This May, Ohio voters will decide on a constitutional amendment to change the congressional redistricting process in their state. Issue 1 (“Congressional Redistricting Procedures Amendment”) would set up a rather complicated multi-step process for passing a map. Stephen Wolf explains:
For the legislature to pass a map, it would need 60 percent supermajority approval, including at least 50 percent of the members of the minority party. If the legislature can't pass a map, it would go to the same bipartisan commission of officeholders that already handles legislative redistricting. That commission is made up of four legislators—two from each party—and the governor, secretary of state, and auditor. The panel would currently have a Republican majority thanks to the GOP’s hold on statewide offices, but at least two votes from the minority party would be required to pass a map.
However, if the commission can't reach an agreement, the legislature gets another crack. The legislature would still need a 60 percent supermajority, but this time the share of votes required from the minority party would go down to just one third. But here's the critical part: If all those convoluted steps still fail to produce a map, the legislature gets to pass a map with a simple majority and no minority-party veto, although the map would only be good for four years instead of the usual 10. And what happens after four years? They can do it all over again.
Maps would also be subject to very specific requirements regarding how counties can be split and which municipalities must be kept whole. Districts would also have to be compact. If the majority party rejects compromise and opts to pass a plan without supermajority/minority support, two additional requirements kick in: the legislature can’t “unduly dis/favor a political party or its incumbents,” or “unduly split governmental units.” However, the compactness requirement weakens (“the legislature must attempt to draw compact districts”). The Brennan Center has a full summary of the proposal here.
Those complex requirements, and criticism from some progressive activists skeptical that this proposal will result in meaningful change, made me curious to work out what an Issue 1-compliant map might look like. Here is what the GOP legislature might have drawn unilaterally after 2010 had Issue 1 been in effect, mapped by the 2008 presidential margin. The actual 2011 plan is on the right. (Compare to DKE’s nonpartisan map here.)
By packing the Dem strongholds of Greater Cleveland, Columbus, and Akron-Youngstown, cracking Toledo into three districts, and keeping as many Dem Cincinnati suburbs out of OH-01 as possible, this map would probably result in the same 12-4 delegation as the actual plan. Districts where Obama notably gained:
- OH-01 becomes 4 points more Dem and potentially competitive.
- While Obama also would have won OH-14, his vote share only increases 0.3 percentage points.
- OH-16 also becomes 1 point more Dem — not enough to reverse Betty Sutton’s 4-point loss to Jim Renacci in 2012.
The 2016 presidential results show the Issue 1-compliant map is about as durable through the decade as the actual map:
Clinton’s surge in Cincinnati gives her a 7-point edge in OH-01, but otherwise the GOP looks like they’d hold all their seats with ease.
Here are the 2008 and 2016 presidential results for each plan:
But wait — would this map actually pass muster in the courts? Surely it “unduly favors” the Republican Party? Maybe. But it complies with all the other criteria:
- It “attempts to include a significant portion” of Columbus in a single district. (Over 70% of the city is in OH-03.) OH-03’s other municipalities have residents with “similar interests” as Columbus (they’re all sub/urban Franklin County).
- Cincinnati is whole in OH-01, and Cleveland is whole in OH-11.
- 10 counties are split once (18 can be); 3 counties are split twice (5 can be).
- No district includes two unconnected portions of a county.
- No two districts split the same two counties between them. (Except OH-04 and OH-12 in Lucas and Marion Counties — but Lucas doesn’t count toward this rule because its population is over 400,000.)
- It “attempts to include at least one whole county in each district.” (Doesn’t apply to OH-01, OH-03, and OH-11 as they are entirely within one county.)
- It doesn’t “unduly split governmental units.” Preference is given to keeping counties, townships, and municipalities whole, in that order. Every time a municipality is split it’s necessary for population equality or compactness. 6 cities and 9 townships are split (not including cities that cross county lines).
- It “attempts to draw compact districts.” Keep in mind the more stringent “districts shall be compact” requirement doesn’t apply to maps drawn without minority party support. I think each of these districts is fairly compact. The only appendages follow county and municipal boundaries. (Most obviously OH-14’s arm along the south Cuyahoga line, OH-13’s arm into Akron, OH-04’s arm along the north Franklin line, and OH-08’s dip into the bluest Hamilton County suburbs.)
Because the plan follows all these requirements, I think the 6-1 Republican majority on the Supreme Court would not have found this plan “unduly” favors the GOP. (The court is now 7-0 Republican.)
All in all, not an optimistic picture for Democrats hoping Issue 1 will result in a bevy of new blue and competitive congressional seats. It certainly might — especially if Dems make inroads in the Ohio legislature and statewide offices in ’18 and ’20 — but it’s clear the GOP could have had a 12-4 or 11-5 delegation if Issue 1 had been in effect last cycle.
In Part 2, I’ll take a look at how Issue 1 might play out in the 2020 cycle, using the latest population projections. Ohio is set to lose a seat, and that could make it even easier for the GOP to maintain a lopsided majority in the delegation.
