Ohio redistricting thread

[BigSkyBob]

They somehow managed to avoid contempt of court.

1) Because they are not in contempt as matter of the right and wrong of it; and

2) Doing so would be a raw exercise in power, except, the in response, in a raw exercise in power, the legislature could impeach any, or all, judges voting for contempt.

The rulings have been a joke. "Fair redistricting" is a phantom that simply doesn't exist. A reasonable notion of "fair" would grant Cincinatti, Akron, and Toledo, one state senate seat for the Democrats, Columbus and Cleveland 2 each for the Democrats, a few swing districts centered in Dayton, and the Columbus suburbs. The rest of the state would be so overwhelming Republican that any randomly generated map would be a sweep, or near sweep for the GOP. The court is demanding that the people who are responsible for executing the laws of Ohio to willfully violate those laws by taking a series of decision to favor the Democrats by carefully cracking urban areas to maximize the number of Democratic seats, etc.

The court doesn't have the authority to issue a partisan Democratic gerrymander, and, lacks the courage to articulate that that is what they are demanding.

[BigSkyBob]

They somehow managed to avoid contempt of court.

1) Because they are not in contempt as matter of the right and wrong of it; and

2) Doing so would be a raw exercise in power, except, the in response, in a raw exercise in power, the legislature could impeach any, or all, judges voting for contempt.

The rulings have been a joke. "Fair redistricting" is a phantom that simply doesn't exist. A reasonable notion of "fair" would grant Cincinatti, Akron, and Toledo, one state senate seat for the Democrats, Columbus and Cleveland 2 each for the Democrats, a few swing districts centered in Dayton, and the Columbus suburbs. The rest of the state would be so overwhelming Republican that any randomly generated map would be a sweep, or near sweep for the GOP. The court is demanding that the people who are responsible for executing the laws of Ohio to willfully violate those laws by taking a series of decision to favor the Democrats by carefully cracking urban areas to maximize the number of Democratic seats, etc.

The court doesn't have the authority to issue a partisan Democratic gerrymander, and, lacks the courage to articulate that that is what they are demanding.

There is a constitutional requirement for proportionality. Personally, I think this requirement kind of sucks, but I didn't put it there, and neither did the court.

And, there is a Constitutional requirement not to favor either political party in redistricting.  The requirements are self-contradictory, and, can only be reconciled by 1) acknowledging that the GOP has a more efficient distribution of voters, and, therefore, is apt to win a larger percentage of the seats; or 2) produce a Democratic gerrymander.  The Court is demanding the latter, but, is failing to be intellectual honest about it.

Nor, can I let pass without comment the false notion that the interpretation the Court asserted concerning "proportionality" is written in the Ohio Constitution. South Australia has the same provision, which has always been understood to mean that if you win a clear majority you are very apt to win, and a tiny majority, you ought to win. But, if you fall short of the majority, it never asserted that 46% is entitled to 46% of the seats. In single-seat, winner-take-all multi-district elections the drop off can be quite steep.

[BigSkyBob]

They somehow managed to avoid contempt of court.

1) Because they are not in contempt as matter of the right and wrong of it; and

2) Doing so would be a raw exercise in power, except, the in response, in a raw exercise in power, the legislature could impeach any, or all, judges voting for contempt.

The rulings have been a joke. "Fair redistricting" is a phantom that simply doesn't exist. A reasonable notion of "fair" would grant Cincinatti, Akron, and Toledo, one state senate seat for the Democrats, Columbus and Cleveland 2 each for the Democrats, a few swing districts centered in Dayton, and the Columbus suburbs. The rest of the state would be so overwhelming Republican that any randomly generated map would be a sweep, or near sweep for the GOP. The court is demanding that the people who are responsible for executing the laws of Ohio to willfully violate those laws by taking a series of decision to favor the Democrats by carefully cracking urban areas to maximize the number of Democratic seats, etc.

The court doesn't have the authority to issue a partisan Democratic gerrymander, and, lacks the courage to articulate that that is what they are demanding.

There is a constitutional requirement for proportionality. Personally, I think this requirement kind of sucks, but I didn't put it there, and neither did the court.

And, there is a Constitutional requirement not to favor either political party in redistricting.  The requirements are self-contradictory, and, can only be reconciled by 1) acknowledging that the GOP has a more efficient distribution of voters, and, therefore, is apt to win a larger percentage of the seats; or 2) produce a Democratic gerrymander.  The Court is demanding the latter, but, is failing to be intellectual honest about it.

Nor, can I let pass without comment the false notion that the interpretation the Court asserted concerning "proportionality" is written in the Ohio Constitution. South Australia has the same provision, which has always been understood to mean that if you win a clear majority you are very apt to win, and a tiny majority, you ought to win. But, if you fall short of the majority, it never asserted that 46% is entitled to 46% of the seats. In single-seat, winner-take-all multi-district elections the drop off can be quite steep.

Article XI, Section 6(B) of the Ohio Constitution:

"The statewide proportion of districts whose voters, based on statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years, favor each political party shall correspond closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio."

The "statewide proportion of districts," it says, not "the overall winner." There is no way to possibly twist this language to service your interpretation of proportionality; it's very clear that the amendment intends for true proportionality to be in effect, and not whatever weird interpretation of it they allegedly have in South Australia.

I additionally take issue with your characterizing correcting for a geographic bias as "gerrymandering." Firstly, Ohio's geographic bias isn't even that bad now since so many of the rurals have sprinted right. Secondly, it's clear that the Ohio constitution doesn't agree with your definition of gerrymandering, or else it wouldn't have included the proportionality clause. It would make no sense to demand proportionality if one characterizes any attempt to do so as "primarily favor[ing] or disfavor[ing]" a political party! For all the bellyaching about textualism from conservatives, you sure seem remarkably willing to bend over backwards in service of absurd textual leaps when it services your own interests.

1) Elections are free in this country. People may vote for whomever they want, for any reason, or no reason at all. Any particular election is not bound by any previous election. Thus, one of the outcomes the people of Ohio could choose is electing 99 Republican state representatives, and, another is that they could choose to elect 99 Democrats.  People have a right to select who they wish to represent them. Political parties have no right to win any seat.

2) Everything thing you wrote is premised on the false notion that any political party is entitled to any seat.

3) When one sees through the false premise, it clear that the alleged objection to the map has no basis in the text of the Ohio Constitution you cite: if every voter voted as they did on average over the last ten years [something they have no obligation whatsoever to do] in every district, the outcome would be "proportional" to average of the last ten years.  The requirement is fulfilled.

Partisan Democrats on the Supreme Court, and, one self-described "Republican" are asserting, against the Constitution, and against the notion of rule by law, the Democratic party is entitled to entitled to seats that are non-competitive, which is a joke.

4) In near-term elections, any "proportional map" is quite apt elect more Republicans than projected, since Republicans have in recent elections won most of the close seats, so they will have the advantages one has running for reelection.

5) When drawing district lines where decisions have to be taken, it has always been understood that invariable choosing the option that favors one political party over the other is the very definition of the English word "gerrymandering." Your remarks are Orwellian. Just be honest and state, "The geographical deficits the Democrats face ought to be overcome by carefully gerrymandering the state in favor of the Democrats [to the extent necessary."] However, doing so you would have to admit the provisions are inherently self-contradictory in an alleged "anti-gerrymandering" Amendment.

6) The outcome the Democrats are pursuing is unjust to the people of Ohio.  If you aim to lock in 14 or 15 Democrats, you must equally lock in 18 or 19 Republicans seats. You just made elections in Ohio a formality.

[BigSkyBob]

With all that being said, I've been playing around with the Ohio Senate map and the county rules do make it really annoying to get to the magic number of 15 blue districts. There are a number of obvious/pretty easy ones:

- 4 from Franklin
- 4 from Cuyahoga + Lake
- 1 from Summit
- 1 from Hamilton
- 1 from Montgomery
- 1 from Lucas

That still just leaves you at 12, though. The easiest one to do next would be another Hamilton blue district, which is fair, except you can't split Warren or Clermont and Butler needs a district wholly within it. I think the easiest thing to do here is put the Butler district in the east and then stretch a district from Preble south through a strip of leftover Butler in the west to the red parts of Hamilton, which lets you make the second Hamilton district blue. Due to county split rules in NEOH, the only real feasible way to get another blue district there is to combine the city of Akron with Portage, leaving the rest of Summit district narrowly blue. Finally, you have to compensate for not being able to do a Mahoning/Trumbull district; the only way I could find was to really cherrypick for the blue precincts in Toledo and combine that with Wood, Ottowa, Erie, and some of Sandusky for another narrowly blue district.

Honestly, both the county split and proportionality rules are dumb. You can tell what a fair map is without these strict rules.

Honestly, the provisions against county splits are a reasonable restraint on map makers doing whatever they want, willy nilly. When we don't have restraints, we start seeing absurdities such as cracking the suburbs of Columbus to elect exclusively Democrats, with the resulting disenfranchisement of Republican leaning suburban voters.

The "proportional" goal is absurd because the citizens of Cleveland are entitled to exactly two State Senators, and, if they do so 80-20 Democrat, as opposed the 54-46, that does not entitle them to elect another Democrat somewhere outside of Cleveland. The rest of the state is free to vote for whomever they want to represent them, and, not Cleveland.

[BigSkyBob]

They somehow managed to avoid contempt of court.

1) Because they are not in contempt as matter of the right and wrong of it; and

2) Doing so would be a raw exercise in power, except, the in response, in a raw exercise in power, the legislature could impeach any, or all, judges voting for contempt.

The rulings have been a joke. "Fair redistricting" is a phantom that simply doesn't exist. A reasonable notion of "fair" would grant Cincinatti, Akron, and Toledo, one state senate seat for the Democrats, Columbus and Cleveland 2 each for the Democrats, a few swing districts centered in Dayton, and the Columbus suburbs. The rest of the state would be so overwhelming Republican that any randomly generated map would be a sweep, or near sweep for the GOP. The court is demanding that the people who are responsible for executing the laws of Ohio to willfully violate those laws by taking a series of decision to favor the Democrats by carefully cracking urban areas to maximize the number of Democratic seats, etc.

The court doesn't have the authority to issue a partisan Democratic gerrymander, and, lacks the courage to articulate that that is what they are demanding.

There is a constitutional requirement for proportionality. Personally, I think this requirement kind of sucks, but I didn't put it there, and neither did the court.

And, there is a Constitutional requirement not to favor either political party in redistricting.  The requirements are self-contradictory, and, can only be reconciled by 1) acknowledging that the GOP has a more efficient distribution of voters, and, therefore, is apt to win a larger percentage of the seats; or 2) produce a Democratic gerrymander.  The Court is demanding the latter, but, is failing to be intellectual honest about it.

Nor, can I let pass without comment the false notion that the interpretation the Court asserted concerning "proportionality" is written in the Ohio Constitution. South Australia has the same provision, which has always been understood to mean that if you win a clear majority you are very apt to win, and a tiny majority, you ought to win. But, if you fall short of the majority, it never asserted that 46% is entitled to 46% of the seats. In single-seat, winner-take-all multi-district elections the drop off can be quite steep.

Article XI, Section 6(B) of the Ohio Constitution:

"The statewide proportion of districts whose voters, based on statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years, favor each political party shall correspond closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio."

The "statewide proportion of districts," it says, not "the overall winner." There is no way to possibly twist this language to service your interpretation of proportionality; it's very clear that the amendment intends for true proportionality to be in effect, and not whatever weird interpretation of it they allegedly have in South Australia.

I additionally take issue with your characterizing correcting for a geographic bias as "gerrymandering." Firstly, Ohio's geographic bias isn't even that bad now since so many of the rurals have sprinted right. Secondly, it's clear that the Ohio constitution doesn't agree with your definition of gerrymandering, or else it wouldn't have included the proportionality clause. It would make no sense to demand proportionality if one characterizes any attempt to do so as "primarily favor[ing] or disfavor[ing]" a political party! For all the bellyaching about textualism from conservatives, you sure seem remarkably willing to bend over backwards in service of absurd textual leaps when it services your own interests.

1) Elections are free in this country. People may vote for whomever they want, for any reason, or no reason at all. Any particular election is not bound by any previous election. Thus, one of the outcomes the people of Ohio could choose is electing 99 Republican state representatives, and, another is that they could choose to elect 99 Democrats.  People have a right to select who they wish to represent them. Political parties have no right to win any seat.

2) Everything thing you wrote is premised on the false notion that any political party is entitled to any seat.

3) When one sees through the false premise, it clear that the alleged objection to the map has no basis in the text of the Ohio Constitution you cite: if every voter voted as they did on average over the last ten years [something they have no obligation whatsoever to do] in every district, the outcome would be "proportional" to average of the last ten years.  The requirement is fulfilled.

Partisan Democrats on the Supreme Court, and, one self-described "Republican" are asserting, against the Constitution, and against the notion of rule by law, the Democratic party is entitled to entitled to seats that are non-competitive, which is a joke.

4) In near-term elections, any "proportional map" is quite apt elect more Republicans than projected, since Republicans have in recent elections won most of the close seats, so they will have the advantages one has running for reelection.

5) When drawing district lines where decisions have to be taken, it has always been understood that invariable choosing the option that favors one political party over the other is the very definition of the English word "gerrymandering." Your remarks are Orwellian. Just be honest and state, "The geographical deficits the Democrats face ought to be overcome by carefully gerrymandering the state in favor of the Democrats [to the extent necessary."] However, doing so you would have to admit the provisions are inherently self-contradictory in an alleged "anti-gerrymandering" Amendment.

6) The outcome the Democrats are pursuing is unjust to the people of Ohio.  If you aim to lock in 14 or 15 Democrats, you must equally lock in 18 or 19 Republicans seats. You just made elections in Ohio a formality.

In Florida suddenly Republicans everywhere like on RRH and Ifromnj are praising Compactness as the end all be all most noble metric to use everywhere, simply because that's what Desantis' map is based on.

Why not apply the same metric to Ohio and create compact districts in Hamilton, Franklin, Cuyahoga, and Summit?   Why the double standard here?

Summit is compact. Franklin isn't non-compact, and is certainly reasonably compact. Cuyahoga county has VRA concerns that trump compactness. But, Cuyahoga isn't non-compact, either. Hamilton, is not compact. Perhaps, the Cincinatti area  is not egregiously non-compact, perhaps, it is.

Having some continuity between the existing seats, and, the new seats has some value.

Had the Democrats asked for one seat in Hamilton, they might have obtained it. But, they wanted the Sun and Moon, and, they received nothing. Sucks to be them.

[BigSkyBob]

They somehow managed to avoid contempt of court.

1) Because they are not in contempt as matter of the right and wrong of it; and

2) Doing so would be a raw exercise in power, except, the in response, in a raw exercise in power, the legislature could impeach any, or all, judges voting for contempt.

The rulings have been a joke. "Fair redistricting" is a phantom that simply doesn't exist. A reasonable notion of "fair" would grant Cincinatti, Akron, and Toledo, one state senate seat for the Democrats, Columbus and Cleveland 2 each for the Democrats, a few swing districts centered in Dayton, and the Columbus suburbs. The rest of the state would be so overwhelming Republican that any randomly generated map would be a sweep, or near sweep for the GOP. The court is demanding that the people who are responsible for executing the laws of Ohio to willfully violate those laws by taking a series of decision to favor the Democrats by carefully cracking urban areas to maximize the number of Democratic seats, etc.

The court doesn't have the authority to issue a partisan Democratic gerrymander, and, lacks the courage to articulate that that is what they are demanding.

There is a constitutional requirement for proportionality. Personally, I think this requirement kind of sucks, but I didn't put it there, and neither did the court.

And, there is a Constitutional requirement not to favor either political party in redistricting.  The requirements are self-contradictory, and, can only be reconciled by 1) acknowledging that the GOP has a more efficient distribution of voters, and, therefore, is apt to win a larger percentage of the seats; or 2) produce a Democratic gerrymander.  The Court is demanding the latter, but, is failing to be intellectual honest about it.

Nor, can I let pass without comment the false notion that the interpretation the Court asserted concerning "proportionality" is written in the Ohio Constitution. South Australia has the same provision, which has always been understood to mean that if you win a clear majority you are very apt to win, and a tiny majority, you ought to win. But, if you fall short of the majority, it never asserted that 46% is entitled to 46% of the seats. In single-seat, winner-take-all multi-district elections the drop off can be quite steep.

Article XI, Section 6(B) of the Ohio Constitution:

"The statewide proportion of districts whose voters, based on statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years, favor each political party shall correspond closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio."

The "statewide proportion of districts," it says, not "the overall winner." There is no way to possibly twist this language to service your interpretation of proportionality; it's very clear that the amendment intends for true proportionality to be in effect, and not whatever weird interpretation of it they allegedly have in South Australia.

I additionally take issue with your characterizing correcting for a geographic bias as "gerrymandering." Firstly, Ohio's geographic bias isn't even that bad now since so many of the rurals have sprinted right. Secondly, it's clear that the Ohio constitution doesn't agree with your definition of gerrymandering, or else it wouldn't have included the proportionality clause. It would make no sense to demand proportionality if one characterizes any attempt to do so as "primarily favor[ing] or disfavor[ing]" a political party! For all the bellyaching about textualism from conservatives, you sure seem remarkably willing to bend over backwards in service of absurd textual leaps when it services your own interests.

1) Elections are free in this country. People may vote for whomever they want, for any reason, or no reason at all. Any particular election is not bound by any previous election. Thus, one of the outcomes the people of Ohio could choose is electing 99 Republican state representatives, and, another is that they could choose to elect 99 Democrats.  People have a right to select who they wish to represent them. Political parties have no right to win any seat.

2) Everything thing you wrote is premised on the false notion that any political party is entitled to any seat.

3) When one sees through the false premise, it clear that the alleged objection to the map has no basis in the text of the Ohio Constitution you cite: if every voter voted as they did on average over the last ten years [something they have no obligation whatsoever to do] in every district, the outcome would be "proportional" to average of the last ten years.  The requirement is fulfilled.

Partisan Democrats on the Supreme Court, and, one self-described "Republican" are asserting, against the Constitution, and against the notion of rule by law, the Democratic party is entitled to entitled to seats that are non-competitive, which is a joke.

4) In near-term elections, any "proportional map" is quite apt elect more Republicans than projected, since Republicans have in recent elections won most of the close seats, so they will have the advantages one has running for reelection.

5) When drawing district lines where decisions have to be taken, it has always been understood that invariable choosing the option that favors one political party over the other is the very definition of the English word "gerrymandering." Your remarks are Orwellian. Just be honest and state, "The geographical deficits the Democrats face ought to be overcome by carefully gerrymandering the state in favor of the Democrats [to the extent necessary."] However, doing so you would have to admit the provisions are inherently self-contradictory in an alleged "anti-gerrymandering" Amendment.

6) The outcome the Democrats are pursuing is unjust to the people of Ohio.  If you aim to lock in 14 or 15 Democrats, you must equally lock in 18 or 19 Republicans seats. You just made elections in Ohio a formality.

In Florida suddenly Republicans everywhere like on RRH and Ifromnj are praising Compactness as the end all be all most noble metric to use everywhere, simply because that's what Desantis' map is based on.

Why not apply the same metric to Ohio and create compact districts in Hamilton, Franklin, Cuyahoga, and Summit?   Why the double standard here?

Ive always said the FL map is a gerrymander and a gerrymander is illegal under the FDA?, I just noted it is a very aesthetic gerrymander in comparison to both NY/OH which decided to flagrantly disregard all measures.

Since when are you the standard by which Truth is determined? You have an opinion on the Florida map regarding "gerrymandering."   The decisions taken to connect Tallahassee and Jacksonville, shed  Northern Pinellas county, rather than parts of St. Pete, and the decision to attach urban Orange county to Seminole  rather than extending further outward were all decisions that favored the Democrats in the last map. This maps takes the opposite decisions. The Seminole decision is entirely reasonable, and, natural consequence of placing the new district mid-state, pushing the Orlando area districts Eastwards as a result. The Tallahassee to Jacksonville district was a gerrymandered one. Score that decision on the side of righteousness. In Pinelass, my personal preference is keeping suburbs intact rather than urban areas.  To each his own, I suppose. Water continuity was upheld for the legislative maps. The rest of the dstricts aren't that different.

The previous map was proposed by plaintiffs favoring the Democrats. It was deemed "fair" and imposed on the legislature without input or modification. It was a soft Democratic gerrymander.  The decision taken by a gerrymander don't have to internalized by the legislature. Whether, or not, this map meets your, or my, definition of soft "gerrymander," it should be will within the FDA.

[BigSkyBob]

With all that being said, I've been playing around with the Ohio Senate map and the county rules do make it really annoying to get to the magic number of 15 blue districts. There are a number of obvious/pretty easy ones:

- 4 from Franklin
- 4 from Cuyahoga + Lake
- 1 from Summit
- 1 from Hamilton
- 1 from Montgomery
- 1 from Lucas

That still just leaves you at 12, though. The easiest one to do next would be another Hamilton blue district, which is fair, except you can't split Warren or Clermont and Butler needs a district wholly within it. I think the easiest thing to do here is put the Butler district in the east and then stretch a district from Preble south through a strip of leftover Butler in the west to the red parts of Hamilton, which lets you make the second Hamilton district blue. Due to county split rules in NEOH, the only real feasible way to get another blue district there is to combine the city of Akron with Portage, leaving the rest of Summit district narrowly blue. Finally, you have to compensate for not being able to do a Mahoning/Trumbull district; the only way I could find was to really cherrypick for the blue precincts in Toledo and combine that with Wood, Ottowa, Erie, and some of Sandusky for another narrowly blue district.

Honestly, both the county split and proportionality rules are dumb. You can tell what a fair map is without these strict rules.

Honestly, the provisions against county splits are a reasonable restraint on map makers doing whatever they want, willy nilly. When we don't have restraints, we start seeing absurdities such as cracking the suburbs of Columbus to elect exclusively Democrats, with the resulting disenfranchisement of Republican leaning suburban voters.

The "proportional" goal is absurd because the citizens of Cleveland are entitled to exactly two State Senators, and, if they do so 80-20 Democrat, as opposed the 54-46, that does not entitle them to elect another Democrat somewhere outside of Cleveland. The rest of the state is free to vote for whomever they want to represent them, and, not Cleveland.

The provisions against county splits are fine in 80% of the state. However they really do mess up NE Ohio.

They restrain unlimited discretion in NE Ohio, as elsewhere. Unlimited discretion facilitates gerrymandering. That is the beauty of limits on splitting counties.  It is objective,  and almost immutable, unlike nebulous terms such as "communities of interest" which allow mapmakers to rationalize what they want to do [often partisan gerrymandering.]

[BigSkyBob]

Summit is compact. Franklin isn't non-compact, and is certainly reasonably compact. Cuyahoga county has VRA concerns that trump compactness. But, Cuyahoga isn't non-compact, either. Hamilton, is not compact. Perhaps, the Cincinatti area  is not egregiously non-compact, perhaps, it is.

Having some continuity between the existing seats, and, the new seats has some value.

Had the Democrats asked for one seat in Hamilton, they might have obtained it. But, they wanted the Sun and Moon, and, they received nothing. Sucks to be them.

So what about that Lorrain to Mercer district?  You're saying there's no partisan intent there either?  

You seem to really go out of your way to advantage Republicans at every angle here.

I would think if you want voters to vote for whoever they want and don't want parts of the state to get too much representation, you'd do the same metric for rural areas spilling too much into suburban areas.

What I read a lot in this forum is particularly democratic-favoring posters who are way to quick
to scream "gerrrymandering" when map makers don't invariably choose the option democrats would prefer when faced with multiple options. I have merely noted that there exists explanations for the decisions taken other than it is a particularly egregious Republican gerrymander.

For instance, in the last state senate map, Dayton's population was about two districts, and, its suburbs more than three. The Republicans kept the three suburban districts intact, and, paired the two Dayton districts with a third district farther out. Many cried "gerrymander," but, that claim is far from obvious. If Dayton's population was more than a state Senate district, then it seems unreasonable to crack it. Well, if Dayton's suburbs have more than one district's worth of population then it is not unreasonable to refuse to crack them?

Lorain had to be paired with some county. If you have some reason to object, by all means state it.

Cities such as Akron, Cleveland, and Cincinatti are reasonably compact. The rural areas are defuse. You would have to give up compactness to avoid crossing into metro areas,  Generally, the suburbs are between rural areas and the larger cities.