Ohio redistricting thread

[Padfoot]

Here's my take at a fair map: https://davesredistricting.org/join/785b5330-36ae-49b8-98fe-56bd5ba94008

It's probably a riskier map than the Democrats would like but I think it reflects the partisan make-up of the state well and has potential for some interesting mid-decade shifts.



Safe R Seats:
OH-2 South Appalachia
OH-4 Marion-Mansfield
OH-5 Lima-Springfield
OH-8 Cincy Suburban
OH-15 East Appalachia

Likely R
OH-6 Canton
OH-10 Dayton

Lean R
OH-12 West Columbus

Toss-up
OH-14 Youngstown

Lean D
OH-7 Lorain
OH-13 Akron

Likely D
OH-1 Cincinnati
OH-9 Toledo

Safe D
OH-3 East Columbus
OH-11 Cleveland

[Padfoot]

Basically if the Columbus seats have to shrink massively that might just keep a 2nd swing seat in the region while the Cinci seat has to lose 1 or 2 titanium R rural counties which pushes its maximum possible composite number up to only +3.5 R

Not sure if his Columbus math is 100% correct about the requirements and how much Balderson's district can take in but R+1 with Dublin is probably a tossup.  So even if Ohio is a R trifecta with mostly R control over redistricting Ohio keeping a 16th district could possibly give Democrats a realistic chance at 2 more seats due to the restrictions.

I just threw this map together fairly quickly to show that it isn't that hard to keep two R leaning seats in Columbus even with 16 districts.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/c33f1abd-399d-46ec-a0ce-3e0d56b080f8

I didn't try to keep the northeast safe for the GOP so there are several Dem pick-up opportunities there though.  I think that's where things would be more interesting actually.  Probably not quite this nice for the Dems but I would think there would have to be at least one more Dem heavy northeastern district in order to comply with the rules.

[Padfoot]

This was an attempt at a "minimal changes" map that follows all the new rules.  Let me know if you think I've made a mistake in following them.  The old 4th district is the lost district under this map and the new 4th district is the successor of the current 16th.  Although I didn't set out to eliminate Jordan I could see him not being missed much given his history as a thorn in the side of GOP leadership and his ties to the OSU sexual abuse scandal.
https://davesredistricting.org/join/f3296b3d-2788-41fc-b174-376ffa09c4b1


Partisan wise I'd give the following ratings (I'm not sure how people are getting separate 2012/2016 numbers so I'm doing some rough estimating)

1: Safe R
2: Tossup
3: Safe D
4 (old 16): Lean/Likely R
5: Safe R (possible primary Jordan v Latta)
6: Safe R
7: Likely R
8: Safe R (possible primary Jordan v Davidson)
9: Safe D
10: Likely R
11: Safe D
12: Safe R
13: Safe D
14: Tossup (probably R advantage)
15: Likely R

Overall the map still gives an undue advantage to Republicans but it is better than the current map for Democrats.  It would definitely protect all the Democratic incumbents even in a good Republican environment but with the tossups in 2 & 14 I'd expect a 10R-5D split in on average over the decade.  Republicans could potentially be vulnerable in 4, 7, and 10 when the environment is good for Democrats.  Even 15 could potentially swing D depending on trends in Columbus.  

[Padfoot]

your map looks good in terms of following the rules, but including the inner cleveland suburbs in the 14th definitely wouldn't fly with joyce; should prob swap them out for GOP-leaning towns west of the cuyahoga river (obviously including glenwillow to valley view to keep the split contiguous). also, clinton only won the 9th and 13th by single digits. don't really think it's actually possible to draw a safe D district outside the 3 Cs anymore

I agree that there is probably a better balance between the 11th, 14th, and 4th.  I will admit to being a little lazy there.

I think that the partisan lean of the 9th and 13th really depends on if you view the 2016 result as the beginning of a long-term trend or a best-case GOP scenario due to extraordinary circumstances.  I would argue that it is the latter. Sherrod Brown won both 9th and the 13th handily in 2018 and while Cordray didn't do quite as well he still likely won them both too.  I could see how others might rate those two districts as likely D rather than safe but I still think it would take a lot to flip either of them.

Also 2016 was an extremely high water mark for the Republican presidential ticket in Ohio which I believe was largely a negative reaction to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton rather than a positive realignment towards Republicans.  I would bet that most generic Democrats wouldn't have too much trouble recreating Obama's 2012 result or Brown's 2018 result.  I'm actually expecting to see a very similar result in 2020.

[Padfoot]

Why do people keep putting Springfield in the Dayton district? Dayton district should obviously be Greene and Montgomery as thats the main Dayton metro.

This is easily a very nice cut of SW Ohio to work from. Putting Springfield before Greene is a D gerrymander as Springfield is merely just a separate medium town.  And then the argument for putting NW Warren is it looks more closer to Dayton than Cinci and it has almost left over from the Cinci Suburban district to put in. The only disadvantage is the suburban Cinci district looks a bit ugly.

Calling it a D gerrymander is a bit of a stretch.  It's not really possible to create a second SW Ohio seat with a true Democratic advantage.  At best, pairing Springfield and Dayton just makes a swing district that still tilts R in a neutral environment.  If you're trying to make a map that would be competitive and/or accurately reflect the statewide congressional vote then this pairing actually makes a lot of sense.  It's also possible to include Greene, Montgomery, & Clark counties in one district if you shave about 57,000 off of at least one of them (that's using 2018 numbers).

[Padfoot]

The Ohio Constitution states that a CD map cannot "unduly" favor one party. That is one of those words that basically cedes the power to the courts. I wonder if there is any legislative history on that one, produced when the initiative was written that was passe by the voters.

I'm betting the Dems will sue if the next map doesn't produce at least 6 districts that are potentially winnable for them.

[Padfoot]

OK folks I have a challenge for ya'll.  Now that Steve Stivers is retiring the least painful thing for Republican to do would be eliminating his district and then drawing incumbent protection districts for the rest of the delegation.  Does anyone think they could do this and still follow the rules of the new redistricting amendment?

[Padfoot]

OK folks I have a challenge for ya'll.  Now that Steve Stivers is retiring the least painful thing for Republican to do would be eliminating his district and then drawing incumbent protection districts for the rest of the delegation.  Does anyone think they could do this and still follow the rules of the new redistricting amendment?

https://davesredistricting.org/join/dd058ab7-f768-4f17-90a6-c05ea0d977e3
Does this qualify?

I think you might have some illegal chops in the Northeast.  It looks like the new 13 & 14 are chopping two different counties which isn't allowed.

[Padfoot]

OK folks I have a challenge for ya'll.  Now that Steve Stivers is retiring the least painful thing for Republican to do would be eliminating his district and then drawing incumbent protection districts for the rest of the delegation.  Does anyone think they could do this and still follow the rules of the new redistricting amendment?

Including or excluding Steve Chabot?

I was thinking including.

[Padfoot]

The dissents that would have struck down the 2012 maps relied on specific clauses in the requirements for districts (that they not divide too many counties etc.)  Under what clause would the OH court strike this down?  Note that there is no general "fairness" clause.  

Obviously the commission would have to fail, and the legislature unable to create a bipartisan map, in order for this to come into play, and it would only be in effect for 4 years.  So I don't expect that this map will actually come to pass, there's more incentive to play nice.  But this is the worst-case scenario if you're a Dem.

it would get struck down under this:

(6) If a congressional district includes only part of the territory of a particular county, the part of that congressional district that lies in that particular county shall be contiguous within the boundaries of the county.

I also feel it could get struct down under any of this:

(a) The general assembly shall not pass a plan that unduly favors or disfavors a political party or its incumbents.

(b) The general assembly shall not unduly split governmental units, giving preference to keeping whole, in the order named, counties, then townships and municipal corporations.

(c) The general assembly shall attempt to draw districts that are compact.

(d) The general assembly shall include in the plan an explanation of the plan's compliance with divisions (C)(3)(a) to (c) of this section.

They are going to have to draw at least 3 safe dem seats plus 3-4 more Brown-Trump districts.

[Padfoot]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b2accccc-7fde-42ce-92b4-913de2a7b15b

This isn't perfect but its the kind of map I can see Republicans trying to pass off as "fair."  The partisan leans displayed are based on Biden-Trump.  However Brown actually won 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15 (by 138 votes) in 2018 and DeWine won all of those as well except for 13.  Trump won all the same districts in 2016 and by similar margins.  He lost the most ground in 9 and 15.

This map (or something similar) is what I imagine GOP map-drawers are currently trying to cook up right now.  It really isn't that difficult to make a ton of Brown-Trump districts which is what I image the Republicans will do to "prove" that their map is fair or competitive.  In reality there will only be 3 truly winnable seats for Democrats not named Sherrod Brown and the rest will effectively be GOP +5 or higher.

I think the map as I've drawn it still presents opportunity for Kaptur and Ryan to hang on but I'm sure someone more skilled than me could screw them over even more while still keeping their new districts as Brown-Trump.  I've also probably drawn too many Brown districts in total.  I think 8 total Brown districts would suffice to mimic his margin from 2018.

[Padfoot]

DeWine has scheduled the first meeting for the redistricting commissions for this Friday.

https://apnews.com/article/ohio-redistricting-8ea8bf06152c7478a70e37b4acafa1df

[Padfoot]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

[Padfoot]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

I generally agree with the OP; but according to my calculation a far map would be 9-6 on average, (Dems win about 40% of seats)

Calculation based on what?  I was basing off of presidential results which should be closer to a 55-45 GOP advantage and result in a 8-7 split.

Also I don't think any fair map for Ohio should guarantee either party a majority.  I think there should be at least two swingy seats in the middle with the remaining balance slightly tipped towards the GOP based on their relatively stronger success in statewide/presidential races over the last decade and their current geographic advantage.  It's really not that hard to draw a map where Trump narrowly ekes out 8 districts in 2020 and Brown does the same in 2018.

[Padfoot]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

I generally agree with the OP; but according to my calculation a far map would be 9-6 on average, (Dems win about 40% of seats)

Calculation based on what?  I was basing off of presidential results which should be closer to a 55-45 GOP advantage and result in a 8-7 split.

Also I don't think any fair map for Ohio should guarantee either party a majority.  I think there should be at least two swingy seats in the middle with the remaining balance slightly tipped towards the GOP based on their relatively stronger success in statewide/presidential races over the last decade and their current geographic advantage.  It's really not that hard to draw a map where Trump narrowly ekes out 8 districts in 2020 and Brown does the same in 2018.

I respectfully disagree. Think about it this way; in California, Rs win about 30-35% of the vote in the average election, but only tend to win fewer than 20% of the seats. In order to give Rs the 16 or 17 seats that’d make a “partisansly proportional” map, you’d really have to go out of your way. This is true in pretty much every lopsided US state.

In other words, there’s always going to be a disproportionately large amount of seats that go to the party that wins the vote in the state, and this advantage only increases as partisanship becomes more extreme. This is because you’re going to have more votes of the minority party “wasted” in areas won by the majority party. In this theory, we’re excluding situations where we have heavy geographic advantages. In CA for instance, over 2/3rds of R votes actually come from precincts won by Joe Biden in 2020. Meanwhile, only 12% of D votes come from precincts Trump won.

When I was doing the project to calculate geographic advantages, I was able to create a regression for how many seats you’d expect a given party to win based on a states overall partisanship. For OH which was R + 8.03 in 2020, it was almost exactly a 60-40 split. 60% of 15 is 9 and 40% is 6.

Ohio is not that "lopsided."  The state definitely leans to the right and has leaned harder that way recently but it is in no way comparable to a state like California as far as consistent partisan divides go.

It's so easy to draw a clean map of Ohio that fits the criteria I outlined previously.  For example:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a06107e1-c02c-49d0-b309-f173125b49ba

This map is 8-7 Trump in both 2016 and 2020 and it is also 9-6 Brown in 2018.  There are a ton of competitive districts in the middle and neither party has a baked-in majority but Republicans have a clear overall advantage.

[Padfoot]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

I generally agree with the OP; but according to my calculation a far map would be 9-6 on average, (Dems win about 40% of seats)

Calculation based on what?  I was basing off of presidential results which should be closer to a 55-45 GOP advantage and result in a 8-7 split.

Also I don't think any fair map for Ohio should guarantee either party a majority.  I think there should be at least two swingy seats in the middle with the remaining balance slightly tipped towards the GOP based on their relatively stronger success in statewide/presidential races over the last decade and their current geographic advantage.  It's really not that hard to draw a map where Trump narrowly ekes out 8 districts in 2020 and Brown does the same in 2018.

I respectfully disagree. Think about it this way; in California, Rs win about 30-35% of the vote in the average election, but only tend to win fewer than 20% of the seats. In order to give Rs the 16 or 17 seats that’d make a “partisansly proportional” map, you’d really have to go out of your way. This is true in pretty much every lopsided US state.

In other words, there’s always going to be a disproportionately large amount of seats that go to the party that wins the vote in the state, and this advantage only increases as partisanship becomes more extreme. This is because you’re going to have more votes of the minority party “wasted” in areas won by the majority party. In this theory, we’re excluding situations where we have heavy geographic advantages. In CA for instance, over 2/3rds of R votes actually come from precincts won by Joe Biden in 2020. Meanwhile, only 12% of D votes come from precincts Trump won.

When I was doing the project to calculate geographic advantages, I was able to create a regression for how many seats you’d expect a given party to win based on a states overall partisanship. For OH which was R + 8.03 in 2020, it was almost exactly a 60-40 split. 60% of 15 is 9 and 40% is 6.

Ohio is not that "lopsided."  The state definitely leans to the right and has leaned harder that way recently but it is in no way comparable to a state like California as far as consistent partisan divides go.

It's so easy to draw a clean map of Ohio that fits the criteria I outlined previously.  For example:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/a06107e1-c02c-49d0-b309-f173125b49ba

This map is 8-7 Trump in both 2016 and 2020 and it is also 9-6 Brown in 2018.  There are a ton of competitive districts in the middle and neither party has a baked-in majority but Republicans have a clear overall advantage.

Nice map, but it's also really easy to draw a clean 9-6 map or 10-5 map; it just averages out. Notice how even in your 8-7 map, 3 of the Biden districts are extremely marginal. Also; shouldn't Brown win the same if not fewer districts than Trump did as he won by a smaller margin?

In 2020, Trump won precincts in OH worth 7.1 million people whereas Biden only won precincts worth 4.6 million, which shows how even on the precinct level we see this phenomenon playing out. Yes, it isn't as extreme as CA, but it's still there nontheless

The Dayton/Springfield district could easily be made more Republican to flip it away from Brown if that is the main issue but then you lose a competitive district.  And yes, some of the Biden districts are marginal but that's sort of the point.  The map shouldn't be solid for either party and there should be multiple competitive districts that have the opportunity to be flipped as coalitions changes or swing voters shift parties.  Locking in a 9-6 majority is not a fair map.  If a relatively clean map that is true to average partisanship can be achieved then it doesn't matter what some formula says "should" be possible.

[Padfoot]

12-3 is definitely most likely, with the Akron seat being lean or likely R and Cincinnati being likely D.

12-3 is definitely the farthest the GOP could push it without starting to risk a dummymander but I can almost guarantee that plan only lasts 4 years because it won't get the Democratic votes it needs to last for 10 and it will almost certainly get taken to court for unduly favoring Republicans. 

Using 2020 results I think we are more likely to end up with something that is more like 10-1-4 at worst for the Democrats.  If they are feeling really aggressive then they could push for 9-1-5.  I think a fair map is probably something more like 7-2-6 or 7-3-5.

no way R's agree to a 4th solid Dem seat, the only way that maybe could happen is an Akron+Cleveland suburbs seat, but I think R' would instead go for a swing seat in Akron.  Also, a 4 year map is to the Republicans advantage, they then can adjust it for trends and the OH Supreme Court will probably be more conservative thanks to partisan elections.

I think the 4th likely Dem seat would more likely come from a second Dem pack in Columbus.  I also think you might be overestimating the partisanship of the Redistricting Commission members.  If a GOP map fails to win 50% of the Democratic votes in each chamber of the General Assembly then the Redistricting Commission takes over.  There are multiple GOP members on that committee who have worked on passing redistricting reform and several who aren't exactly Trump's biggest cheerleaders so they'd have no qualms about drawing Mike Carey or Jim Jordan out of a district.  I'm betting on the passage of a 10 year map that still favors the GOP but is much more competitive.  12 safe GOP seats is not going to happen.

[Padfoot]

Ohio, my least favorite state to make maps due to it's strict redistricting rules and horrendous precient layout in Franklin County. My map is 10-5 R (2020 Prez) and two swing districts lean R, while the other two lean D. The population devation is 0.73%, just 0.02% shy of the 0.75% threshold. 😳

https://davesredistricting.org/join/42732453-536e-4cfe-a2d4-2e806a785822

What was your goal with this map?  It looks so ugly but there doesn't seem to be an overarching theme as to why certain squiggles and chops were drawn.  This is obviously not a best case scenario for the GOP, nor is it a best case for the Dems given the Akron split.  It's possible to draw a map with a very similar partisan balance that isn't nearly as ugly too so I can't see how this is a decent "balanced" or "competitive" map either.

[Padfoot]

Here's the link to submitting maps to the redistricting commission:

https://redistricting.ohio.gov/public-input#submit-map

They are accepting both congressional and state assembly maps.  Technically the commission doesn't have the ability to draw a congressional map unless the legislature fails to pass a map with a 60% bipartisan supermajority that includes at least 50% of the Democrats by September 30th.  However, as Edna Mode once said: "Luck favors the prepared, darling."

[Padfoot]

placing downtown Columbus with Pickaway county

Either Pickaway or Union County has to be paired with Franklin County and neither of those counties is really a great fit with most parts of Franklin.  Under either of those pairings the best the GOP can hope for is an R leaning seat in 2022 that likely wouldn't last more than one cycle.

[Padfoot]

placing downtown Columbus with Pickaway county

Either Pickaway or Union County has to be paired with Franklin County and neither of those counties is really a great fit with most parts of Franklin.  Under either of those pairings the best the GOP can hope for is an R leaning seat in 2022 that likely wouldn't last more than one cycle.

False, you can get closer to population equality by adding Madison as well. If you have Pickaway Madison and Grove city that would not flip all decade. The map is arguably  D friendly for Franklin because the Franklin cluster is underpopulated by a few dozen thousand . This is obviously because Kunze doesn't want working class exurban areas or maybe there's an R senator from Madison.
The Ohio GOP now can accordingly redraw . Pickaway +Franklin is 50k under deviation for 4 districts while Madison+ Pickaway +Franklin is only 1k under deviation.



This would be a pretty Safe R working class part of Columbus and exurban/rural areas in the South. The area of Columbus west of downtown actually seems to be trending R as well by the way.
+15.7 Trump in 2016, +15.9 Trump in 2020. More D friendly downballot relatively than the current district but still more R overall. I think Obama may have won it in 2012 narrowly funnily enough so its closer to Canton than North Columbus.

Kunze would have been term limited anyway in 2024 and Democrats could have possibly picked then . However they wanted a Safe D seat instead of an underpopulated swing seat.

There's a GOP Senator living in Madison and I believe the redistricting rules say a reasonable effort needs to be made to keep him in something resembling his current district since he won't be up for election in 2022.  Madison is currently drawn with Clark & Greene and that combo still falls within the acceptable population deviation so it's extremely unlikely that Madison will be removed from its current district to balance the population of another district.  Kunze also has to be kept reasonably within her district since she isn't up for re-election in 2022 either.

With that being said we arrive back where we started.  However, I suppose there is one other alternative which is to pair Franklin with Fairfield but that would push all 4 Franklin based districts almost to the max deviation over the ideal district size and Fairfield really needs to stay with the Southeast districts since they are all underpopulated already.

[Padfoot]

It is barely illegal but the Lorain West Cuyahoga is illegal in that it doesn't have a whole county or it is not wholly within 1 county. Should be easy to fix but still hilarious. Maybe an organization that focused on the issue should actually make sure the map is legal on the stricter objective criteria?

Ah. That does seem like a fairly easy fix though. The West Cuyahoga-Lorain district is a very reasonable district that makes perfect sense. The most logical thing would be to make a small chop into Cuyahoga from one of the other districts. With some small alterations, that is probably a near-ideal map for the state.

This one is particularly vexing to me because if you keep the city of Vermillion intact by putting the part of it that is in Lorain into the 9th along with Fulton, Lucas, Wood, Ottawa, Sandusky, and Erie then you can get three districts with no other county or city chops.  Then you can draw 3 more NE districts by maintaining a southwestern border of Medina, Wayne, Stark, Carrol, and Columbiana.

[Padfoot]

Assuming the OSC rules that the map needs to be rebalanced to have fewer safe/lean GOP districts, here is my first attempt at a "least change" proposal.

[Padfoot]

Assuming the OSC rules that the map needs to be rebalanced to have fewer safe/lean GOP districts, here is my first attempt at a "least change" proposal.

Can I see it on DRA?

https://davesredistricting.org/join/0140104e-005f-4834-bed1-65b1da6b4226

[Padfoot]

Is it even legally possible to make a 54 R 46 D state house?

Probably not, but we'll figure out how close is realistically possible in the coming weeks.

It is mathematically impossible ... mostly because there are only 99 seats 😉