Voters support redistricting reform.
Between January 4
and 5, 2006, the Tarrance Group took a poll for the Reform Institute
and surveyed 807 Ohio voters. They found that:
-
70% of Ohio
voters support either the idea of “balance” or “competition”
in congressional and legislative races, or both
-
58% support
more competition
-
31% support
keeping things the way they are
-
53% support
more of a balance of voters with differing views in their districts
-
28% support
keeping a majority who share their views
-
53% of
Republicans and 61% of Democrats support more competition in
elections over keeping things the way they are
-
55% of
self-identified conservatives, 60% of moderates and 62% of liberals
support more competition in elections over keeping things the way
they are
Some form of
anti-gerrymandering legislation has been introduced in every General
Assembly since 1978, but recent attempts to reform have been
unsuccessful. However, a number of
arenas for reform and alternative redistricting systems still exist,
and citizens may petition for an initiative to be placed on the
ballot for voters to consider.
Redistricting reform history1967
The Ohio Constitutional amendment authorizing the Reapportionment Board to draw boundaries for Ohio House and Senate districts was passed in 1967.
1981
In 1981, the League of Women Voters of Ohio supported an Ohio Constitutional amendment which provided for competition between redistricting plans and would limit the discretion of individuals selecting the plan. The amendment failed.
1999
In 1999, the
League of Women Voters of Ohio attempted to get signatures sufficient
to place a redistricting reform amendment on the ballot. The proposed amendment emphasized compactness of districts, and
used a mathematical formula to assure compact districts.
2005
In 2005, a group called Reform Ohio Now (RON) obtained enough
signatures to place an initiative on the ballot. Under the
initiative, a bipartisan commission would do the redistricting; plans
could be submitted by the public and the plan that most supported
competitive districts would be chosen.
Opponents
produced a map which they claimed was competitive, but which did not
retain community of interest.
The voters
rejected the proposal by a 70% vote. Research done by Lake Research
Partners shortly after the election indicated that voters support the
underlying principles of redistricting reform. Ohio voters viewed the
proposal as partisan and did not see the need for this reform
relative to other priorities.
2006
The day after the
defeat of Issue 4 in 2005, Ohio House Majority Leader Husted
indicated that he also thought the current redistricting system was
not working. Husted indicated he wanted House Republicans to meet
with representatives of Reform Ohio Now to develop a new
redistricting proposal. That effort produced H.J.R. 13, introduced in
May 2006. More information.
H.J.R. 13
differed from the 2005 Issue 4 in a number of ways. Primarily, it
emphasized compactness of districts and keeping communities together.
Hearings were held in May 2006 resulting in a substitute resolution. More information.
In order to be
placed on the ballot, the resolution needed to pass both the Ohio
House and Senate by a 60% margin. It did not receive the required number of votes.
Historically
Arenas for reform
Courts
The United States
Supreme Court has indicated that it has jurisdiction over the issue
of excessive partisan redistricting, but to date the Court hasn’t
found a standard to use in making that determination. Recently, it
decided to permit Texas’ mid-decade redistricting. LULAC v.
Perry, decided June 28, 2006.
Federal legislature for federal house seats
Congress has the
authority to draw congressional districts, but to date has chosen not
to use that authority.
State legislature for state house and senate and federal house
seats
The state
legislature has not passed reform legislation in the area of
redistricting in the last 30 years.
Initiative petition
Citizens of Ohio
can place an initiative on the ballot for the consideration of the
voters.
Alternative systems
There are alternative systems to
district-based voting that may eliminate some of the problems with
redistricting. These systems include:
First-past-the-post
Federal Congressional races are an
example of a “first-past-the-post” system in which the voter
votes for one choice, and the choice that receives the most votes
wins, even if that is less than a majority of votes. It is also
known as a “winner take all” system, because if every candidate
of a single party were to receive 51% of the vote, that party would
win all the seats.
Preference
voting
In a preference voting system, voters
rank candidates in order of preference. This is commonly paired with
an instant run-off election. If no candidate receives a majority of
first preference, the candidates with fewest votes are eliminated one
by one, and their votes transferred according to their second and
third preferences until one candidate achieves a majority.
Multi-member districts
Another
option is to create multi-member districts. If the district were to
have three members, the top three candidates receiving the most votes
would be elected. If the composition of the district were 51% for
one party and 49% for the other, it would be likely that two members
of the majority party would be elected and one member of the minority
party would be elected. Click
here for more information. | 
