Issue 1 Would Legalize Gerrymandering -- Not Prevent It

Maureen O’Connor is peddling a threat to democracy in Ohio.

She wants to seriously weaken your right to decide who represents you in the U.S. Congress and the Ohio Statehouse.

The former Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice wants to give much of that power to a panel of unelected bureaucrats and Democratic cronies.

That panel would determine the boundaries of your state and congressional districts, and that would determine which candidates you can vote for.

O’Connor (a true Republican-In-Name-Only) is the spokesperson for the left’s Issue 1 campaign – a campaign based on the lie that it would prevent gerrymandering in Ohio.

 

It would do just the opposite.

 

The amendment would actually remove all of our constitutional safeguards against gerrymandering – and would require map makers to gerrymander districts.

Why? 

To help Democrats win more elections.

Too brazen to believe?

Let’s check the facts.

     •   Issue 1 is a proposed constitutional amendment on Ohio’s November ballot that would take away the ability of your elected officials to draw district maps.

     •   It would put that power in the hands of an “independent redistricting commission,” according to O’Connor and the front group she represents (the deceptively named “Citizens Not Politicians.”)

    •   Supporters say it will prevent gerrymandering. 

The facts tell a different story.

Issue 1 requires gerrymandering

Democrats were for the current system before they were against it.

In fact, Democrats supported the anti-gerrymandering redistricting reforms in place today so strongly they even campaigned for them.

It was a true bipartisan consensus. 

So, why the sudden flip-flop?

Why is the left suddenly trying to overturn the will of the people?

Because they can no longer win elections in Ohio.

And because Democrats in Washington are desperate to win more seats in Congress.

Their support of Issue 1 has nothing to do with fair maps and everything to do with power politics.  

Democrats have discovered they can’t win elections in Ohio on a fair and level playing field. 

So they are trying to change the rules of the game.

Here’s how we got to a place where Democrats are campaigning against their own reforms:

     •   In 2015, more than 70-percent of voters approved adding Article 11 to the Ohio Constitution, which created the current redistricting commission and the process that produces maps for the General Assembly. 

      •   In 2018, more than 74-percent of voters approved Article 19, which created the process that produces our congressional district maps.

The key is what both amendments have in common:  neutral map drawing requirements. 

The current map-making rules are neutral – they don’t favor one party or the other.

The Ohio Constitution requires maps be drawn with compact and contiguous districts with minimal splits of counties, cities, and townships (as determined by geography and/or population density), while keeping communities of interest as intact as possible.  

Those are the traditional and time-tested safeguards against gerrymandering. 

But they don’t work for Democrats, who can’t bear to blame their state election losses on their unpopular policies or bad candidates. 

So, in desperation, they invented a fictional bogeyman: gerrymandering.

Issue 1 effectively throws out all the safeguards against gerrymandering.

Instead, it enshrines something called “proportionality” as the top priority in drawing district maps, above all other considerations.

Proportionality is a way of drawing maps based on past voting proportions, or percentages.

It is used to draw maps in which one party would be favored to win a certain number of districts – and the other party would win the rest.

It is as close as you can come to guaranteeing a certain amount of wins for each party.

The problem is – that is the definition of gerrymandering.

That is what Issue 1 does – it requires gerrymandering.

How do Democrats get away with pushing a pro-gerrymandering scheme?

They give it another name. They call it “fairness.”  Who could be against “fair maps"?

Here’s the pitch Democrats use to sell their scheme.

It's based on the fact that voting preferences in Ohio have averaged 54-percent for Republican candidates and 46-percent for Democratic candidates over the past decade.

Democrats say it is only fair that they have that same proportion of seats in the General Assembly – something closer to half of the seats in the General Assembly rather than the roughly third in the House and quarter in the Senate they currently hold.

There are a number of problems with that logic – and with using proportionality as the most important criteria in drawing district maps.

Threat to Democracy

First of all, who put the government in charge of deciding who wins elections?

In a democracy, that is the voters’ job.

That’s why our constitution uses neutral criteria and does not make proportionality a mandatory rule.

It is merely aspirational, meaning, if all the neutral criteria are not met first, then proportionality may be considered in drawing maps.

That’s why Article XI, Section 6(B) of the Ohio Constitution states the commission “shall attempt” to achieve proportionality, but only if doing so does not violate non-partisan, neutral, mapmaking criteria.

That means making districts contiguous, generally equal in population, and limiting the splitting of communities or county and municipal boundaries.

O’Connor tried to rewrite the Ohio Constitution from the bench by turning Article XI upside down, during the last few years of her tenure as chief justice.

She tried to invert the law by placing proportionality above the neutral criteria by simply ignoring the word “attempt” in the wording that read “shall attempt.” (She even ordered "symmetry" into the process, which is not found in the constitution.)

That is the backwards reasoning O'Connor used to incorrectly rule seven times that the redistricting commission maps were “unconstitutional.”

But, such a blatant attempt to turn the law upside down and legislate from the bench could not withstand rational scrutiny forever – which is why federal courts ultimately slapped down her rulings.

That’s also why even Democrats on the redistricting commission had little choice but to finally vote with Republicans to unanimously approve our current district maps, which are perfectly constitutional, contrary to the lies still promoted by Citizens Not Politicians.

A second reason proportionality is a bad compass for making maps is it simply doesn’t work.

We know because we tried.

Commission map makers would discover, time and again, that conforming to Democrats’ notion of “representational fairness” by imposing proportionality was impossible without violating the mandatory and politically neutral rules in the constitution.

Democrats are trying to get around that hurdle by changing our constitution.

Issue 1 seeks to turn the Ohio Constitution upside down by making proportionality mandatory and the neutral criteria merely aspirational.

Issue 1 is simply a way for Democrats to gain more wins by changing the rules of the game rather than fielding better candidates and policies.

Thirdly, there's a solid reason proportionality isn't mandated by the Ohio Constitution. The statewide average margin of victory doesn't accurately reflect voter preferences in individual districts. 

If it did, the GOP would deserve a 54-percent to 46-percent advantage in every district.

And if that were the case, Republicans would win every single election in the races for the House and Senate.

Somehow, we don’t think that’s what Democrats want. But that is what would happen under perfect proportionality, if you took it to its logical conclusion.

That further demonstrates how relying heavily on proportionality is, in fact, gerrymandering.

Finally, it is worth repeating something we have pointed out before.

False claims of gerrymandering

The Democrats’ big lie in Ohio is that Republicans hold such large majorities in elected offices because of gerrymandering. The state media has bought that hook, line, and sinker.

It’s not just false. It’s provably false.

Democrats can’t even win a majority on their own turf.

Democrats currently have an advantage in 15 of the 33 Ohio Senate Districts.

However, Republicans won and currently hold 8 of those 15 districts.

If you can't even win most of the districts where you are favored, then gerrymandering is not your problem. Your problem is obviously your policies, your candidates, or both.

GOP senate candidates won in three districts that actually favored Democrats in 2022.

Democrats did not win in any Republican-leaning districts.

Republicans won 12 of the 16 toss-up districts in the House race.

Furthermore, Republicans swept all the statewide elections for office.

The governor was reelected by more than 25 points. That’s a mega-landslide.

The reason for all of this is obvious and undeniable.

Ohio isn’t gerrymandered.

Ohio is simply a solid red state. (Even the national media has recognized this.) The election results proved Democrats are extremely vulnerable even in Democrat-leaning districts. What they are selling just isn’t that popular.

Gerrymandering played no role. The evidence is clear and indisputable. That doesn’t stop Democrats and the most hardcore of the reality-deniers in the Ohio media from continuing to howl the maps were gerrymandered.  

But the numbers and the facts speak louder than their fake news.

The bottom line – Issue 1 is a threat to democracy because it seeks to guarantee a certain amount of wins for each party, regardless of the will of the voters.

And that is the textbook definition of gerrymandering.

No truly fair-minded person would support that.

But, having failed to rewrite the Ohio Constitution from the bench, O’Connor is now trying to do it at the ballot box.

You have to wonder why.

Maybe, someday, some enterprising reporter will ask O’Connor how much Citizens Not Politicians is paying her to be their figurehead.

Garth Kant is Senior Press Secretary of the Ohio Senate Majority Caucus