into legislative districts to give the majority party the ability to predict the results of elections and shape the makeup of the Ohio House and Senate with stunning accuracy.

So much so that if you’re a Democrat in a district drawn to elect a Republican, or vice versa, then, as they say in New Jersey, fuggetaboutit.

Your vote can be rendered virtually meaningless because the results are preordained for one party or the other.

This is the reason in a state considered 50/50 between the major parties that Democrats controlled more than 60 seats in the Ohio House in the 1980s and Republicans could make a similar boast in the 1990s after securing a majority on the state gerrymandering board following the 1990 elections.

Guilty party

Letson’s plan is to be commended for attempting to address major problems in the system that gives the party that wins two of three statewide offices - governor, secretary of state and auditor - the power to draw the state’s legislative boundaries.

But Democrats must bear the responsibility for dragging their feet and potentially killing the reform.

A resolution to overhaul redistricting already has been introduced by state Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering, and passed by his colleagues in the Ohio Senate.

Republican senators have been waiting for months on the House Democrats, and Husted has repeatedly, including Monday, said he is willing to sit down and work out differences between the two chambers and parties.

The sad part is they are inches apart, not miles, on giving voters an opportunity to help themselves.

The best way to look at the dual resolutions appears to be through the ideas of good-government groups, like the Ohio League of Women Voters, that have been fighting against gerrymandering for decades.

The two plans

Both plans have strengths and weaknesses.

Each would create a competition to draw the best map, allowing any resident in Ohio to submit a plan that an oversight panel would score.

Under Letson’s resolution, the membership of the Ohio Apportionment Board, aka the gerrymandering panel, would remain the same.

Letson said he is more interested in how the maps are drawn instead of focusing on who draws them.

Husted’s proposal is stronger in this sense because he expands the board by two legislative members and, more importantly, requires two votes from the minority party on the panel to approve a reapportionment map.

Some critics are concerned the two parties would get together and horse trade to protect incumbents, and, of course that will occur, but Husted’s proposal ensures a bipartisan agreement for new maps.

The stronger portions of Letson’s resolution would go a long way toward keeping the horse trading to a minimum.

Letson’s uses four criteria - representational fairness, political competitiveness, intact political subdivisions and compactness - to score maps drawn and submitted to the panel by any Ohio resident.

Husted’s plan also relies on scoring for competitiveness and keeping cities and counties together when possible, but critics maintain this would still favor Republicans without taking into consideration representational fairness.

That’s a fuzzy phrase to be sure, but it really is an attempt to draw the districts so that if Ohio is a 50/50 state, the legislature has a similar makeup.

Husted wants the board to be bipartisan by requiring approval votes from the minority party, and his resolution also changes the way U.S. congressional districts are drawn, while Letson’s does not.

Husted said Letson’s plan also relies heavily on a mathematical formula to ensure competitiveness that is complicated and similar to an idea voters rejected in 2005.

Still, with the shortcomings, Husted said he is willing to sit down and work through the differences.

Why no compromise

Letson suggested compromise is possible.

OK, so why isn’t it happening?

At this point, neither party could predict with certainty who will win two of the three races for governor, secretary of state and auditor in November.

On Friday, the candidates for those offices filed their campaign finance reports. Democrat David Pepper has a strong lead over Republican David Yost for state auditor in the money race.

Husted has about $2 million for secretary of state. Democrats announced Monday they were changing candidates and running Franklin County Clerk of Courts Maryellen O’Shaughnessy against him.

Ted Strickland has about $6 million on hand, but his Republican opponent, John Kasich, has more than $4 million in the bank, so Ohio will have a true blue-and-red race for governor this fall.

Letson needs to persuade his colleagues in the Ohio House to move quickly.

The legislature has until August to pass a resolution to make the November ballot, and unfortunately lawmakers rarely act without being backed up against the wall on a deadline.

But the work should be completed within the next month to six weeks because reform will be dead the instant one party or the other believes it will take control of the gerrymandering board with November’s elections.

Dennis J. Willard can be reached at 614-224-1613 or dwillard@thebeaconjournal.com.

Section: Columns
Record Number: badb79587ed95f2c3ac7df8e86bc2e77b8d1544b
Copyright (c) 2010 The Lima News