From my understanding of the text of the amendment, the only cities that can't technically be split are Cincinnati and Cleveland, since the prohibition on splitting cities with more than 100k appears to only apply to counties with a population of more than one CD for some reason. Columbus is the only city with a population greater than a CD, but it looks like it just needs to have a "significant portion" contained within one district (thankfully, because its boundaries are horrendous). Districts sharing the same two counties is only allowed for counties of more than 400k; the only two such counties that border each other are Cuyahoga and Summit. Additionally, none one of the three big counties need to have a CD based wholly within them, but the amendment states that each district must "attempt to include at least one whole county."
Anyway, I made a hypothetical GOP gerrymander with 2018 estimates that follows all of what I outlined above. I tried to be a bit stricter than necessary with the requirements (kept all >100k cities whole, for example). Probably wouldn't happen via the commission, but perhaps something like this could be passed as a 4-year map by majority vote if the redistricting process gets to that stage.
1: R+11
2: R+3
3: D+19
4: R+15
5: R+5
6: R+6
7: R+5
8: R+7
9: R+5
10: R+8
11: D+31
12: R+9
13: R+4
14: R+4
15: R+11
No 2016 numbers in DRA obviously, but the 13 R districts probably all voted for Trump at least somewhat comfortably. They wouldn't all be completely safe, but it seems sturdy enough to be a realistic option for an ambitious GOP legislature.
This wouldn't work for a four year plan (I don't think...?). The restrictions that are put in place if they pass a 4 year map with a simple majority are this -
the plan cannot unduly favor or disfavor a political party or incumbents;
the plan cannot unduly divide counties, townships, or municipal corporations;
legislators must attempt to draw districts that are compact; and
legislators must provide a written justification of how the above three standards were met.
Pretty sure the second section about unduly dividing counties would apply heavily here (along with the third). Of course it's Ohio Republicans so who knows.
Stuff like this attempting to get passed with 4 year maps and simple majorities is why it's so crucial for Democrats to win the OH Supreme Court this year. That would make swatting down gerrymanders like this a breeze, legally speaking.
The problem is that there is no direction given by the amendment to define whether a map is sufficiently compact or non-partisan. So, outside of giving a court more obvious justification to throw out a map, these provisions are largely toothless. The guidelines allow 18 counties to be split once and five to be split twice; on this map, I count 13 counties split once and none split twice (I believe districts wholly within a county aren't counted as splits in the amendment's definition), so it pretty significantly clears the minimum requirements on that measure.
My point is that while the new guidelines will certainly make the maps cleaner, the objective criteria are not particularly restrictive, and the party in power still has plenty of leeway to draw favorable maps without technically violating any rules.
