Redistricting: A look at Ohio congressional map is deceiving
Mike Dewine echoed the talking points. The governor did so as he signed legislation last weekend creating new U.S. House districts across Ohio. He applauded the map for adding competitiveness and keeping communities whole. This was the best of the proposals put forward, he argued.
His words followed the script of those who crafted the districts, fellow Republicans in command of the legislature who expressed pride in their work, one even calling the map “truly historic.” To the eye, the map does look more pleasing than the extreme gerrymandering that has held the past decade.
There's no snake along the lake or tight boundaries racing down Interstate 77 as part of combining Cleveland and Akron, packing African-american voters into one district to the clear and surrounding advantage of Republicans.
At the same time, looks are deceiving in this case, much as a group of distinguished researchers and political scientists warned in their friend-ofthe-court brief filed three years ago in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The brief explained how ever more sophisticated software and data-crunching allow political operatives to camouflage their hyper-partisan map-drawing.
That is the dynamic at work in the new Ohio map. Yet tell-tale indicators still are there, for instance, in that finger of eastern Summit County attached to a fist made from Stark, Wayne, Ashland and part of Holmes County. A portion of Cincinnati tracks narrowly into all of rural Warren County.
Consider, too, the district sweeping west from Lorain County to the border with Indiana.
Finally, there are the partisan leanings of the districts.
In May 2018, Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved a new process for redistricting. They responded, in part, to the immovable results, no matter the political winds, Republicans with a lock on 12 seats, Democrats, four. Republicans captured that three-quarters though they typically won roughly 54 percent of the vote. Thus, voters endorsed more than such things as transparency and compactness.
They embraced language telling lawmakers they “shall not pass a plan that unduly favors or disfavors a political party or its incumbents.”
Does the new map meet the test as Ohio shrinks from 16 House seats to 15 because of its slow population growth?
Six districts lean heavily Republican. Two similarly favor Democrats. That breakdown, notably, mirrors the current 3-to-1 split. Republicans suggest the remaining seven seats are up for grabs. Yet their party carries a distinct edge in nearly all, competitive defined as up to an eight percentagepoint spread. The 13th District, including Akron, divides almost evenly. Experience teaches Republicans easily could grab six of the seven, even sweep the entire board.
That's how Democrats get to their complaints about a 13-2 outcome. What if the result is 12-3? Or somehow 11-4? Or 10-5? Republicans still would control no less than two-thirds of the seats, a markedly higher share than their recent portion of the vote.
Put another way, the map unduly favors Republicans. It is far afield from how Ohioans have voted.
The idea isn't to match the 54-46 divide, delivering a certain 8-7 outcome. Rather, the percentages of the vote are guides, a way to keep mapmakers in touch with the views of voters, allowing for results that reflect the swings in party fortunes.
Such an approach requires the hard work of compromise, both parties at the table hashing out differences, practicing restraint in the larger interest of the state. Too much to expect? It appears so. Republicans unveiled their final map on Monday, Nov. 15. By Thursday, the Senate and House had given their approval, the governor adding his signature on Saturday, Nov. 20.
The rush left insufficient time for analyses and comment, let alone proper public hearings. After the highhandedness in the earlier drawing of state legislative districts, the governor and others indicated a need to do better with congressional redistricting. Republicans hardly tried, though they are positioned to make the overture, holding all the cards with their massive, gerrymander-driven majorities.
The governor's own words convey how his party failed the test. During his run for the office in 2018, he told the Cincinnati Enquirer, “The rules are pretty clear — the voters said that the redistricting process should be done in a bipartisan way, and when I am governor there will be an expectation that the new maps honor voters' wishes.”
So, this process has been dishonorable, inviting critics to mount a challenge in court and perhaps pursue a referendum. Voters wanted bipartisanship to result in a map that would apply for the traditional decade. Instead, Republicans have produced a four-year map, seeing an advantage in something first conceived as a tool to discourage partisan excess. They claim they have approved a competitive and constitutional map. The trouble is, they are hard to believe. They have been so disingenuous in the process.
Michael Douglas is a retired Beacon Journal editorial page editor. He can be reached at mddouglasmm @gmail.com.