US House Redistricting: Ohio

[Torie]

OK padfoot. I guess he was not sufficiently confident about the final map. It must have broke his heart to have decamped from where he lived. I know I would have been saying the F word all the way to Upper Arlington. It's nearby, maybe but a mile or two away, but yet it's worlds' away.

[jimrtex]

OK padfoot. I guess he was not sufficiently confident about the final map. It must have broke his heart to have decamped from where he lived. I know I would have been saying the F word all the way to Upper Arlington. It's nearby, maybe but a mile or two away, but yet it's worlds' away.

The compassionate folks in the legislature added an appropriation for local election officials to adjust everyone's precincts and so that they would be able to check petitions before the December filing deadline and candidates could decide where to run.

And coincidentally, bills with appropriations are not subject to referendums.

Hopefully, Obama will send them some stimulus money.

[Meeker]

http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/561887/Dems-come-up-with-districts.html

[Torie]

http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/561887/Dems-come-up-with-districts.html

If "our own" Mr. Fortner also gets to draw the map for Illinois, this might be a good idea.

I would be amazed if Muon2 was not meticulous in trying to hew to the VRA, on which he is basically an "expert."  (He's attended seminars on the topic.)  But maybe the rules of the contest to which he was constrained to hew were less meticulous.

[muon2]

http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/561887/Dems-come-up-with-districts.html

If "our own" Mr. Fortner also gets to draw the map for Illinois, this might be a good idea.

I would be amazed if Muon2 was not meticulous in trying to hew to the VRA, on which he is basically an "expert."  (He's attended seminars on the topic.)  But maybe the rules of the contest to which he was constrained to hew were less meticulous.

There's a funny little grey area in the Bartlett decision. It only says that if there isn't a compact area where there is 50%+1 of a single minority (VAP), then there is no section 2 claim. The safest path for a mapper is to draw a 50%+1 district if it can exist, but that is not demanded anywhere. On the other hand there is a requirement that a minority district be able to elect the candidate of choice of the minority group.

So here's the grey area - what if an area that includes 50%+1 of a minority could reasonably elect a candidate of choice with less than 50%? The decisions are silent, and many observers expected this would be litigated during this decade.

In IL black groups testified that there were areas where VAPs in the upper 40% range would be sufficient and the IL Dems drew some districts at that standard. Apparently the Ohio NAACP was willing to use 48% as a floor for a Cuyahoga district for similar reasons reached in IL. The competition reflected this view of their partner group, but the GOP in OH took the safer course by staying over 50%+1.

[jimrtex]

http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/561887/Dems-come-up-with-districts.html

It would be interesting to hear Sen. Sawyer explain why he split Cleveland in the manner that he did, when it wasn't necessary at all, and why he took an area of Columbus with a 55% BVAP and added them to a suburban area which had a 5.7% BVAP, plus the major splits of Clark and Greene counties.

[minionofmidas]

http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/561887/Dems-come-up-with-districts.html

If "our own" Mr. Fortner also gets to draw the map for Illinois, this might be a good idea.

I would be amazed if Muon2 was not meticulous in trying to hew to the VRA, on which he is basically an "expert."  (He's attended seminars on the topic.)  But maybe the rules of the contest to which he was constrained to hew were less meticulous.

There's a funny little grey area in the Bartlett decision. It only says that if there isn't a compact area where there is 50%+1 of a single minority (VAP), then there is no section 2 claim. The safest path for a mapper is to draw a 50%+1 district if it can exist, but that is not demanded anywhere. On the other hand there is a requirement that a minority district be able to elect the candidate of choice of the minority group.

So here's the grey area - what if an area that includes 50%+1 of a minority could reasonably elect a candidate of choice with less than 50%?

Not really a grey area. There's nothing in case law requiring the actual resulting district to be 50%+1.
The de facto requirement creeps in through burden of proof stuff etc though - if you're saying "they oughta have drawn an extra district here", you'll obviously have to be able to tout a map with that Bartlett/Gingles district... at 50%+1. OTOH, if you're trying to argue that the Ohio district's extension to Akron ought not to have been drawn, you'd be forced to argue that Akron's Blacks are not part of the same community of interest (which is just a true fact, of course) and that therefore the remaining community of interest in Cuyahoga is not strong enough to pass the tests and the Ohio legislature is free to draw the district any way it pleases... including the way it actually drew it. Ouch. But had Ohio drawn it the way the NAACP argued here - the way it should be drawn, really - some Democrat would have sued based on the lack of a Black district, falsely argued that Akron is part of that same community of interest, and - exceedingly probably not, but it's not a risk Ohio Republicans had any incentive to take - get a court-drawn remap of northeast Ohio. So 50%+1 it is. In most parts of the country.

Now... a genuine grey area. A very compact 50%+1 (and more than that: enough to actually elect a candidate of their choice) Hispanic district can be drawn in County X. A compact 50%+1 Black district can be drawn in the same county. Are you required to draw two districts electing members of both communities... even though you can't draw the two compact 50%+1 districts at the same time as an area is included in both maps (but you can draw two compact districts certain to elect a candidate of Hispanics' choice and a candidate of Blacks' choice... just with the latter under 50%+1 VAP over split opposition?)
That's Dallas County of course.

[jimrtex]

Now... a genuine grey area. A very compact 50%+1 (and more than that: enough to actually elect a candidate of their choice) Hispanic district can be drawn in County X. A compact 50%+1 Black district can be drawn in the same county. Are you required to draw two districts electing members of both communities... even though you can't draw the two compact 50%+1 districts at the same time as an area is included in both maps (but you can draw two compact districts certain to elect a candidate of Hispanics' choice and a candidate of Blacks' choice... just with the latter under 50%+1 VAP over split opposition?)
That's Dallas County of course.

What if the Blacks candidate of choice is different than the Hispanics candidate of choice in the primary?  (see the Texas House race in Fort Bend County).

[Torie]

Muon2 which are the reaches of the VRA per court decisions about "packing."  Sure you can't pack if that costs a minority a second CD hitting 50%, and presumably can't go over a certain percentage of a minority that is above 50% if the CD is erose not tying communities of interest together, but beyond that what is the standard?  If 50% is clearly enough to elect the minority candidate, can you still go up to say 60% in a reasonably compact CD?

[minionofmidas]

Now... a genuine grey area. A very compact 50%+1 (and more than that: enough to actually elect a candidate of their choice) Hispanic district can be drawn in County X. A compact 50%+1 Black district can be drawn in the same county. Are you required to draw two districts electing members of both communities... even though you can't draw the two compact 50%+1 districts at the same time as an area is included in both maps (but you can draw two compact districts certain to elect a candidate of Hispanics' choice and a candidate of Blacks' choice... just with the latter under 50%+1 VAP over split opposition?)
That's Dallas County of course.

What if the Blacks candidate of choice is different than the Hispanics candidate of choice in the primary?  (see the Texas House race in Fort Bend County).

Read again maybe?
I didn't advocate drawing two "coalition" districts. But there is a lot of untested legal ground regarding those.

[jimrtex]

Now... a genuine grey area. A very compact 50%+1 (and more than that: enough to actually elect a candidate of their choice) Hispanic district can be drawn in County X. A compact 50%+1 Black district can be drawn in the same county. Are you required to draw two districts electing members of both communities... even though you can't draw the two compact 50%+1 districts at the same time as an area is included in both maps (but you can draw two compact districts certain to elect a candidate of Hispanics' choice and a candidate of Blacks' choice... just with the latter under 50%+1 VAP over split opposition?)
That's Dallas County of course.

What if the Blacks candidate of choice is different than the Hispanics candidate of choice in the primary?  (see the Texas House race in Fort Bend County).

Read again maybe?
I didn't advocate drawing two "coalition" districts. But there is a lot of untested legal ground regarding those.

What is a district that is 28% B and 39% H as has been proposed by plaintiffs?

[Padfoot]

http://www.tribtoday.com/page/content.detail/id/561887/Dems-come-up-with-districts.html

The GOP mess has passed both houses of the legislature and awaits only a signature from the governor.  Unfortunately muon's map appears to be a mostly wasted effort.

[minionofmidas]

Now... a genuine grey area. A very compact 50%+1 (and more than that: enough to actually elect a candidate of their choice) Hispanic district can be drawn in County X. A compact 50%+1 Black district can be drawn in the same county. Are you required to draw two districts electing members of both communities... even though you can't draw the two compact 50%+1 districts at the same time as an area is included in both maps (but you can draw two compact districts certain to elect a candidate of Hispanics' choice and a candidate of Blacks' choice... just with the latter under 50%+1 VAP over split opposition?)
That's Dallas County of course.

What if the Blacks candidate of choice is different than the Hispanics candidate of choice in the primary?  (see the Texas House race in Fort Bend County).

Read again maybe?
I didn't advocate drawing two "coalition" districts. But there is a lot of untested legal ground regarding those.

What is a district that is 28% B and 39% H as has been proposed by plaintiffs?

That's a stupid proposal that the court should not implement. Probably created by collecting the most Democratic precincts instead of the most Hispanic ones, and also by using as little as possible of the current 30th, I suppose?

[timothyinMD]

As an alternate to the grotesque Ohio map, one that favors Republicans but is highly competitive.

Six safe R: 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11
Four safe D: 7, 9, 10, 16 

Six with a McCain/Obama margin of less than 5%.  Three won by Obama, three by McCain.

1 +2.8% O
13 +4.4% O
15 +0.7% O

3 +4.6% M
12 +3.6% M
14 +4.4% M

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Ohio Supreme Court rules unanimously that the maps can be sent to a referendum.

[Brittain33]

Ohio Supreme Court rules unanimously that the maps can be sent to a referendum.

Ouch.

Who is going to vote for this monstrosity?

[TJ in Oregon]

Ohio Supreme Court rules unanimously that the maps can be sent to a referendum.

Ouch.

Who is going to vote for this monstrosity?

Not me and I'm a partisan Republican.

If you look at the comments on that Cleveland Plain Dealer website, you'll notice a decent number of the Republicans are miffed because the expected the GOP to draw out Kucinich and the GOP more or less gerrymandered it to keep Kucinich.

[TJ in Oregon]

As an alternate to the grotesque Ohio map, one that favors Republicans but is highly competitive.

Six safe R: 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11
Four safe D: 7, 9, 10, 16 

Six with a McCain/Obama margin of less than 5%.  Three won by Obama, three by McCain.

1 +2.8% O
13 +4.4% O
15 +0.7% O

3 +4.6% M
12 +3.6% M
14 +4.4% M

A couple comments on this map:
If the GOP drew this, they would likely add an arm of your district 4 into Clermont County so that Jean Schmidt would be in OH-4 instead of paired up against John Boehner in your OH-2. Washington County could then be transferred to OH-14 to put Johnson in that seat (and likely make it a bit safer since Washington County is pretty GOP for that part of the state).

Your OH-3 is 100% safe GOP as drawn as long as Mike Turner is the Republican and still pretty solidly favoring the GOP in an open seat.

I think the idea of pairing up Austria against Jordan  in your OH-5 is interesting and I haven’t seen a map that does that yet. Though, this OH-5 could probably shed some Republicans. What is it, R+17?

OH-1 could be easily improved by breaking the county lines and if you did it would become a fairly safe GOP seat. I think it can be justified legally since it currently is that way.

There really ought to be some kind of unwritten rule against putting Cleveland’s eastern and western suburbs in the same seat. Everything east of OH-10 in Cuyahoga County needs to be in OH-15. It would also be better to put northern Summit County in OH-15 as well because it is more of a community of interest with Lake and Geauga Counties than southern Mahoning is. LaTourette also performs better in the marginal part of Summit County than in the other areas. Adding southern Mahoning to OH-14 also wouldn’t do as much damage to that district as the presidential numbers might suggest because Bill Johnson lived there for a while.

[jimrtex]

Ohio Supreme Court rules unanimously that the maps can be sent to a referendum.

The article is slightly misleading.  Under Ohio's referendum procedure, petitioners file a small number of signatures to start the process, and then file a lot more later on.  Husted had refused to accept the initial petition because the redistricting bill included a funding procedure. The court order requires him to accept the petition.

[minionofmidas]

So what would happen if the referendum succeeded? And when would it be held?

Also, and regardless of that question, getting the map they passed finalized before December 7th is out of the question now, as that's within the 90 days frame from today, right? So unless Republicans cave and pass a bipartisan compromise quick, some kind of court intervention is unavoidable - the original gerry might survive yet, but only in conjunction with some disorderly emergency primary that might have other rules, or from 2014 on with a court map for 2012?
Or are there further nuclear options for Republicans - as this case was pretty much a Democratic nuclear option? Or does the signature collection not impact "finalization" in the sense of the law? Or is that unclear as well?

[jimrtex]

So what would happen if the referendum succeeded? And when would it be held?

Also, and regardless of that question, getting the map they passed finalized before December 7th is out of the question now, as that's within the 90 days frame from today, right? So unless Republicans cave and pass a bipartisan compromise quick, some kind of court intervention is unavoidable - the original gerry might survive yet, but only in conjunction with some disorderly emergency primary that might have other rules, or from 2014 on with a court map for 2012?
Or are there further nuclear options for Republicans - as this case was pretty much a Democratic nuclear option? Or does the signature collection not impact "finalization" in the sense of the law? Or is that unclear as well?

If the referendum fails, then any elections conducted under an interim map would be void, so wouldn't it be better to wait until next November?  If the referendum fails, hold special elections in January when the seats become vacant.

It is not like the legislature has failed to act.  The legislation is still being considered in the process set out in the Ohio Constitution.

[Brittain33]

I'm sure we can all agree, this referendum is a masterstroke of a response. The people will have their say on the worst Republican map in the country.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm sure we can all agree, this referendum is a masterstroke of a response. The people will have their say on the worst Republican map in the country.

[they don't love you like i love you]

So possible court drawn map? Time to draw one in DRA I guess.

[BigSkyBob]

If the Republicans pass a new map, even if it only moves two people total, the clock starts over again, including for the referedum.