US House Redistricting: Ohio

[jimrtex]

I understand the distinction between Congress and the state legislatures due to specific constitutional language relating to Congress. However, the logic is not clear to me that leads from "chosen ... by the People of the several States" in Art I sect 2 to drawing districts of equal population "as nearly as practicable" in Wesberry v Sanders. Though it seems a stretch, I can at least follow the train of thought in Kirkpatrick v Preisler that goes from the Wesberry language to a standard with "only the limited population variances which are unavoidable despite a good faith effort. to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is shown." In any case Kirkpatrick controls.

A footnote in Justice Harlan's dissent in Wesberry gives the variation in district population for each state at that time.   They might not have given much attention to the phrase "as nearly as practicable" when faced with variations of 4X.  Later, they got stuck with figuring out what they had meant.

Had Wesberry been based on the legislative apportionment logic of equal protection, the Supreme Court might have tumbled upon the realization that 10% variation is not reasonable for congressional-sized districts by now.

In modern terms, "chosen by the People" means "chosen by the CVAP, excluding felons" and districts should therefore have equal electorates without regard to minor and alien populations.  It is quite practicable to combine the census data and ACS data to make a good faith effort at electorate equality.  Political expediency would not serve as justification for not doing this.

There are those entitled to vote, and those entitled to representation.

Minors, and aliens within the nationalization process are, arguably, entitled to representation, while illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, diplomats and their staffs are not.

But the fundamental basis for Wesberry v Sanders is that representatives be chosen (elected) by the People (voters) of the State.  There is no other way to read the Constitution.

It doesn't matter on what basis the apportionment of representatives is.  If representatives were chosen at at-large by some method of proportional representation, you wouldn't get more votes because you had 4 children, or had a family of aliens living next door.  So why should you get more votes based on where you live, simply because district elections are used?

[Stranger in a strange land]

2) Mandate at-large elections with the specific exception of any VRA districts. Let Fudge run in an AA-majority district centered in East Cleveland. The remaining fifteen [almost] at-large districts would be problematic for the Democrats.

That sounds like Singapore. Of course, the reason Singapore uses this system is to strengthen the PAP's monopoly on power. Not only would it be flagrantly illegal in the U.S., plus voters tend to take a dim view of these types of shenanigans.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't think that'd be legal even when At-large seats existed. They existed and operated the same way some city councils and county commissions still do, the entire state was divided into districts with some additional at-large seats. For example Ohio could theoretically be divided into say 13 districts with three at-large seats if that was still legal. But having one seat for one specific part of the state and everything else a set of giant at-large districts is the type of thing just so egregious it'd never fly in court even if the law wasn't specifically prohibiting it (and note that OH-11 is not mandated by the VRA.)

I should also note that people like Jean Schmidt and Jim Jordan would obviously not survive, and Boehner and would never be willing to take that risk. Obama still won Ohio outside of the current OH-11 by over a point.

[BigSkyBob]

I understand the distinction between Congress and the state legislatures due to specific constitutional language relating to Congress. However, the logic is not clear to me that leads from "chosen ... by the People of the several States" in Art I sect 2 to drawing districts of equal population "as nearly as practicable" in Wesberry v Sanders. Though it seems a stretch, I can at least follow the train of thought in Kirkpatrick v Preisler that goes from the Wesberry language to a standard with "only the limited population variances which are unavoidable despite a good faith effort. to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is shown." In any case Kirkpatrick controls.

A footnote in Justice Harlan's dissent in Wesberry gives the variation in district population for each state at that time.   They might not have given much attention to the phrase "as nearly as practicable" when faced with variations of 4X.  Later, they got stuck with figuring out what they had meant.

Had Wesberry been based on the legislative apportionment logic of equal protection, the Supreme Court might have tumbled upon the realization that 10% variation is not reasonable for congressional-sized districts by now.

In modern terms, "chosen by the People" means "chosen by the CVAP, excluding felons" and districts should therefore have equal electorates without regard to minor and alien populations.  It is quite practicable to combine the census data and ACS data to make a good faith effort at electorate equality.  Political expediency would not serve as justification for not doing this.

There are those entitled to vote, and those entitled to representation.

Minors, and aliens within the nationalization process are, arguably, entitled to representation, while illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, diplomats and their staffs are not.

But the fundamental basis for Wesberry v Sanders is that representatives be chosen (elected) by the People (voters) of the State.  There is no other way to read the Constitution.

It doesn't matter on what basis the apportionment of representatives is.  If representatives were chosen at at-large by some method of proportional representation, you wouldn't get more votes because you had 4 children, or had a family of aliens living next door.  So why should you get more votes based on where you live, simply because district elections are used?

Well, if you live in Minnesota, as opposed to the South, your district will probably have much higher turnout. Does that mean that you, effectively, have a smaller vote than folks elsewhere? Certainly! Is that unfair in any way? No. Even equally sized electorates  [same number of adult, citizen, non-felons] are going to have unequal numbers of voters. Your logic seems to suggest that you are committed to granting Minnesota more seats than other states with the same CVAP.[In regards to the VRA, the CVAP-Majority standard should be modified to citizen-and-those-that reasonably-could-have-been-citizens-but-chose-otherwise-majority. The government shouldn't be the business of rebalancing electorates to ameliorate voter apathy or indifference towards taking citizenship.]

The folks that don't vote are still entitled to representation. They still have the right to call their Congressman for assistance. Why shouldn't an equal number of claimants on a Representative's time have an equal claim to a representative? The children of the adults, including the felons, in a district, too, have the right to call their Congressman for assistance...

I agree that illegal aliens, foreign students, tourists, diplomats and their staffs, etc., aren't entitled to representation, and, thus, shouldn't be counted when apportioning districts.

[BigSkyBob]

2) Mandate at-large elections with the specific exception of any VRA districts. Let Fudge run in an AA-majority district centered in East Cleveland. The remaining fifteen [almost] at-large districts would be problematic for the Democrats.

That sounds like Singapore.

Also, sounds like New Hampshire.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, in New Hampshire the same system is used to keep from splitting whole towns. Guilt by association isn't going to advance your position very well.

Apparently, the folks in the US don't take that dim a view of such a system given that variably-sized multi-member districting were used in North Carolina and Virginia up to recent times. Apparently, they still exist in West Virginia [SD? VT?]. Why isn't it "blatantly illegal" in West Virginia? There, real "shenanigans" are being legislated.

[jimrtex]

In modern terms, "chosen by the People" means "chosen by the CVAP, excluding felons" and districts should therefore have equal electorates without regard to minor and alien populations.  It is quite practicable to combine the census data and ACS data to make a good faith effort at electorate equality.  Political expediency would not serve as justification for not doing this.

There are those entitled to vote, and those entitled to representation.

Minors, and aliens within the nationalization process are, arguably, entitled to representation, while illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, diplomats and their staffs are not.

But the fundamental basis for Wesberry v Sanders is that representatives be chosen (elected) by the People (voters) of the State.  There is no other way to read the Constitution.

It doesn't matter on what basis the apportionment of representatives is.  If representatives were chosen at at-large by some method of proportional representation, you wouldn't get more votes because you had 4 children, or had a family of aliens living next door.  So why should you get more votes based on where you live, simply because district elections are used?

Well, if you live in Minnesota, as opposed to the South, your district will probably have much higher turnout. Does that mean that you, effectively, have a smaller vote than folks elsewhere? Certainly! Is that unfair in any way? No. Even equally sized electorates  [same number of adult, citizen, non-felons] are going to have unequal numbers of voters. Your logic seems to suggest that you are committed to granting Minnesota more seats than other states with the same CVAP.[In regards to the VRA, the CVAP-Majority standard should be modified to citizen-and-those-that reasonably-could-have-been-citizens-but-chose-otherwise-majority. The government shouldn't be the business of rebalancing electorates to ameliorate voter apathy or indifference towards taking citizenship.]

The folks that don't vote are still entitled to representation. They still have the right to call their Congressman for assistance. Why shouldn't an equal number of claimants on a Representative's time have an equal claim to a representative? The children of the adults, including the felons, in a district, too, have the right to call their Congressman for assistance...

I agree that illegal aliens, foreign students, tourists, diplomats and their staffs, etc., aren't entitled to representation, and, thus, shouldn't be counted when apportioning districts.

Comparisons between States are irrelevant for this discussion, since the Constitution directs that representatives be chosen by the People of each individual State, and that the representatives be apportioned on the basis of the number of persons in the respective States.  Are aliens non-persons?

Representatives are apportioned to individual States, and representatives are only required to be inhabitants of the State, not of any vicinity.  Representatives are representatives of the State, even when they are chosen by different groups of voters within the State, whether the voters are classified based on residence or in some other manner.

Prior to the abolition of slavery, slaves were not represented, nor did they participate in the choosing of representatives, but their numbers did form part of the basis of the apportionment of representatives among the States.

So the apportionment of representatives and choosing of representatives are distinct.

A citizen over the age of 18 is qualified to vote for members of the larger house of their legislature, regardless whether they are "registered" or not.  Pre-registration is a relatively modern concept, and not all States have voter registration.  By your logic, someone who is not registered is disqualified from voting.  But if that were true, then their right to vote would be abridged, and the number of representatives for the State should be reduced.

So all citizens over the age of 18, with the possible exception of disenfranchised felons, form the "People who choose", and any non-voters as abstaining from the choice, rather not being choosers.  If each representative is chosen by a group of choosers, then the choosers should be equal in number.

You don't have to be a voter or a constituent to call a representative or write a letter.  It up to each representative how they respond.  They have no legal obligation to do so.  If a representative has no legal obligation to respond, your "right" to contact the representative is no more meaningful than your right to accost another person in a public place with your political views.

[jimrtex]

Branch v Smith allows for 'at large' elections when an election is so imminent that districts cannot be reasonably drawn without disrupting the process.

If I understand the decision,

Stevens, Souter, and Breyer said no way.

O'Connor and Thomas said that should be the first resort by a federal court.

And Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Ginsburg said that it was true in such never achievable circumstances that even Kennedy and Ginsburg could sign on.

[BigSkyBob]

In modern terms, "chosen by the People" means "chosen by the CVAP, excluding felons" and districts should therefore have equal electorates without regard to minor and alien populations.  It is quite practicable to combine the census data and ACS data to make a good faith effort at electorate equality.  Political expediency would not serve as justification for not doing this.

There are those entitled to vote, and those entitled to representation.

Minors, and aliens within the nationalization process are, arguably, entitled to representation, while illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, diplomats and their staffs are not.

But the fundamental basis for Wesberry v Sanders is that representatives be chosen (elected) by the People (voters) of the State.  There is no other way to read the Constitution.

It doesn't matter on what basis the apportionment of representatives is.  If representatives were chosen at at-large by some method of proportional representation, you wouldn't get more votes because you had 4 children, or had a family of aliens living next door.  So why should you get more votes based on where you live, simply because district elections are used?

Well, if you live in Minnesota, as opposed to the South, your district will probably have much higher turnout. Does that mean that you, effectively, have a smaller vote than folks elsewhere? Certainly! Is that unfair in any way? No. Even equally sized electorates  [same number of adult, citizen, non-felons] are going to have unequal numbers of voters. Your logic seems to suggest that you are committed to granting Minnesota more seats than other states with the same CVAP.[In regards to the VRA, the CVAP-Majority standard should be modified to citizen-and-those-that reasonably-could-have-been-citizens-but-chose-otherwise-majority. The government shouldn't be the business of rebalancing electorates to ameliorate voter apathy or indifference towards taking citizenship.]

The folks that don't vote are still entitled to representation. They still have the right to call their Congressman for assistance. Why shouldn't an equal number of claimants on a Representative's time have an equal claim to a representative? The children of the adults, including the felons, in a district, too, have the right to call their Congressman for assistance...

I agree that illegal aliens, foreign students, tourists, diplomats and their staffs, etc., aren't entitled to representation, and, thus, shouldn't be counted when apportioning districts.

Comparisons between States are irrelevant for this discussion, since the Constitution directs that representatives be chosen by the People of each individual State, and that the representatives be apportioned on the basis of the number of persons in the respective States.  Are aliens non-persons?

Technically correct. I'll amend my response to your statement of,


"In modern terms, "chosen by the People" means "chosen by the CVAP, excluding felons" and districts should therefore have equal electorates without regard to minor and alien populations.  It is quite practicable to combine the census data and ACS data to make a good faith effort at electorate equality."


as, more or less, committing you to supporting a Constitutional amendment to alter the distribution formula of Congressional seats so that each Congressional district has an equal number of voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Subject to the amendment process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait, I'm taking your position about an equal number of electors to its logical conclusion that that means an equal number of voters, be it the result of failure to take citizenship, failure to register, or failure to vote. Absent such a target, the system will grant a smaller share of the electorate to a voter in Minnesota than South Carolina. Either such inequalities are compelling, or they aren't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[jimrtex]

"In modern terms, "chosen by the People" means "chosen by the CVAP, excluding felons" and districts should therefore have equal electorates without regard to minor and alien populations.  It is quite practicable to combine the census data and ACS data to make a good faith effort at electorate equality."

as, more or less, committing you to supporting a Constitutional amendment to alter the distribution formula of Congressional seats so that each Congressional district has an equal number of voters.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires that representatives be elected from congressional districts.   Why would I favor putting such a restriction in the Constitution?

The apportionment language is in the Constitution.  When the 14th Amendment was passed, there was consideration to changing the basis of apportionment to male voters over the age of 21.  I'm not sure that you could get such an amendment passed, so we are stuck with it.  "Whole number of persons in a state" has some ambiguity, but it has always been interpreted as residents, regardless with there is a right to such residence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait, I'm taking your position about an equal number of electors to its logical conclusion that that means an equal number of voters, be it the result of failure to take citizenship, failure to register, or failure to vote. Absent such a target, the system will grant a smaller share of the electorate to a voter in Minnesota than South Carolina. Either such inequalities are compelling, or they aren't.

If one is not a citizen, they are not a citizen.  It doesn't matter whether it is because they are not qualified to become a citizen, or have failed to become a citizen, or have made no effort to become a citizen.   If non-citizens are not eligible to vote for the larger house of the legislature, they are not voters for US Representatives.

A citizen over the age of 18 is a voter, regardless of whether they always vote, have sometimes voted, or never have voted.  They could vote in November 2012 (assuming they haven't died, renounced their citizenship, or become convicted of a felony).

[BigSkyBob]

"In modern terms, "chosen by the People" means "chosen by the CVAP, excluding felons" and districts should therefore have equal electorates without regard to minor and alien populations.  It is quite practicable to combine the census data and ACS data to make a good faith effort at electorate equality."

as, more or less, committing you to supporting a Constitutional amendment to alter the distribution formula of Congressional seats so that each Congressional district has an equal number of voters.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires that representatives be elected from congressional districts.   Why would I favor putting such a restriction in the Constitution?

The point I raised is that the position you stated consistently leads to conclusion that it would be a more perfect union if each state where granted House seats based on the number of actual voters in those states.  [In modern terms, "chosen by the People" means "chosen by the CVAP, excluding felons" and districts should therefore have equal electorates without regard to minor and alien populations.  It is quite practicable to combine the census data and ACS data to make a good faith effort at electorate equality.]

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait, I'm taking your position about an equal number of electors to its logical conclusion that that means an equal number of voters, be it the result of failure to take citizenship, failure to register, or failure to vote. Absent such a target, the system will grant a smaller share of the electorate to a voter in Minnesota than South Carolina. Either such inequalities are compelling, or they aren't.
[/quote]
If one is not a citizen, they are not a citizen.  It doesn't matter whether it is because they are not qualified to become a citizen, or have failed to become a citizen, or have made no effort to become a citizen.   If non-citizens are not eligible to vote for the larger house of the legislature, they are not voters for US Representatives.[/quote]

Equivocating on the meaning of "eligible," are folks qualified to receive citizenship conditional on applying for it, and following all the appropriate steps as "eligible" to vote as a citizen whom fails to register?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't it be fairer to strive for equality in the number of actual voters as opposed to eligible voters so as to give each actual vote as equal of a weighting as possible?

[jimrtex]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The point I raised is that the position you stated consistently leads to conclusion that it would be a more perfect union if each state where granted House seats based on the number of actual voters in those states.  [In modern terms, "chosen by the People" means "chosen by the CVAP, excluding felons" and districts should therefore have equal electorates without regard to minor and alien populations.  It is quite practicable to combine the census data and ACS data to make a good faith effort at electorate equality.]

You articulated the point in terms of congressional districts.  You are equating the number of representatives to the number of districts - but that implies the choosing is done by districts.  It needn't be.

If you didn't mean districts, you shouldn't have used the term.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait, I'm taking your position about an equal number of electors to its logical conclusion that that means an equal number of voters, be it the result of failure to take citizenship, failure to register, or failure to vote. Absent such a target, the system will grant a smaller share of the electorate to a voter in Minnesota than South Carolina. Either such inequalities are compelling, or they aren't.

If one is not a citizen, they are not a citizen.  It doesn't matter whether it is because they are not qualified to become a citizen, or have failed to become a citizen, or have made no effort to become a citizen.   If non-citizens are not eligible to vote for the larger house of the legislature, they are not voters for US Representatives.[/quote]

Equivocating on the meaning of "eligible," are folks qualified to receive citizenship conditional on applying for it, and following all the appropriate steps as "eligible" to vote as a citizen whom fails to register?
[/quote]
I think you mean to say that you are "confabulating" rather than "equivocating".

North Dakota does not have voter registration.   A North Dakota citizen simply shows up at the polls and votes.   Many States permit voters to register on election day at the polling place.  All States permit voters to register a very short time before an election.

Naturalization is a much longer and more complicated process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't it be fairer to strive for equality in the number of actual voters as opposed to eligible voters so as to give each actual vote as equal of a weighting as possible?

Before passage of the 19th amendment, many States permitted women to vote.  They might have had twice as many actual voters as other States with similar population.  Compare the actual number of voters in the 1892 and 1896 elections.  Would you have apportioned more representatives to such States?

Louisiana elects its legislature in odd-numbered years (and only every fourth year).   Since they have no actual voters for the legislature in years when Congress is elected, why should they be entitled to any congressmen?  Or since they only actually vote every 4 years, should they get have as many representatives as a State where they actually voted every 2 years.  Should the number of actual voters include those who vote in the primary, primary runoff, and the general election 3 times, if they actually did vote in those actual elections?  What if I went to the polls and voted a straight ticket, but there was no candidate from that party in my legislative district, and I skipped that race.  Did I actually vote?

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The point I raised is that the position you stated consistently leads to conclusion that it would be a more perfect union if each state where granted House seats based on the number of actual voters in those states.  [In modern terms, "chosen by the People" means "chosen by the CVAP, excluding felons" and districts should therefore have equal electorates without regard to minor and alien populations.  It is quite practicable to combine the census data and ACS data to make a good faith effort at electorate equality.]

You articulated the point in terms of congressional districts.  You are equating the number of representatives to the number of districts - but that implies the choosing is done by districts.  It needn't be.

If you didn't mean districts, you shouldn't have used the term.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait, I'm taking your position about an equal number of electors to its logical conclusion that that means an equal number of voters, be it the result of failure to take citizenship, failure to register, or failure to vote. Absent such a target, the system will grant a smaller share of the electorate to a voter in Minnesota than South Carolina. Either such inequalities are compelling, or they aren't.

If one is not a citizen, they are not a citizen.  It doesn't matter whether it is because they are not qualified to become a citizen, or have failed to become a citizen, or have made no effort to become a citizen.   If non-citizens are not eligible to vote for the larger house of the legislature, they are not voters for US Representatives.

Equivocating on the meaning of "eligible," are folks qualified to receive citizenship conditional on applying for it, and following all the appropriate steps as "eligible" to vote as a citizen whom fails to register?
[/quote]
I think you mean to say that you are "confabulating" rather than "equivocating".

North Dakota does not have voter registration.   A North Dakota citizen simply shows up at the polls and votes.   Many States permit voters to register on election day at the polling place.  All States permit voters to register a very short time before an election.

Naturalization is a much longer and more complicated process. [/quote]

Whether people voluntarily forfeit their right to vote due to inaction two years ago, 90 days ago, or on election day, the principle is the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't it be fairer to strive for equality in the number of actual voters as opposed to eligible voters so as to give each actual vote as equal of a weighting as possible?
[/quote]

Before passage of the 19th amendment, many States permitted women to vote.  They might have had twice as many actual voters as other States with similar population.  Compare the actual number of voters in the 1892 and 1896 elections.  Would you have apportioned more representatives to such States?[/quote]

Again, I would have apportioned according to number of people in the district entitled to representation [all citizens regardless of age or criminal record, and, arguably, aliens within the naturalization process]. You are the one whom suggested that districts should have an equal number of adult citizen non-felons. I have merely suggested that the consistent application of your principle to the apportionment of Congress seats to the various states would
assign districts to the state based on their actual number of voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't doubt their are problems with apportionment based on the number of voters. But, that is where the logic of claiming some voter's votes are weighted differently than others  leads.

[jimrtex]

I think you mean to say that you are "confabulating" rather than "equivocating".

North Dakota does not have voter registration.   A North Dakota citizen simply shows up at the polls and votes.   Many States permit voters to register on election day at the polling place.  All States permit voters to register a very short time before an election.

Naturalization is a much longer and more complicated process.

Whether people voluntarily forfeit their right to vote due to inaction two years ago, 90 days ago, or on election day, the principle is the same.

The right to vote can not be voluntarily forfeited.  It continues to exist whether one exercises it in every race that one may vote in.

I don't doubt their are problems with apportionment based on the number of voters. But, that is where the logic of claiming some voter's votes are weighted differently than others  leads.

There is no problem with apportionment on the basis of number of voters.

You are only having problems because you are inventing problems.

[jimrtex]

This is my map:

https://districtbuilder.drawthelineohio.org/districtmapping/plan/1585/view/



The darker colors are the areas retained from existing districts, the light color areas that are added.   I messed up the district numbering in the Northeast.  I merged OH-4 and OH-5, and OH-10 and OH-11.  It was my intent to retain the lower numbers (OH-4 and OH-10) for the merged districts and reassign OH-5 and OH-11 to OH-17 and OH-18.  So the northeastern district would continue to be OH-14, while the Youngstown-Akron district was renamed to OH-11.  OH-5 under the new map is the successor to OH-18 shifted westward with its southern tail cut off.

The basic goal was to retain as much of the current district cores as possible while eliminating two districts.  Secondary goals were to reduce county splits, particularly in rural areas, reduce city splits, and to some extent retain incumbents.  The new plan eliminates the existing splits of Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Akron.  Under the new plan, the the only city that has significant splits is Columbus.

OH-10 and OH-11, the Cleveland districts, have a population equivalent to about 0.83 and 0.75 of the target population.  If they are merged then the excess of 0.58 can be distributed to surrounding districts.  If OH-11 were eliminated, then a population equivalent to 0.75 districts would need to be distributed.  This would also cause the substantial Black population in eastern Cleveland and adjoining suburbs to be split among several districts. 

As it turns out, the merger of OH-10 and OH-11 turned out to be more like the elimination of OH-10 and its absorption into OH-11 and OH-13 (the merged district was given the number OH-10 because that is the lower number, and OH-10 contributed more to the original merger.  The existing OH-11 has a 58% BVAP, while OH-10 has an 8% BVAP.  A merger of equal parts could drop the combined area to 33% (it would be somewhat higher because the areas in Cleveland that would be combined have a higher BVAP.  But there would still be VRA concerns about such a drastic drop in the BVAP.  The final merged district has a 48% BVAP. 

It is unlikely that a court would impose an extension to Akron to produce a majority BVAP.  This would not be preserving the core of an existing district, and it is a stretch to get to Akron.  The modification proposed by one of the contest winners, would just barely reach 50%, and the BVAP percentage actually decreased by including the area in Akron - which did not have a majority BVAP.  Overall, a majority was achieved by excluding 15% and 20% BVAP areas in west Cleveland and replacing them with 40% BVAP areas in Akron.

I drew an extreme map by linking Cleveland and Akron via the median of I-271 and I-77 (the median forms a continuous string of census blocks) and took the 3 Akron wards with a majority BVAP.  This produces a 51.6% BVAP.  Such an extreme district can hardly be considered compact.

The 7 current northeastern districts, OH-9, -10, -11, -13, -14, -16, and -17 have a population equivalent to 6 ideal 2010 districts.  So the excess population from the merger of OH-10 and OH-11 can be used to shore up the remaining 5 districts.  The other district loss must come from the 11 remaining districts in the state.

It might make sense to merge districts in the center of the state, with other districts sliding inward.  But the 3 Columbus-area districts are the 3 most populous in Ohio, and are collectively short about 40,000 people from that needed for 3 2010 districts.  If you were to merge two of the districts, you could split the other district in two and add the portions removed from the the other two districts.  You would simply be rearranging the districts, and not preserving their cores.

So in fact, you need to reduce the 8 districts that form a large doughnut around Columbus to 7 districts.  The least populous districts are OH-1 in the Cincinnati area, and OH-6 along the Ohio River, but it is really difficult to eliminate a district in the corner or along edge of a state.  There are fewer districts that can expand into the void, so you end up with a chain of districts being slid, and much larger number of persons assigned to new districts (and any many cases, the end result is much closer to a renumbering than a realignment).

The two adjacent districts with the least combined population are OH-4 and OH-5 in the northwest portion of the state.  Combined, they have an excess population of 520,000 which will need to transferred to other districts, but this is less than would be needed for any other pair of districts.  Moreover, there are 7 adjoining districts which can absorb the excess population.

As with OH-10 and OH-11, this was ended up more as the elimination of OH-4 than a merger of equals.  Other than OH-9 to the north, most of the other districts were primarily adjacent to the old OH-4 rather than OH-5 in the northwestern corner of the state.  The combined district is numbered as OH-4, because the existing population of OH-4 is slightly larger than OH-5, and 4 is the lower number.  The new OH-5 is not the successor to either district, but simply a renumbered OH-18, and the practice of using lower numbered districts in the southern part of the state.  OH-17 was renumbered as OH-11 since it was further north.

After merging OH-4 and OH-5 and OH-10 and OH-11, the next step was to eliminate county splits in more areas where assigning all of a county to the district with the largest share of the population would not cause major population disruptions.  Since these counties are largely in less populated areas, district boundaries were likely to be shifted multiple counties.  Any counting splitting to balance population more finely could be done at the end.

The following counties were merged Belmont (OH-6), Athens (OH-6), Scioto (OH-2), Ross (OH-18), Mercer (OH-8), Wyandot (OH-4/5), Ashland (OH-16), and Lucas (OH-9).  Initially, I removed the splits of Portage (OH-17) and Trumbull (OH-17) but later added them back in since it enabled a better split of Summit.  Perry was shifted to OH-18 after the placement of all of Athens into OH-6 cut off contiguity to the southern tail of OH-18.

At this point, splits of Mahoning, Summit, Cuyahoga, Medina, Licking, Franklin, Montgomery, Butler, Warren, and Hamilton remained in place.  The splits of Montgomery and Licking were eliminated as part of the overall population balancing process, while most of the other splits underwent significant adjustment.

[jimrtex]

The next step was to adjust the districts surrounding the merged districts.  While OH-10 and OH-11 were far below the ideal population, their merged population had an excess of 419 thousand to be distributed to other districts to get their population up to the ideal.

OH-10 and OH-11 have only two neighbors, OH-13 with a deficit of 72 thousand, and OH-14 with a deficit of 73 thousand.   So these districts after taking in 419 thousand new constituents would have to distribute 274 thousand of their constituents to other districts further south and possibly west.  The next tier of districts, OH-9, OH-16, and OH-17, have deficits of 102, 76, and 121 thousand, enough to absorb the remaining excess.  But OH-9, which stretches from Toledo along Lake Erie to just west of the cities of Lorain and Elyria, is an immediate neighbor of the merged OH-4 and OH-5, and will be used to absorb the excess from that merger.  So the remaining 77 thousand excess from the OH-10 and OH-11 merger will be distributed further south to OH-6 and OH-18.

As OH-14 moves further west into the Cleveland suburbs, it begins encountering areas with significant Black populations, so it instead wraps around the southeastern suburbs and into southern Cuyahoga  County.  This is sufficient to eliminate its deficit.  But not to eat away at OH-10+11 combined excess.  And even if it could take in additional population, it has nowhere to distribute it.  OH-17 had already been extended northward to include all of Portage and Trumbull counties.

This means that most of the excess from OH-10+11 must be take in by OH-13 which will shift significantly northward and eastward.  The population distribution of the current OH-13 is somewhat like a lopsided dumbbell.  38% of the population is in Summit County, 31% in Lorain County, 21% in a linking strip of Cleveland suburbs in Cuyahoga (13%) and Medina (8%) counties, and a 10% deficit.  Some of the areas in Summit County, such as Richfield, are Cleveland suburbs, rather than part of the Akron area.  If the 10% deficit is made up from Cuyahoga, then around 2/3 of the district could be considered to be Cleveland suburbs, vs. around 1/3 more tied to Akron.  So though the current representative, Betty Sutton is from an Akron suburb, this is a secondary core of the district.  There is no logical way to preserve this area, when OH-13 must undergo substantial change.  In the proposed implementation, the boundary is moved north and east about one tier of townships into the inner west Cleveland suburbs, with a bit more to include Lakewood.

Akron is currently split 60-40 between OH-13 and OH-17.  Ordinarily, when unifying an area, the preference would be to do so in the district with a greater population.  But with OH-13 moving northward, merging all of Akron in OH-17 is preferred.  The district switches from being a Youngstown-part of Akron district to being a Youngstown-Akron district.

The remaining portion of OH-13 in Summit County was shifted to OH-16, which currently stretches from Stark County (Canton) to Medina County, skirting Summit County.  As part of a final population adjustment, OH-18 (renamed OH-5) took in some areas of OH-16, including parts of Ashland and Wayne counties.

The original configuration of OH-17 in Summit County had somewhat of a keyhole appearance narrow to the east and then expanding to encompass Akron.  This was alleviated by moving suburbs such as Cuyahoga Falls and Stow to OH-17, and shifting the more rural areas of Portage and Trumbull counties back to OH-14.

And finally OH-17 was renamed OH-11.

[jimrtex]

Collectively, OH-4 and OH-5 have an excess of 540 thousand to be distributed.  They have 7 neighbors, OH-9 to the north (deficit of 102 thousand), OH-6 to the southwest (57 thousand), OH-7, OH-12, and OH-15 to the south and southeast in the Columbus area (42 thousand collectively), and OH-18 to the east (68 thousand).  OH-16 is also to the east, but it will be shifting north into the Akron area.

This leaves a surplus of 271 thousand that will have to be shifted further south to OH-1 and OH-2 in the Cincinnati area (deficits of 122 thousand and 47 thousand, respectively), OH-3 in the Dayton area  (80 thousand) and OH-6 along the Ohio River (97 thousand).  The collective deficit of these districts is 346 thousand.  The difference between this and the 271 thousand, above will be supplied from northeastern Ohio, primarily OH-16.

OH-9 was widened a bit by transferring Huron County and part of Sandusky County, plus the small remaining part of Lucas County.  An effort was made to work from the northeast to avoid directly eating into the core area of the merged OH-4+5.

OH-8 was extended northward to include the remainder of Mercer, along with Auglaize, Shelby, and Logan counties.  OH-3 in turn took in the remainder of Montgomery County, including the whole of Dayton from OH-8, eliminating the deficit for both OH-3 and OH-8.

OH-1 could have been extended northward to eliminate its deficit, but this was not done for three reasons: (1) it would have pushed into the core area of OH-8, since Butler County represents 48% of that district; (2) it would have paired the current Speaker of the House John Boehner with another incumbent.   While there should not be an expectation of incumbency protection, a court should be careful about arbitrarily or carelessly eliminating that opportunity; and (3) it is better to continue to incorporate additional areas in Hamilton County in OH-1, including the whole of Cincinnati, which has been the traditional expansion since 1972, when both OH-1 and OH-2 were contained in Hamilton County.

Transferring the OH-1 deficit of 122 thousand to OH-2 will force that district to expand northward and eastward in southern Ohio.

Returning to absorbing the excess from OH-4 and OH-5, Champaign County was shifted to OH-7.  That single transfer balances the deficits for the 3 Columbus area districts oh OH-7, OH-12, and OH-15 though some internal adjustments would still be needed.  It also removes Jim Jordan from the district he represents.   Champaign County is on the edge of OH-4, which is being merged with OH-5, and had not been a part of the district until 2002.  Avoiding elimination of some incumbents and their districts is unavoidable.

The remaining excess from OH-4/5 is transferred to OH-18, including Richland, Marion, Morrow and the northern portion of Ashland counties (the southern portion of Ashland County was transferred to OH-18 from OH-16 as part of the outflow of the excess from the merged OH-10/11.  The transfer from OH-4/5 was 239 thousand, substantially more than the OH-18 deficit of 68 thousand, so much of this must be transferred onward to OH-2 (including that from OH-1) and to OH-6.

Historically, OH-18 was a district in eastern Ohio along the Ohio River and counties to the west, while OH-6 was a district in southern Ohio along the Ohio River and counties to the south.  The 2002 redistricting rotated the two districts, so that OH-6 was along the river, and OH-18 was inland, with a southern tail added.  The distribution of this southern tail will return OH-18 to more of its historical territory, albeit continuing its westward drift.

Morgan, Hocking, Vinton, and Jackson are transferred to OH-6, thickening that district and returning it some of its historical territory in southern Ohio, but OH-6 remains much closer to its 2002 configuration vs. its earlier extent.

[jimrtex]

With OH-6 extending westward in southern Ohio, OH-2 is forced northward in southern Ohio.This area was split among a number of districts in 2002 when OH-6 was shifted east. OH-2 gains Highland and Clinton from OH-3, in exchange for parts of Warren County.  This makes OH-3 a compact district consisting of Montgomery and much of Warren County.

Ross County was transferred from OH-18 and OH-7, with the major portion including Chillicothe coming from OH-18.  

OH-2 needed some more population, so Fayette and a portion of Pickaway counties was transferred from OH-7.  This disconnected the western portion of OH-7 (Greene, Clark, and Champaign) from its eastern portion (Southeast Franklin and Fairfield counties).  So Madison County was shifted from OH-15 to OH-7.  This in turn separated Union County from the Franklin County portion of OH-15, so OH-15 was also shifted to OH-7.  The addition of Madison and Union counties made up for the loss of areas to the south, and for better or worse, allowed the boundary of OH-7 in southeastern Franklin County to remain unchanged. Historically, OH-7 has drifted over the decades as it was the district that could be described as being between Dayton and Columbus, and retains this general configuration.  Madison County has been historically a part of OH-15, but as Columbus has grown, has become more of an appendage to OH-15 rather than a core part.

The transfer of Madison and Union from OH-15 to OH-7 meant that OH-12 and OH-15, which based on the 2002 boundaries had the right population for 2012 districts, had to be adjusted. The eastern part of Licking County plus Putnam County were moved from OH-18 to OH-12, and in turn a portion of central Columbus was transferred from OH-12 to to OH-15 which is now entirely within Franklin County.

The final major change was to shift a portion of Wayne County from OH-16 to OH-18 to complete the southward dispersion of the OH-10/11 excess.  Roughly 1/3 of the population of Wayne County was shifted, and the boundary is somewhat irregular to avoid splitting the city of Wooster.

There were some final tweaks made for reasons of population equality.

District boundaries in Mahoning, Lorain, Medina, Cuyahoga, Butler, Portage, Hamilton, Warren, and Fairfield were modified.  These introduced an additional county split to Portage County as Suffield Township was added to OH-16, and a split to Fairfield County was added as a portion of Reynoldsburg was united with OH-12.

Some cities and townships were divided for reasons of population equality.  An attempt was made to conform to precinct boundaries, so that if the plan were adopted on an interim basis it would simplify election administration.

A small portion of the northeastern Hamilton city (1734 persons) was moved from OH-8 to OH-1.  This also helped with some irregular boundaries.

The middle fragment of Sycamore Township in Hamilton County was split 8651 and 4697 between OH-1 and OH-2.

One precinct in Parma (1053) moved to OH-10.

A small part of Seven Hills (Cuyahoga) (2533) moved to OH-14.

The portion of Reynoldsburg in Fairfield County (914).  A small area of Violet Township was also included to deal with irregular boundaries.

One precinct in Liverpool Township (Medina) (941) moved to OH-16.  All of York Township was placed in OH-16.

Largely unpopulated areas of Akron (1 person) were placed in OH-16 to avoid irregular boundaries.

Jackson Township (Mahoning) was split between OH-6 (1164) and OH-17 (950) as part of the population boundary.  The current boundary splits adjacent Austintown Township.

Baugham and Franklin Townships (Wayne) were split between OH-18 and OH-16.  I think the reason was to avoid encroaching too much on Wooster.

Fremont city (Sandusky) has some minimal splits to avoid boundary irregularities.

[Stranger in a strange land]

2) Mandate at-large elections with the specific exception of any VRA districts. Let Fudge run in an AA-majority district centered in East Cleveland. The remaining fifteen [almost] at-large districts would be problematic for the Democrats.

That sounds like Singapore.

Also, sounds like New Hampshire.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, in New Hampshire the same system is used to keep from splitting whole towns. Guilt by association isn't going to advance your position very well.

Apparently, the folks in the US don't take that dim a view of such a system given that variably-sized multi-member districting were used in North Carolina and Virginia up to recent times. Apparently, they still exist in West Virginia [SD? VT?]. Why isn't it "blatantly illegal" in West Virginia? There, real "shenanigans" are being legislated.

The key difference here is that those are for state elections which run under different rules from federal ones. This thread is about U.S. house elections. Federal Law has required single-member congressional districts since 1967.

[Jackson]

You know, it might behoove you to simply ignore BigSkyRob, given that all he seem to do on this forum is troll.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I have him on ignore but unfortunately can read his threads thanks to the quoting, and his "logic" is making my head hurt. Also the idea that Ohio's Republican delegation to Congress especially Boehner would ever agree to that plan in a million years is even more delusional than the idea any court would uphold it.

[krazen1211]

If the Republicans pass a new map, even if it only moves two people total, the clock starts over again, including for the referedum.

But not for the finalization date. And not for the general election date, either. Unless the new map is one that no one objects to, doing this would be good for Democrats and bad for Republicans.

The primary date can be moved as a matter of law.

It seems though that part of the process would be to remove the power of redistricting from the legislature. That however cannot happen until November 2012 and the legislature clearly retains to right to pass new maps until that time.

[Brittain33]

Apparently Republicans are proposing to pick off Democratic votes by stretching OH-3 from Columbus to Dayton, making it 42% black and possibly violating court precedents while wrecking one of the few areas of the map that didn't look like Maryland.

[TJ in Oregon]

Apparently Republicans are proposing to pick off Democratic votes by stretching OH-3 from Columbus to Dayton, making it 42% black and possibly violating court precedents while wrecking one of the few areas of the map that didn't look like Maryland.

Well, at this point why not? The map is already so terribly gerrymandered that anyone who looks at it will instantly know the idea of a community of interest played no role in its drawing.

I wonder why they didn't just chop Columbus into five pieces while they're at it. Get Jean Schmidt in on the action. Once the GOP decided they don't care how it looks, why not go all the way?

[krazen1211]

Apparently Republicans are proposing to pick off Democratic votes by stretching OH-3 from Columbus to Dayton, making it 42% black and possibly violating court precedents while wrecking one of the few areas of the map that didn't look like Maryland.

Source?


Quite logical. OH-12 and OH-15 have so much strength now that they can certainly take on some white liberals, say, those at Ohio State.

[Brittain33]

http://twitter.com/#!/Redistrict/status/127034347835494400