Ohio redistricting thread

[John Dule]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

[lfromnj]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

One of these is not like the rest.

[John Dule]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

One of these is not like the rest.

Wisconsin might not be as bad as the others, but its partisan breakdown is ridiculously disproportionate.

[MillennialModerate]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

Nope. The GOP favored ones need to be axed. The Dem ones should stay until nationally the districts come out to somewhat even. Or till the GOP approves anti-gerrymandering legislation

[lfromnj]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

One of these is not like the rest.

Wisconsin might not be as bad as the others, but its partisan breakdown is ridiculously disproportionate.

Its currently 5r 3d. It will probably end up at 6r 2d but that isn't due to any gerrymandering. Infact gerrymandering kinda makes it less likely it is 6r 2d.  The shape of wi03 is certainly ridiculous and wi01 could be cleaned up in one direction or the other(it should either have Rock County or be more Milwaukee based instead of doing both)

[John Dule]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

One of these is not like the rest.

Wisconsin might not be as bad as the others, but its partisan breakdown is ridiculously disproportionate.

Its currently 5r 3d. It will probably end up at 6r 2d but that isn't due to any gerrymandering. Infact gerrymandering kinda makes it less likely it is 6r 2d.  The shape of wi03 is certainly ridiculous and wi01 could be cleaned up in one direction or the other(it should either have Rock County or be more Milwaukee based instead of doing both)

When you analyze district fairness, do you focus on matching the partisan results to the composition of the electorate or do you focus on keeping the districts geographically compact?

[lfromnj]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

One of these is not like the rest.

Wisconsin might not be as bad as the others, but its partisan breakdown is ridiculously disproportionate.

Its currently 5r 3d. It will probably end up at 6r 2d but that isn't due to any gerrymandering. Infact gerrymandering kinda makes it less likely it is 6r 2d.  The shape of wi03 is certainly ridiculous and wi01 could be cleaned up in one direction or the other(it should either have Rock County or be more Milwaukee based instead of doing both)

When you analyze district fairness, do you focus on matching the partisan results to the composition of the electorate or do you focus on keeping the districts geographically compact?

At that point why not just have the judges mandate PR?

Under what law would Wisconsin's congressional districts be illegal? Elections are certainly free. Is there some minor fixing that would be nice? Sure but it would be minor . Would it also arguably be nice to change the 2 NE districts to reflect the urbanization patterns of the Fox River? Yes although historically the Fox River Valley has been split so a judge mandating that district would certainly be unusual.

The maps could certainly better although the most major thing I would change would actually make the map less compact.

[politicallefty]

Below is a link to the decision. The court got the legal standard exactly right*, but then went hackish big time**. Bottom line is that, by applying inconsistent standards, in addition to Cincy, the Dems are going to get another seat in NE Ohio and the Columbus burbs, so that Badger will not have to further endure the horror of being represented by a Pub Congressperson. So instead of getting the expected one seat, the Dems are going to pick up three more for a huge win, at least absent a red wave.

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/#/caseinfo/2021/1428

And this will all be done again in 4 years.

*If neutral redistricting criteria hewing to the specific line drawing rules give the Dems more seats than what they got, and what they got is not proportional, you have an unduly favoring problem.

**I don't think hewing to neutral redistricting criteria give the Dems another seat in NE Ohio and the Columbus burbs. Instead they get a another swing seat in NE Ohio.

I read most and skimmed through some, but I hope you're not trying to defend the dissent in this. The dissent basically said that despite passing a new constitutional amendment, it's beyond the Court's capability to discern or remedy violations. The dissent didn't even see anything wrong with Hamilton County. If you want hackish, the dissent basically ignores the will of the voters in passing restrictions on redistricting.

I'm a hardliner as to interpreting the law, but that doesn't mean common sense goes out the window.

[kwabbit]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

Nope. The GOP favored ones need to be axed. The Dem ones should stay until nationally the districts come out to somewhat even. Or till the GOP approves anti-gerrymandering legislation

The number of Biden districts is likely to be around 230, maybe more. This round of redistricting is likely to result in a more favorable outcome for Democrats than if national redistricting legislation was passed, unless that legislation used some efficiency gap BS. The only major gerrymanders on the GOP side were Texas, which was largely defensive, Ohio, which is now gone, and NC, which has a solid chance of being gone. IL and NY are probably enough to counter all standing GOP gerrymanders on their own.

Democrats have massively won messaging on the issue. They have made gerrymandering into a Republican phenomenon and in doing so have been able to install backwards ideas like the efficiency gap into the decision making of courts and commissions. Yet the GOP will not be so successful advocating for such measures in states where they have wasted votes. If we end up in a system where GOP gerrymanders all get struck down because of superior Dem messaging and litigation, while Dem gerrymanders are allowed to remain, the House should develop a Dem bias. Especially given that Dem strength in the suburbs has minimized geographic bias in the House.

[politicallefty]

The number of Biden districts is likely to be around 230, maybe more. This round of redistricting is likely to result in a more favorable outcome for Democrats than if national redistricting legislation was passed, unless that legislation used some efficiency gap BS. The only major gerrymanders on the GOP side were Texas, which was largely defensive, Ohio, which is now gone, and NC, which has a solid chance of being gone. IL and NY are probably enough to counter all standing GOP gerrymanders on their own.

Democrats have massively won messaging on the issue. They have made gerrymandering into a Republican phenomenon and in doing so have been able to install backwards ideas like the efficiency gap into the decision making of courts and commissions. Yet the GOP will not be so successful advocating for such measures in states where they have wasted votes. If we end up in a system where GOP gerrymanders all get struck down because of superior Dem messaging and litigation, while Dem gerrymanders are allowed to remain, the House should develop a Dem bias. Especially given that Dem strength in the suburbs has minimized geographic bias in the House.

I actually agree with you that Democrats have won the messaging war on this. I'm actually quite surprised as well. This didn't happen overnight. It's been an effort for a long time, massively accelerated over the past few years. Most states are largely in compliance with respect to what the FTVA would require. There are some exceptions, but something has definitely changed since the previous round of redistricting.

Democrats have invited Republicans on a regular basis to enact a nationwide standard for redistricting. Republicans want no part of it and want to leave congressional redistricting to the states without any new limitations. Nothing would make me happier than seeing both sides agree to a new paradigm that either establishes strict limits on partisan gerrymandering or establishes a new system altogether (maybe a semi-proportional system is the way to go, such as MMP). Unfortunately, our representatives in Washington have become increasingly unimaginative as the years have passed.

[Torie]

Below is a link to the decision. The court got the legal standard exactly right*, but then went hackish big time**. Bottom line is that, by applying inconsistent standards, in addition to Cincy, the Dems are going to get another seat in NE Ohio and the Columbus burbs, so that Badger will not have to further endure the horror of being represented by a Pub Congressperson. So instead of getting the expected one seat, the Dems are going to pick up three more for a huge win, at least absent a red wave.

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/#/caseinfo/2021/1428

And this will all be done again in 4 years.

*If neutral redistricting criteria hewing to the specific line drawing rules give the Dems more seats than what they got, and what they got is not proportional, you have an unduly favoring problem.

**I don't think hewing to neutral redistricting criteria give the Dems another seat in NE Ohio and the Columbus burbs. Instead they get a another swing seat in NE Ohio.

I read most and skimmed through some, but I hope you're not trying to defend the dissent in this. The dissent basically said that despite passing a new constitutional amendment, it's beyond the Court's capability to discern or remedy violations. The dissent didn't even see anything wrong with Hamilton County. If you want hackish, the dissent basically ignores the will of the voters in passing restrictions on redistricting.

I'm a hardliner as to interpreting the law, but that doesn't mean common sense goes out the window.

I didn't even read the dissent, so no, I am not defending it.

[MillennialModerate]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

Nope. The GOP favored ones need to be axed. The Dem ones should stay until nationally the districts come out to somewhat even. Or till the GOP approves anti-gerrymandering legislation

The number of Biden districts is likely to be around 230, maybe more. This round of redistricting is likely to result in a more favorable outcome for Democrats than if national redistricting legislation was passed, unless that legislation used some efficiency gap BS. The only major gerrymanders on the GOP side were Texas, which was largely defensive, Ohio, which is now gone, and NC, which has a solid chance of being gone. IL and NY are probably enough to counter all standing GOP gerrymanders on their own.

Democrats have massively won messaging on the issue. They have made gerrymandering into a Republican phenomenon and in doing so have been able to install backwards ideas like the efficiency gap into the decision making of courts and commissions. Yet the GOP will not be so successful advocating for such measures in states where they have wasted votes. If we end up in a system where GOP gerrymanders all get struck down because of superior Dem messaging and litigation, while Dem gerrymanders are allowed to remain, the House should develop a Dem bias. Especially given that Dem strength in the suburbs has minimized geographic bias in the House.

More than 230? That can’t be right lol. So you’re telling me the house will have a DEM bias?!?! That would mean Dems are likely to take the house back in 2024

[kwabbit]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

Nope. The GOP favored ones need to be axed. The Dem ones should stay until nationally the districts come out to somewhat even. Or till the GOP approves anti-gerrymandering legislation

The number of Biden districts is likely to be around 230, maybe more. This round of redistricting is likely to result in a more favorable outcome for Democrats than if national redistricting legislation was passed, unless that legislation used some efficiency gap BS. The only major gerrymanders on the GOP side were Texas, which was largely defensive, Ohio, which is now gone, and NC, which has a solid chance of being gone. IL and NY are probably enough to counter all standing GOP gerrymanders on their own.

Democrats have massively won messaging on the issue. They have made gerrymandering into a Republican phenomenon and in doing so have been able to install backwards ideas like the efficiency gap into the decision making of courts and commissions. Yet the GOP will not be so successful advocating for such measures in states where they have wasted votes. If we end up in a system where GOP gerrymanders all get struck down because of superior Dem messaging and litigation, while Dem gerrymanders are allowed to remain, the House should develop a Dem bias. Especially given that Dem strength in the suburbs has minimized geographic bias in the House.

More than 230? That can’t be right lol. So you’re telling me the house will have a DEM bias?!?! That would mean Dems are likely to take the house back in 2024

Not much more, perhaps 232 max or so. And yes, the Democrats have a great chance of flipping back the house in 2024. Although the GOP does better in the congressional race than the presidency. So keep in mind if the Presidential PV is D+2, that might still be an outright R victory in the congressional ballot.

[Mr.Phips]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

Nope. The GOP favored ones need to be axed. The Dem ones should stay until nationally the districts come out to somewhat even. Or till the GOP approves anti-gerrymandering legislation

The number of Biden districts is likely to be around 230, maybe more. This round of redistricting is likely to result in a more favorable outcome for Democrats than if national redistricting legislation was passed, unless that legislation used some efficiency gap BS. The only major gerrymanders on the GOP side were Texas, which was largely defensive, Ohio, which is now gone, and NC, which has a solid chance of being gone. IL and NY are probably enough to counter all standing GOP gerrymanders on their own.

Democrats have massively won messaging on the issue. They have made gerrymandering into a Republican phenomenon and in doing so have been able to install backwards ideas like the efficiency gap into the decision making of courts and commissions. Yet the GOP will not be so successful advocating for such measures in states where they have wasted votes. If we end up in a system where GOP gerrymanders all get struck down because of superior Dem messaging and litigation, while Dem gerrymanders are allowed to remain, the House should develop a Dem bias. Especially given that Dem strength in the suburbs has minimized geographic bias in the House.

More than 230? That can’t be right lol. So you’re telling me the house will have a DEM bias?!?! That would mean Dems are likely to take the house back in 2024

Not much more, perhaps 232 max or so. And yes, the Democrats have a great chance of flipping back the house in 2024. Although the GOP does better in the congressional race than the presidency. So keep in mind if the Presidential PV is D+2, that might still be an outright R victory in the congressional ballot.

A Presidential PV of just D+2 probably means an EC loss for Dems.

[Nyvin]

Below is a link to the decision. The court got the legal standard exactly right*, but then went hackish big time**. Bottom line is that, by applying inconsistent standards, in addition to Cincy, the Dems are going to get another seat in NE Ohio and the Columbus burbs, so that Badger will not have to further endure the horror of being represented by a Pub Congressperson. So instead of getting the expected one seat, the Dems are going to pick up three more for a huge win, at least absent a red wave.

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/#/caseinfo/2021/1428

And this will all be done again in 4 years.

*If neutral redistricting criteria hewing to the specific line drawing rules give the Dems more seats than what they got, and what they got is not proportional, you have an unduly favoring problem.

**I don't think hewing to neutral redistricting criteria give the Dems another seat in NE Ohio and the Columbus burbs. Instead they get a another swing seat in NE Ohio.

I read most and skimmed through some, but I hope you're not trying to defend the dissent in this. The dissent basically said that despite passing a new constitutional amendment, it's beyond the Court's capability to discern or remedy violations. The dissent didn't even see anything wrong with Hamilton County. If you want hackish, the dissent basically ignores the will of the voters in passing restrictions on redistricting.

I'm a hardliner as to interpreting the law, but that doesn't mean common sense goes out the window.

I was going to post about this, the dissent basically said that there's no way for the court to define unduly favored or any of the other rules in the amendment so the court should just outright ignore those sections.   Then they say that the Republicans followed the law by making competitive districts where safe D districts should've been and that they minimized county splits but the splits being focused on Democratic areas doesn't show bias.

Also they say it's basically a mystery if a Safe D district in Hamilton county is possible and that the Republicans drawing a competitive district there is the best that could be hoped for (WTF?)

and the majority points to no evidence showing that it was possible to split Hamilton County only once while also keeping Cincinnati intact and attempting to have a whole county within that congressional district

Yeah, they didn't point to evidence for that because it's actually stupid obvious it's possible to do so.   But earlier in the dissent they state this -

Begin with a point of agreement by all: of Ohio’s 15-seat allotment,
six districts will be “solidly Republican” and two will be “solidly Democratic,”
majority opinion at ¶ 43. The two blue districts encompass Cleveland and
Columbus. The six red districts occupy more rural regions of the state. These eight
nonnegotiable districts are the result of political geography—Republican voters
disperse more uniformly about the state while Democratic voters cluster in urban
centers—and only an extreme gerrymander could alter this arrangement.

So it's impossible to draw more than two deeply democratic districts but there needs to be evidence that it's possible to draw a district entirely in Hamilton County. 

And they say that Summit County needs to be split the way it was because Akron had to be kept together and Summit doesn't have enough population for it's own district, so a competitive district is all that's possible.  Keep Summit in one district and it solves both problems.

The dissent is devoid of even basic math, let alone common sense or logical thinking.   

It basically points to the minimized county splits and then says "Republicans made competitive districts out of areas that would be Safe D districts so the map is fair because there's no evidence that anything else is possible."

[Torie]

Below is a link to the decision. The court got the legal standard exactly right*, but then went hackish big time**. Bottom line is that, by applying inconsistent standards, in addition to Cincy, the Dems are going to get another seat in NE Ohio and the Columbus burbs, so that Badger will not have to further endure the horror of being represented by a Pub Congressperson. So instead of getting the expected one seat, the Dems are going to pick up three more for a huge win, at least absent a red wave.

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/#/caseinfo/2021/1428

And this will all be done again in 4 years.

*If neutral redistricting criteria hewing to the specific line drawing rules give the Dems more seats than what they got, and what they got is not proportional, you have an unduly favoring problem.

**I don't think hewing to neutral redistricting criteria give the Dems another seat in NE Ohio and the Columbus burbs. Instead they get a another swing seat in NE Ohio.

I read most and skimmed through some, but I hope you're not trying to defend the dissent in this. The dissent basically said that despite passing a new constitutional amendment, it's beyond the Court's capability to discern or remedy violations. The dissent didn't even see anything wrong with Hamilton County. If you want hackish, the dissent basically ignores the will of the voters in passing restrictions on redistricting.

I'm a hardliner as to interpreting the law, but that doesn't mean common sense goes out the window.

I was going to post about this, the dissent basically said that there's no way for the court to define unduly favored or any of the other rules in the amendment so the court should just outright ignore those sections.   Then they say that the Republicans followed the law by making competitive districts where safe D districts should've been and that they minimized county splits but the splits being focused on Democratic areas doesn't show bias.

Also they say it's basically a mystery if a Safe D district in Hamilton county is possible and that the Republicans drawing a competitive district there is the best that could be hoped for (WTF?)

and the majority points to no evidence showing that it was possible to split Hamilton County only once while also keeping Cincinnati intact and attempting to have a whole county within that congressional district

Yeah, they didn't point to evidence for that because it's actually stupid obvious it's possible to do so.   But earlier in the dissent they state this -

Begin with a point of agreement by all: of Ohio’s 15-seat allotment,
six districts will be “solidly Republican” and two will be “solidly Democratic,”
majority opinion at ¶ 43. The two blue districts encompass Cleveland and
Columbus. The six red districts occupy more rural regions of the state. These eight
nonnegotiable districts are the result of political geography—Republican voters
disperse more uniformly about the state while Democratic voters cluster in urban
centers—and only an extreme gerrymander could alter this arrangement.

So it's impossible to draw more than two deeply democratic districts but there needs to be evidence that it's possible to draw a district entirely in Hamilton County. 

And they say that Summit County needs to be split the way it was because Akron had to be kept together and Summit doesn't have enough population for it's own district, so a competitive district is all that's possible.  Keep Summit in one district and it solves both problems.

The dissent is devoid of even basic math, let alone common sense or logical thinking.   

It basically points to the minimized county splits and then says "Republicans made competitive districts out of areas that would be Safe D districts so the map is fair because there's no evidence that anything else is possible."

The dissent as described by you is just channeling the Pub talking point that you can't have an unduly favoring map if districts are competitive because competitive districts as a per se matter can't be deemed to be unduly favoring one party. So you can screw the other party out of safe or lean CD's to you heart's content as long as the needle is moved just to the competitive line (however that is defined) rather than all the way to it's safe for Jim Jordan line. And yes, that talking point is ludicrous. Apparently the brain drain in Ohio has been almost as bad as that in Iowa.

[kwabbit]

I don't normally visit this board, but I'm stopping in to say that I was genuinely thrilled by this SC decision. Illinois, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin should go on the chopping block next.

Nope. The GOP favored ones need to be axed. The Dem ones should stay until nationally the districts come out to somewhat even. Or till the GOP approves anti-gerrymandering legislation

The number of Biden districts is likely to be around 230, maybe more. This round of redistricting is likely to result in a more favorable outcome for Democrats than if national redistricting legislation was passed, unless that legislation used some efficiency gap BS. The only major gerrymanders on the GOP side were Texas, which was largely defensive, Ohio, which is now gone, and NC, which has a solid chance of being gone. IL and NY are probably enough to counter all standing GOP gerrymanders on their own.

Democrats have massively won messaging on the issue. They have made gerrymandering into a Republican phenomenon and in doing so have been able to install backwards ideas like the efficiency gap into the decision making of courts and commissions. Yet the GOP will not be so successful advocating for such measures in states where they have wasted votes. If we end up in a system where GOP gerrymanders all get struck down because of superior Dem messaging and litigation, while Dem gerrymanders are allowed to remain, the House should develop a Dem bias. Especially given that Dem strength in the suburbs has minimized geographic bias in the House.

More than 230? That can’t be right lol. So you’re telling me the house will have a DEM bias?!?! That would mean Dems are likely to take the house back in 2024

Not much more, perhaps 232 max or so. And yes, the Democrats have a great chance of flipping back the house in 2024. Although the GOP does better in the congressional race than the presidency. So keep in mind if the Presidential PV is D+2, that might still be an outright R victory in the congressional ballot.

A Presidential PV of just D+2 probably means an EC loss for Dems.

That’s true. The House was already the least biased of the three chambers/offices, and is even more so now.

[John Dule]

To replace the rejected Ohio map, this is my humble suggestion. Please give constructive criticism and feedback.

[Nyvin]

To replace the rejected Ohio map, this is my humble suggestion. Please give constructive criticism and feedback.

Might want to take a look at the county/municipality split rules in the amendment.

[Oryxslayer]

To replace the rejected Ohio map, this is my humble suggestion. Please give constructive criticism and feedback.

Might want to take a look at the county/municipality split rules in the amendment.

I'm fairly sure said post was a meme/joke, given how much it violates all legal principles.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

To replace the rejected Ohio map, this is my humble suggestion. Please give constructive criticism and feedback.

Might want to take a look at the county/municipality split rules in the amendment.

I'm fairly sure said post was a meme/joke, given how much it violates all legal principles.

Also, it's by John Dule. Who's among the best memers this site has.

[John Dule]

To replace the rejected Ohio map, this is my humble suggestion. Please give constructive criticism and feedback.

Might want to take a look at the county/municipality split rules in the amendment.

I'm fairly sure said post was a meme/joke, given how much it violates all legal principles.

This is completely serious. Please don't mock my efforts.

Here's my Pennsylvania map.

[GALeftist]

To replace the rejected Ohio map, this is my humble suggestion. Please give constructive criticism and feedback.

Might want to take a look at the county/municipality split rules in the amendment.

I'm fairly sure said post was a meme/joke, given how much it violates all legal principles.

This is completely serious. Please don't mock my efforts.

Here's my Pennsylvania map.

That Scranton-Erie-Pittsburgh district is a true work of art.

[OBD]

To replace the rejected Ohio map, this is my humble suggestion. Please give constructive criticism and feedback.

Might want to take a look at the county/municipality split rules in the amendment.

I'm fairly sure said post was a meme/joke, given how much it violates all legal principles.

This is completely serious. Please don't mock my efforts.

Here's my Pennsylvania map.

Imagine using DistrictR. Cancelled.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

So much for Republican gerrymandering. But Dems getting >80% of the districts in Illinois is totally fine. Makes sense.

there's a bill that can be passed if the republicans don't like it.