Groups push to rewrite Ohio's redistricting rules
Sunday, May 08, 2005
T.C. Brown
Plain Dealer Bureau
Columbus- Some government observers say mapmaking is the reason many politicians don't listen to constituents.
The party in power gets the choice duty of drawing Ohio's legislative and congressional districts every 10 years, making it easier to protect their own and remain in power.
Government watchdogs, including Derek Cressman, director of the California-based TheRestofUs.org, go as far as to say the whole system, known as redistricting and enhanced by computer technology, is fixed.
"Most people feel politicians don't listen to them," said Cressman. "The reason is that elections are rigged by this process of redistricting and with big money contributions."
Last week, proponents of changing that process submitted petition language to the Ohio attorney general in hope of qualifying for the November ballot. If the language is approved and the Reform Ohio Now group gathers more than 300,000 valid signatures, voters will decide if a new redistricting process should be added to Ohio's Constitution.
Educating the public about the need for a change is a high hurdle, said Peg Rosenfield, an election law specialist with the League of Women Voters of Ohio.
"People just don't get it. They have to find a way to connect it to some of the problems we are having in Ohio," Rosenfield said. "It's why it is so difficult to get things considered carefully in the legislature."
The relative safety of the districts puts greater emphasis on primary elections, which tend to draw the party faithful, over general elections, Rosenfield said.
The candidates at the extreme ideological edges of their parties - Republican conservatives and Democratic liberals - tend to win primaries in a district where they represent the majority and thereafter win in the general election.
Little room is left for moderate politicians, and that polarizes the legislature.
"All the votes in the middle are not represented," Rosenfield said. "They are out in the cold. They are irrelevant. People are much more ideological, so they don't develop friendships across party lines like they used to."
Both parties have controlled the mapping process through the apportionment board, the state panel made up of the governor, secretary of state, state auditor and one state legislator from each party.
For years, it has been Republican-dominated, as evidenced by the GOP majority in the Ohio House, Ohio Senate and congressional delegation.
Last year, only 14 House districts out of 99 and one Senate district out of 33 were competitive.
Reform Ohio Now's initiative would create an independent commission to choose a map plan that offers the most competitive districts, which could be drawn up by anyone. The initiative also allows for an early redrawing in 2007, and then again at the normal time a year after the census, 2011. Separate initiatives proposed by the group would lower recently enacted campaign contribution limits from $10,000 to $2,000 and create an independent board to oversee Ohio elections.
Reformers hope to catch a swell of grass-root supporters, said Herb Asher, a professor emeritus of political science at Ohio State University and an organization leader.
"The whole initiative process was designed as a way for individuals to influence the policy- making in their states," Asher said. "Districts now are designed for incumbents and to screw the minority party. In reality, they create safe districts for both, but more for the majority party."
Not surprisingly, these reforms are easily viewed through partisan lenses, said Bob Bennett, chairman of the Ohio GOP.
"This is a Democratic ploy in a state that is very competitive right now," said Bennett, who opposes any change. Bennett said the redistricting proposal will end up favoring Democrats, who are traditionally strong in the cities but weaker in the suburbs.
"You will have students with computers drawing the craziest lines you've ever seen," Bennett said. "They want to extend the urban center influence of districts out into suburban communities by making competitiveness the sole test."
The groups normally expected to jump on the reform bandwagon haven't leapt yet, and some may not. Though no statewide offices are up for grabs in November, the election is shaping up to be one of the most crowded ballots in recent history, said Bill Faith, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio. Voters could face up to seven initiatives.
"A sleepy little off-year election can become extremely hot," Faith said.
His organization will not join the reform effort over deep concern about a spending and tax initiative that is likely to be on the ballot and is being pushed by Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. The measure would cap government spending and limit new taxes without voter approval.
Similar issues that have passed elsewhere have created havoc with state budgets, said Faith and others.
"I am working very hard to get a bipartisan coalition assembled to beat that," Faith said. Supporting a redistricting initiative could easily detract from that effort.
"For the Republicans, it's a threat to their majority, and they will put tons of resources into stopping that," Faith said. "I think the timing is wrong. I would feel more comfortable going forward in 2006."
While the issue has some labor support, not all labor leaders fully support the redistricting measure, said Tim Burga of the Ohio AFL-CIO.
"There is no consensus on what is best to put on the ballot for a constitutional amendment," Burga said. "There is a lot of agreement this issue is good, but it comes down to putting up resources, and we haven't got to that yet."
Though Ohio Citizen Action hasn't jumped aboard, timing and multiple issues on the ballot don't trouble Catherine Turcer, the group's legislative director.
"This is a wonderful opportu nity to get people focused on what is at the root of these problems," Turcer said. "Right now, elected officials are basically anointed rather than having to convince voters and really work to develop dialogue."
Jon Goldin-Dubois of Common Cause said it is a fundamental conflict of interest when the party in power draws legislative districts.
"In a lot of ways, the political parties are out of touch with people," Goldin-Dubois said. "We have systems in most states where we have less competition than in the old Soviet Politburo. It is flat out un-Democratic, and it is time to put an end to politicians of either party drawing their own districts."
To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:
tcbrown@plaind.com, 1-800-228-8272