Ohio high court hears arguments on map
Groups: Districts violate changes OK’D by voters
The reasons why Republican state lawmakers split Hamilton County into three congressional districts could determine whether the Ohio Supreme Court finds their work constitutional.
The court, which heard legal arguments Tuesday on whether the map violated voter-approved changes to curb gerrymandering, questioned both sides about those particular lines.
Attorneys for the groups challenging the map said Republicans could have kept most of Hamilton County together. (The county has about 50,000 more people than a district can hold.) But mapmakers carved it up into three districts – one of which stuck a blue Cincinnati with the much redder Warren County.
“When we see a substantial deviation from compactness ...,” said attorney Robert Fram, who represents the League of Women Voters of Ohio and others. “That’s a tip-off that what we have here is an undue favoring of one political party.”
But Republican Justice Pat Dewine pointed out that President Joe Biden would have carried the Cincinnati district in the 2020 election.
“(Democratic) Sen. Sherrod Brown would have won eight of these districts. That, to me, is very telling,” Republican attorney Phillip Strach said. “If Democrats recruit the right candidates like Sen. Brown, they run on the right issues like Sen. Brown, then they can absolutely win the districts Sen. Brown seems to be carrying.”
Competitiveness vs. proportionality
The words competitive and proportional don’t appear in the Ohio Constitution’s section on redistricting, but they took up a majority of the debate on Tuesday. Republicans contend that their final product delivered what Ohio voters wanted: more competitive districts.
According to Dave’s Redistricting App, a popular redistricting analysis website, six districts fall between 45%
and 55% on a partisan index. Two of those districts — the 9th District that includes Toledo and the 13th District that includes Akron — would be highly competitive.
“They wanted less partisanship in the districts, and that’s absolutely what they got,” Strach said. “The districts are a win for the people of Ohio.”
Therefore, the districts don’t violate Article 19 which explicitly says the congressional map can’t “unduly” favor one political party over another.
But analysis offered by those suing over the map contended that Republicans drew congressional districts in Ohio’s largest cities to benefit the GOP, turning Democratic areas into competitive or Republican-friendly seats. The map, they argued, could give Republicans as much as a 12-3 advantage in a state where Republicans garner about 54% of the votes in statewide elections.
“If Ohio State every year has to spot Michigan a two-touchdown lead, it might make the game more competitive,” attorney Ben Stafford said. “The rules are set up to favor one team over the other, and that’s exactly what they’ve done here with their supposedly competitive districts.”
Better or worse than 2011?
Another issue that came up repeatedly was whether the proposed map was better or worse than the one approved in 2011 when it came to compactness, competitiveness and the splitting of counties.
Nearly 75% of Ohio voters approved changes to limit congressional gerrymandering in 2018, and Stafford argued that they got a worse map.
Yes, fewer counties were split, he said. But the communities Republican mapmakers divided were chosen to give the GOP an advantage in 12 of the 15 seats. Republicans currently hold 12 of Ohio’s 16 seats.
“If the 2018 amendments mean anything, they don’t permit that,” Stafford said.
But those defending the maps said voters didn’t think about proportionality.
They wanted more competitive seats.
“What I think is indisputable here is the General Assembly decided not to unduly favor anyone,” Strach said. “These districts absolutely can flip back and forth in the coming decade.”
Republican Chief Justice Maureen O’connor – who is considered a key, independent voice on the court – asked whether the 2011 map should be considered at all.
“Why use that as your starting point and not scrap everything and start over from scratch ...,” O’connor said. “The people in their vote overruled what had been done up to that point, had they not?”
Those challenging the map agreed, saying even if the court thought the new districts were an improvement over 2011, they could still be unconstitutional.
“The issue is not comparative,” Stafford said. “It’s whether it met the constitution.”
What happens next?
Don’t expect a decision on the map right away. The justices will issue a written ruling at a later date.
If the map is overturned, Ohio lawmakers will be tasked with correcting all or a portion of it. The deadline for congressional candidates to file is March 4.
If the map is upheld, it’ll be in place for four years, instead of a decade, since it lacked Democratic support.
Separately, the court is expected to issue a ruling soon on challenges to the legislative maps that were approved earlier this year.
Jessie Balmert is a reporter for the USA TODAY Network Ohio Bureau, which serves the Akron Beacon Journal, Cincinnati Enquirer, Columbus Dispatch and 18 other affiliated news organizations across Ohio.