Let games begin on House redistricting
The Ohio General Assembly is heading home for Christmas, but not before signaling one of its likely 2018 priorities: “Reform” in congressional districting.
True, the legislature’s first and foremost task is getting re-elected, which means slipping specialinterest legislation past voters while ballyhooing motherhood and patriotism. But General Assembly members of both parties are said to now agree it’s high time for Ohio to change how it draws its (currently ridiculous) congressional districts. Today’s districts, in politically closely divided Ohio, send 12 Republicans and just four Democrats as Ohio’s delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives.
The push for reform isn’t a bipartisan, road-toDamascus conversion to civic-mindedness. Gerrymandering (drawing partisan districts) has become a hot issue. The U S. Supreme Court may ban gerrymandering: And regardless of a state legislator’s party or state, she or he would rather have at least some say over congressional districts than let federal judges call the shots, as they periodically did over General Assembly districts (for example, the late U.S. District Judge Frank J. Battisti).
Trouble is, when there’s bipartisan consensus at the Statehouse about something important, that can mean one of two things:
Possibility One: To try to slow the momentum of a voter-initiated reform plan, in this case a redistricting ballot issue proposed by the League of Women Voters of Ohio.
Possibility Two: To keep real power over congressional district lines inside the General Assembly, while seeming not to. The boys’ club (basically, that’s what the legislature still is) likes to decide who’s at the card game.
If the General Assembly did keep a role in redistricting, that isn’t much of a reform. Even limiting the fox to a walk-on part doesn’t make the chicken coop safer. The problem is that to some General Assembly members, the legislature may look like the Little League, and Congress the Big League. One way to get yourself into the Big League is to draw yourself a congressional district, which is easier to do if the legislature retains some say-so over districting.
For reasons that meld the Voting Rights Act with Statehouse horse-trading, the key to fashioning a bipartisan General Assembly redistricting package will be winning sign-offs from the legislature’s black members. (The voter-initiated Fair Districts proposal would require congressional districts drawn under it to protect minority voting rights.) At the moment, it appears that Republicans are aware of, and aim to be considerate of, that angle. Otherwise, black legislators would fight any new districtdrawing procedures that might make it tough for the two black Ohioans in the U.S. House to retain their congressional seats: Democratic U.S. Reps. Marcia Fudge, of Warrensville Heights, and Joyce Beatty, of suburban Columbus.
Black Democrats’ concerns are logical: Not 'till 1968, more than a century after the Civil War, did Ohioans elect a black candidate to Congress, the late U.S. Rep. Louis Stokes, a Greater Cleveland Democrat. And only in 2012 did Beatty win her U.S. House seat, joining Fudge. Considering the history, black members of the legislature won’t jeopardize that representation.
Getting a legislative redistricting reform ( if that’s what it’ll really be) to Ohio’s spring ballot will require fast action; 60 yes votes in the 99-member House and 20 yes votes in the 33-member Senate. Republican have more than enough votes in each chamber to send a redistricting amendment to the ballot. But a package sellable to voters would have to be bipartisan. That could put the General Assembly’s Democrats in the catbird seat – assuming they don’t split racially.
If Democrats stay united, and the General Assembly proposes a redistricting package backed by legislators of both parties, the question will be, who really benefits? The usual Statehouse insiders? Or fed-up Ohioans?