Ohio's Issue 1 Isn't About Gerrymandering

It's all about protecting incumbents and uncontested races

This publication rarely gets in the political world that revolves around what happens at the corner of Broad and High Streets in Downtown Columbus. There are plenty of good resources, both traditional and unconventional, that can help uncover the statewide issues that exist here in Ohio, and this publication doesn’t necessarily need to add to the cacophony of voices.

However, Ohio’s Issue 1 presents a unique opportunity to provide a discussion on an important topic, namely because both sides of this issue are doing their level best to present their side of the issue as the one that is virtuously fighting gerrymandering.

It’s a rich argument because, at it’s core, Issue 1 has very little to do with gerrymandering, because, well, everything is gerrymandering. Having a group of individuals, with all their biases and frailties, come together to create a set of lines on a map is going to result in someone declaring the final result is the result of gerrymandering — whether done by a group of citizens or politicians.

How We Got Here

In 2015, Ohio voters adopted a legislatively-initiated measure creating the Ohio Redistricting Commission. The measure was put forward by the Ohio General Assembly, as an attempt to blunt any citizen created initiative effort to put another issue on the ballot dealing with redistricting.

The 2015 measure passed with 71% of the vote and creating a seven-member board to adopt maps for the Ohio’s Congressional Delegation (a power added by voters in 2018) and both houses of the Ohio General Assembly. The board made up of the Governor, the Auditor, the Secretary of State, two members of the Ohio House and two members of the Ohio Senate.

The catch was if five of the seven members could agree on maps, the maps would last ten years, if only four of the seven members could agree, the maps would last for a shorter period of time.

Early in the process, the Ohio Redistricting Commission and the Ohio Supreme Court were engaged in a tug-of-war with the maps created by the Commission. Each set of maps were litigated, and the Ohio Supreme Court stated that each set of maps failed to uphold the State Constitution.

Things came to a head in the Spring of 2022, and the Commission agreed to hire two outside mapmakers, Douglas Johnson of National Demographics Corporation was brought on by the suggestion of then House Speaker Bob Cupp and Dr. Michael McDonald, a political science professor from the University of Florida was brought on under the suggestion of State Democratic Senator Vernon Sykes.

The two men were sequestered in a room in the statehouse for an entire week and given access to voter data. Three computers were set up in the room, one for each man and one that they worked on together. And in an almost “The Truman Show” effect, cameras were installed showing the two mean working for forty hours to come up with maps that would satisfy the Commission and the Supreme Court.

The two men amicably worked hard and created a set of maps. And when they presented the maps, one of the commission members asked, “So, where are the incumbents on these maps?”

And there it was.

The maps the two men created were voted down in favor of a map made by the politicians on the Redistricting Commission themselves.

Issue 1 in Ohio is not about gerrymandering, it’s all about incumbent protection. Needless to say, the maps created by the mapmakers (at a cost of $98,000) were voted down.

Those in favor of Issue 1 want to create a commission, not of current office holders or politicians, to help create districts, those that oppose Issue 1 want to ensure that current office holders have the final say in how these districts are created.

What Should be the Goal Be?

The goal of Civic Capacity, is to inform, involve and empower residents, namely here in Miami County, but also for all our readers throughout the State of Ohio. This November, there are 16 candidates (10 democrats and 6 republicans) for the Ohio General Assembly that are facing no opposition in their election race. This is not good for our democracy and not good for civic capacity.

Candidates, no matter what the party, should be required to go through the rigors of campaigning for positions, especially in those races that are for seats in the General Assembly. Even facing token opposition, candidates are required to attend events and interact with constituents.

The current system we have has created many noncompetitive seats, so much so, that opposition parties haven’t even bothered to contest these states. In these seats, the voters lose. Anything that creates more competitive seats should strongly be considered by the electorate.

But make no mistake, this election isn’t about gerrymandering, it’s about incumbent protection.

You Can Help Support This Work!

Our readers and subscribers have been asking for a new way to support the work being done here at Civic Capacity! Some of our readers do not like the idea of having to sign up for another subscription service. Some of our subscribers occasionally want to give more support through a one-time transaction.

Civic Capacity is partnering with “Buy Me A Coffee” to give our readers, subscribers and friends an opportunity to give one-time support to Civic Capacity. Personally, I don’t like coffee, but I will never turn down a nice iced tea. If you feel compelled to support this effort, just click the button below.

Thank you to our reader Richard D. for purchasing today’s freezing iced-tea! It is much appreciated!

Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Please feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors.

Also, please consider subscribing to our work. If you are a free subscriber, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. For less than $1 a week, you can get timely and conversational updates about the decisions that are impacting you and your community!