US House Redistricting: Ohio

[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?

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.

I don't think we need to worry about the referendum failing, for now. Though obviously a court would have to.

So... for now the maps are valid and "final" before that december date? Collecting sufficient signatures is highly unlikely to be any sort of issue, and the due date is after that december date.
A referendum will then have to be held within what time frame? And is there a quorum requirement?
After that referendum (provided it passes, but unless there's a quorum I don't see how it doesn't), we have no map and are after the due date, so this will necessitate a court map? Or can Republicans pass a new map after that date and hope to just get a new court-ordered primary calendar?

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

But not for the finalization date. And not for the general election date, either. Unless the new map is one that no one objects to, doing this would be good for Democrats and bad for Republicans.

[TJ in Oregon]

Here’s my guess at what an Ohio map drawn by a judge might look like:



OH-1 Cincinnati Obama 52.5-McCain 46.5
OH-2 Southern Ohio McCain 59.6-Obama 38.4
OH-3 Dayton McCain 49.7-Obama 48.8
OH-4 West-Central Ohio McCain 60.0-Obama 38.1
OH-5 Rural Northwest Ohio McCain 54.1-Obama 43.9
OH-6 Southeast Ohio McCain 50.5-Obama 47.3
OH-7 Mansfield/NC Ohio McCain 55.8-Obama 41.8
OH-8 Cincinnati SuburbsMcCain 61.0-Obama 37.8
OH-9 Toledo/Lake Erie Obama 63.7-McCain 34.7
OH-10 Cleveland-West Side Obama 53.6-McCain 45.1
OH-11 Cleveland-East Side Obama 80.2-McCain 19.0 46.9% VAP black
OH-12 Columbus SuburbsMcCain 51.9-Obama 46.7
OH-13 Akron-Canton Obama 53.5-McCain 44.8
OH-14 Lake/Geauga/LeftoversObama 51.0-McCain 47.4
OH-15 Columbus Obama 65.6-McCain 32.8
OH-16 YoungstownObama 57.4-McCain 40.4

I assumed the judge would try to preserve the current districts where it makes sense and would not draw OH-11 as a majority black seat since this version is much cleaner and is still plurality black.

Safe GOP Seats(6) OH-2 (Jean Schmidt, R-Loveland), OH-4 (Jim Jordan, R-Urbana), OH-5 (Bob Latta, R-Bowling Green), OH-7(Bob Gibbs, R-Lakeville), OH-8 (John Boehner, R-West Chester), OH-12 (Pat Tiberi, R-Galena)
Lean GOP Seats(4) OH-1 (Steve Chabot, R-Cincinnati), OH-3 (Mike Turner, R-Dayton vs. Steve Austria, R-Beavercreek), OH-6 (Bill Johnson, R-Marietta), OH-14 (Steve LaTourette, R-Bainbridge Township)
Toss-Up Seats(2) OH-10 (Dennis Kucinich, D-Cleveland vs. Rob Frost, R-Lakewood), OH-13 (Betty Sutton, D-Copley vs. Jim Renacci, R-Wadsworth)
Lean Dem Seats(1) OH-16 (Tim Ryan, D-Niles)
Safe Dem Seats(2) OH-9 (Marcy Kaptur, D-Toledo), OH-15 (Mary Jo Kilroy, D-Columbus)
Safe Dem Seats if the Dems Exhumed and nominated Adolf Hitler (1) OH-11 (Marcia Fudge, D-Warrensville Hts. )

[Padfoot]

Do court drawn maps typically favor incumbent protection over logical districts?  I feel like the above map still has some less than ideal districts in it that were drawn for the convenience of (mostly Republican) incumbents.  While the above map is certainly improved from the one that was enacted and even the current districts, I'm sure a judge drawn map would be even better than this.

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

I'm drawing my own court map now. As a general from what I've noticed, courts tend to respect current districts even when the lines are already illogical and a gerrymander (hence the initial preservation of most of the Frostocity in 2002), but when they have to make big changes due to new seats or loss of them are really big on respecting communities of interest and what. Incumbent protection rarely comes into play beyond the respecting current lines thing.

[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.

I don't think we need to worry about the referendum failing, for now. Though obviously a court would have to.

So... for now the maps are valid and "final" before that december date? Collecting sufficient signatures is highly unlikely to be any sort of issue, and the due date is after that december date.
A referendum will then have to be held within what time frame? And is there a quorum requirement?
After that referendum (provided it passes, but unless there's a quorum I don't see how it doesn't), we have no map and are after the due date, so this will necessitate a court map? Or can Republicans pass a new map after that date and hope to just get a new court-ordered primary calendar?

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

But not for the finalization date. And not for the general election date, either. Unless the new map is one that no one objects to, doing this would be good for Democrats and bad for Republicans.

If enough signatures are gathered, the law is suspended until after the election (in November 2012).   It would be unconstitutional to use the previous districts, because there are 18 of them and they don't have equal population.  So it would be pretty easy to get an injunction to stop congressional elections from being held.

The issue then is why would a court have to impose new districts?   Imagine that the State constitution provided for the governor to consider a bill for 360 days before vetoing it or not.  A court isn't going to step in while the ordinary legislative process is in place.  The Ohio Constitution provides the power of the referendum, and includes a relatively long time line.

If Ohioans want a very long and deliberative legislative process, who are the federal courts to interfere and legislate?  Ohio also has the initiative process, so if someone wanted to propose a different districting law they may.

Representatives don't start their terms until January 2013, and it is illegal for them to be chosen before November 2012.  So why should the process start now?  The only reason would be if Ohio wanted to keep 18 YO, new Ohioans, new citizens from voting, by making the effective choosing time 8 months prior to the date set by Congress.  Why should the federal courts facilitate such discrimination?

So if the referendum fails, special elections can be held to fill the new districts.  And if it succeeds, then what is the problem with simply having no representatives from Ohio, until they get matters sorted out?

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

You know if this comes to a vote, I really do wonder how the Ohio GOP will campaign in favor of that map. Will be amusing.

Probably some type of nonsense about "special interests" trying to overturn the "people's will" (based on the logic the legislature represents the people in every single thing they do) and blab about how the legislative map is obviously more fair because it's drawn by people elected as opposed to an unelected group and completely ignore all merits of the map (ignoring the fact that the most fair group to draw the maps that are used to elect officials are the elected officials themselves is a statement on about the same level of logic as your average wormyguy post.)

[Padfoot]

Here's a map I did.





Obama/Mcain

OH-1(Chabot): 54.8/44.2
OH-2 (Schmidt): 38.8/59.2
OH-3 (Turner/Austria): 48.8/49.7
OH-4 (Jordan): 37.5/60.7
OH-5 (Latta): 45.4/52.7
OH-6 (Johnson): 47.3/50.5
OH-7 (Gibbs): 42.3/55.6
OH-8 (Boehner): 35.7/63.1
OH-9 (Kaptur): 58.0/40.3
OH-10 (Kucinich): 55.3/43.3
OH-11 (Fudge): 82.4/16.8 47.2 BVAP
OH-12 (Tiberi): 50.5/48.1
OH-13 (Sutton): 56.2/42.4
OH-14 (LaTourette): 52.6/45.5
OH-15 (Stivers) : 60.4/38.0
OH-16 (Renacci/Ryan): 54.6/43.4

2012 House ratings (IMO)
Safe GOP: 2, 4, 5, 7, 8
Lean GOP: 3, 12, 14
Tossup: 1, 6
Lean Dem: 16
Safe Dem: 9, 10, 11, 13, 15

Some of the incumbents don't actually live in the districts I placed them in but they are all very close and could easily move into their new districts without leaving their home counties.  The only exception is Tim Ryan who would be very inconvenienced by this map.  I figured his best bet would be to take on the freshmen Renacci in the slightly more Democratic district even though he actually lives in LaTourette's new district.

The black seat is probably too weak but I'm sure some more tinkering could get it up to 48% VAP which is the threshold the NAACP set for the redistricting competition.

[Brittain33]

Jim, you argument is that it's more likely that a federal court would allow Ohio to forego representation rather than draw an interim map?

Setting aside whether you can construct an argument where you think it should be that way... Is there any precedent where the federal courts would arrive at that solution rather than draw a map?

[jimrtex]

Jim, you argument is that it's more likely that a federal court would allow Ohio to forego representation rather than draw an interim map?

Setting aside whether you can construct an argument where you think it should be that way... Is there any precedent where the federal courts would arrive at that solution rather than draw a map?

Under the US Constitution, States have sole responsibility to provide for the manner of electing representatives, subject to override by Congress.   Congress has directed that representatives be chosen by district, and that those comply with the VRA but has otherwise stayed out of the process.  When federal courts have acted, they were not acting on behalf of Congress - other than enforcing a strained interpretation of the districting mandate.  And the Supreme Court has told the federal courts to defer to the State legislatures and judicial process.   If anyone acts, it would be the Ohio courts.

In other cases, the legislative process had failed before the federal court stepped in.  For example, in Maine, the legislature said we aren't going to redistrict until 2014.  The federal court said they couldn't conduct the elections under those districts, and then gave the State legislature and courts time to redistrict.

In Texas in 2001, the legislature had failed to redistrict; the governor said he wasn't going to call a special session unless there was a prospect for legislative redistricting; the state district court had produced a plan that was overturned by the Texas Supreme Court, and there was no indication that the district court would simply sulk after the case had been remanded, before the federal court undertook the unwelcome task of redistricting.

In Ohio, the legislative process is still going forward.  The US Supreme Court has specifically ruled that the referendum is a legitimate part of the way in which the legislature (legislative process) provides for the manner of electing representatives (this was in an Ohio case).  The case is not ripe for further intervention.

There is no reason for intervention beyond enjoining Ohio from conducting preliminaries based on an 18-district plan.  If a court thinks the primaries should be held, they could simply use the plan created by the legislature (this was done in California in the 1970s after Governor Reagan vetoed the districting plan.  The California Supreme Court ordered that plan be used because it was the only one that had the correct number of districts; which is the same situation as in Ohio.

Why would the Ohio Supreme Court impose an entirely new plan simply because a small segment (3%) of the population is dissatisfied with a law that was was passed by a majority of both houses of the legislature and the governor?   If the referendum is defeated, then Ohio will have elected its 16 members of Congress.  If the referendum is successful, then an interim solution can be fashioned for use in the 2014 elections, or for special elections.  Or Congress could refuse to sit the members from Ohio.

The court would be taking sides, when there was no need to, and would encourage the breaking of the legislative process in order to get judicial intervention.

[jimrtex]

This is my map:

https://districtbuilder.drawthelineohio.org/districtmapping/plan/1585/view/



The darker colors are the areas retained from existing districts, the light color areas that are added.   I messed up the district numbering in the Northeast.  I merged OH-4 and OH-5, and OH-10 and OH-11.  It was my intent to retain the lower numbers (OH-4 and OH-10) for the merged districts and reassign OH-5 and OH-11 to OH-17 and OH-18.  So the northeastern district would continue to be OH-14, while the Youngstown-Akron district was renamed to OH-11.  OH-5 under the new map is the successor to OH-18 shifted westward with its southern tail cut off.

The basic goal was to retain as much of the current district cores as possible while eliminating two districts.  Secondary goals were to reduce county splits, particularly in rural areas, reduce city splits, and to some extent retain incumbents.  The new plan eliminates the existing splits of Cleveland, Cincinnati, Dayton, and Akron.  Under the new plan, the the only city that has significant splits is Columbus.

OH-10 and OH-11, the Cleveland districts, have a population equivalent to about 0.83 and 0.75 of the target population.  If they are merged then the excess of 0.58 can be distributed to surrounding districts.  If OH-11 were eliminated, then a population equivalent to 0.75 districts would need to be distributed.  This would also cause the substantial Black population in eastern Cleveland and adjoining suburbs to be split among several districts.  

As it turns out, the merger of OH-10 and OH-11 turned out to be more like the elimination of OH-10 and its absorption into OH-11 and OH-13 (the merged district was given the number OH-10 because that is the lower number, and OH-10 contributed more to the original merger.  The existing OH-11 has a 58% BVAP, while OH-10 has an 8% BVAP.  A merger of equal parts could drop the combined area to 33% (it would be somewhat higher because the areas in Cleveland that would be combined have a higher BVAP.  But there would still be VRA concerns about such a drastic drop in the BVAP.  The final merged district has a 48% BVAP.  

It is unlikely that a court would impose an extension to Akron to produce a majority BVAP.  This would not be preserving the core of an existing district, and it is a stretch to get to Akron.  The modification proposed by one of the contest winners, would just barely reach 50%, and the BVAP percentage actually decreased by including the area in Akron - which did not have a majority BVAP.  Overall, a majority was achieved by excluding 15% and 20% BVAP areas in west Cleveland and replacing them with 40% BVAP areas in Akron.

I drew an extreme map by linking Cleveland and Akron via the median of I-271 and I-77 (the median forms a continuous string of census blocks) and took the 3 Akron wards with a majority BVAP.  This produces a 51.6% BVAP.  Such an extreme district can hardly be considered compact.

The 7 current northeastern districts, OH-9, -10, -11, -13, -14, -16, and -17 have a population equivalent to 6 ideal 2010 districts.  So the excess population from the merger of OH-10 and OH-11 can be used to shore up the remaining 5 districts.  The other district loss must come from the 11 remaining districts in the state.

It might make sense to merge districts in the center of the state, with other districts sliding inward.  But the 3 Columbus-area districts are the 3 most populous in Ohio, and are collectively short about 40,000 people from that needed for 3 2010 districts.  If you were to merge two of the districts, you could split the other district in two and add the portions removed from the the other two districts.  You would simply be rearranging the districts, and not preserving their cores.

So in fact, you need to reduce the 8 districts that form a large doughnut around Columbus to 7 districts.  The least populous districts are OH-1 in the Cincinnati area, and OH-6 along the Ohio River, but it is really difficult to eliminate a district in the corner or along edge of a state.  There are fewer districts that can expand into the void, so you end up with a chain of districts being slid, and much larger number of persons assigned to new districts (and any many cases, the end result is much closer to a renumbering than a realignment).

The two adjacent districts with the least combined population are OH-4 and OH-5 in the northwest portion of the state.  Combined, they have an excess population of 520,000 which will need to transferred to other districts, but this is less than would be needed for any other pair of districts.  Moreover, there are 7 adjoining districts which can absorb the excess population.

As with OH-10 and OH-11, this was ended up more as the elimination of OH-4 than a merger of equals.  Other than OH-9 to the north, most of the other districts were primarily adjacent to the old OH-4 rather than OH-5 in the northwestern corner of the state.  The combined district is numbered as OH-4, because the existing population of OH-4 is slightly larger than OH-5, and 4 is the lower number.  The new OH-5 is not the successor to either district, but simply a renumbered OH-18, and the practice of using lower numbered districts in the southern part of the state.  OH-17 was renumbered as OH-11 since it was further north.

After merging OH-4 and OH-5 and OH-10 and OH-11, the next step was to eliminate county splits in more areas where assigning all of a county to the district with the largest share of the population would not cause major population disruptions.  Since these counties are largely in less populated areas, district boundaries were likely to be shifted multiple counties.  Any counting splitting to balance population more finely could be done at the end.

The following counties were merged Belmont (OH-6), Athens (OH-6), Scioto (OH-2), Ross (OH-18), Mercer (OH-8), Wyandot (OH-4/5), Ashland (OH-16), and Lucas (OH-9).  Initially, I removed the splits of Portage (OH-17) and Trumbull (OH-17) but later added them back in since it enabled a better split of Summit.  Perry was shifted to OH-18 after the placement of all of Athens into OH-6 cut off contiguity to the southern tail of OH-18.

At this point, splits of Mahoning, Summit, Cuyahoga, Medina, Licking, Franklin, Montgomery, Butler, Warren, and Hamilton remained in place.  The splits of Montgomery and Licking were eliminated as part of the overall population balancing process, while most of the other splits underwent significant adjustment.



The next step was to adjust the districts surrounding the merged districts.  While OH-10 and OH-11 were far below the ideal population, their merged population had an excess of 419 thousand to be distributed to other districts to get their population up to the ideal.

OH-10 and OH-11 have only two neighbors, OH-13 with a deficit of 72 thousand, and OH-14 with a deficit of 73 thousand.   So these districts after taking in 419 thousand new constituents would have to distribute 274 thousand of their constituents to other districts further south and possibly west.  The next tier of districts, OH-9, OH-16, and OH-17, have deficits of 102, 76, and 121 thousand, enough to absorb the remaining excess.  But OH-9, which stretches from Toledo along Lake Erie to just west of the cities of Lorain and Elyria, is an immediate neighbor of the merged OH-4 and OH-5, and will be used to absorb the excess from that merger.  So the remaining 77 thousand excess from the OH-10 and OH-11 merger will be distributed further south to OH-6 and OH-18.

As OH-14 moves further west into the Cleveland suburbs, it begins encountering areas with significant Black populations, so it instead wraps around the southeastern suburbs and into southern Cuyahoga  County.  This is sufficient to eliminate its deficit.  But not to eat away at OH-10+11 combined excess.  And even if it could take in additional population, it has nowhere to distribute it.  OH-17 had already been extended northward to include all of Portage and Trumbull counties.

This means that most of the excess from OH-10+11 must be take in by OH-13 which will shift significantly northward and eastward.  The population distribution of the current OH-13 is somewhat like a lopsided dumbbell.  38% of the population is in Summit County, 31% in Lorain County, 21% in a linking strip of Cleveland suburbs in Cuyahoga (13%) and Medina (8%) counties, and a 10% deficit.  Some of the areas in Summit County, such as Richfield, are Cleveland suburbs, rather than part of the Akron area.  If the 10% deficit is made up from Cuyahoga, then around 2/3 of the district could be considered to be Cleveland suburbs, vs. around 1/3 more tied to Akron.  So though the current representative, Betty Sutton is from an Akron suburb, this is a secondary core of the district.  There is no logical way to preserve this area, when OH-13 must undergo substantial change.  In the proposed implementation, the boundary is moved north and east about one tier of townships into the inner west Cleveland suburbs, with a bit more to include Lakewood.

Akron is currently split 60-40 between OH-13 and OH-17.  Ordinarily, when unifying an area, the preference would be to do so in the district with a greater population.  But with OH-13 moving northward, merging all of Akron in OH-17 is preferred.  The district switches from being a Youngstown-part of Akron district to being a Youngstown-Akron district.

The remaining portion of OH-13 in Summit County was shifted to OH-6, which currently stretches from Stark County (Canton) to Medina County, skirting Summit County.  As part of a final population adjustment, OH-18 (renamed OH-5) took in some areas of OH06, including parts of Ashland and Wayne counties.

The original configuration of OH-17 in Summit County had somewhat of a keyhole appearance narrow to the east and then expanding to encompass Akron.  This was alleviated by moving suburbs such as Cuyahoga Falls and Stow to OH-17, and shifting the more rural areas of Portage and Trumbull counties back to OH-14.

And finally OH-17 was renamed OH-11.

[muon2]

This is my map:

https://districtbuilder.drawthelineohio.org/districtmapping/plan/1585/view/

Were you going to equalize population? I assume that it would be difficult for OH to make a case for anything other than complete equality unless a constitutional amendment was passed to create a compelling interest in some minor inequality.

[BigSkyBob]

I've whipped up a couple of nuclear response:

1) Modify state law to state laws subject to a referedum that are time sensitive remain in effect, until, and unless, they are repealed. If repealed, the existing deadlines are moved back the appropriate timeframe. [In this case, the current map remains in effect for 2012, and the entire redistricting process restarts for 2014 with the new finalization date two years after the old one, etc.]

2) Mandate at-large elections with the specific exception of any VRA districts. Let Fudge run in an AA-majority district centered in East Cleveland. The remaining fifteen [almost] at-large districts would be problematic for the Democrats.

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

OK here's my attempt to a court map, mostly respecting the old boundaries:



OH-01: I kept the Butler county portions but included more black parts of Cincinati. It's over 54% Obama and about 51% average for Democrats, so a real swing seat, Chabot probably holds it though unless black turnout surges again a la 2008.
OH-02: The Appalachian parts that hated Schmidt and put her in danger are gone. It's almost 64% McCain, so safe as long as Schmidt continues to keep her mouth shut.
OH-03: The Dayton area kind of draws itself well, but the GOP had to make this seat ugly anyway. Won by McCain by 0.1% and averages 51.5 R-48.5 D. So Turner would be fine, would be competitive if open with a pretty good Dem candidate though.
OH-04: Still contains Jordan's home but restructured to more of a Columbus suburbs seat. Over 56% McCain, a bit less GOP but even Jordan should be fine.
OH-05: This is kind of the same, now includes Lima I guess, almost 55% McCain, that boring forgettable white guy that Ohio is full of is safe.
OH-06: Now a bit more Mahoning Valley based, narrowly for McCain but over 60% Dem average, if Wilson lives here prime for a comeback. Probably would vote Dem in most cases.
OH-07: This is now completely different and has removed Austria's home and his base (cue krazen: OMG RACIST CONSPIRACY!), now it's more of an Appalachian seat like the current OH-18, so the guy who holds it probably runs here, a bit more Republican than OH-07 but definitely winnable for the right Democrat. 52.3% McCain, 56.5% Democratic.
OH-08: Some minor geographic changes but still clearly safe R and for Boehner, 63.2% McCain.
OH-09: This seat is kept the same largely even if it's a Dem pack seat to benefit the GOP, safe D of course.
OH-10: Yeah Kucinich hangs on. Actually the seat is only 54.3% Obama, so he might be sort of vulnerable.
OH-11: 46.8% Black VAP, Fudge is safe of course, no VRA problems.
OH-12: Less of Columbus proper and a bit more GOP, Tiberi is safe. Would be competitive if open though. 52.4% Obama, 51.7% Dem
OH-13: This is now an Akron-based seat. Since Summit county gets screwed over in so many potential maps I'm happy I was able to keep it intact. Great seat for Sutton. 56.5% Obama, 62.1% Dem.
OH-14: This seat now contains Youngstown and is no longer an attempt to gerrymander a Republican seat in a region that shouldn't have one. 56.5% Obama, 61.5% Dem. Bye bye LaTourette. Tim Ryan probably runs here.
OH-15: 59.6% Obama, goodbye Stivers.
OH-16: This one is actually largely unchanged. 50.7% McCain but 51.4% McCain, a swing seat, but probably requires another Dem wave.

So that's 4 GOP seats, 6 Dem seats, and 6 swing seats, though most of those have good GOP incumbents.

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

2) Mandate at-large elections with the specific exception of any VRA districts. Let Fudge run in an AA-majority district centered in East Cleveland. The remaining fifteen [almost] at-large districts would be problematic for the Democrats.

No that would be illegal, any method besides single member districts has been illegal since the 60s.

[BigSkyBob]

OK here's my attempt to a court map, mostly respecting the old boundaries:

And, third, court-imposed maps are subject to referedum.

The reality is no matter what deadlines have passed, going forward, a court can't meet those deadlines either. The only basis for not setting a quick drop-dead pass-a-new-map-or-we-do-it-for-you deadline to the legislature is a willful attempt at judicial usurpage. The court can, then, set a new timeframe for qualifying, and, if necessary, the primary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

2) Mandate at-large elections with the specific exception of any VRA districts. Let Fudge run in an AA-majority district centered in East Cleveland. The remaining fifteen [almost] at-large districts would be problematic for the Democrats.

No that would be illegal, any method besides single member districts has been illegal since the 60s.

I have read arguments on both sides. One argument is that it would be illegal under the VRA, thus, the seperation of the VRA district.

[jimrtex]

This is my map:

https://districtbuilder.drawthelineohio.org/districtmapping/plan/1585/view/

Were you going to equalize population? I assume that it would be difficult for OH to make a case for anything other than complete equality unless a constitutional amendment was passed to create a compelling interest in some minor inequality.

I equalized population to the precinct level.  Courts have regularly created congressional districts with less than perfect equality.  Since this would be an interim map, it is unlikely that a court would want to force a change in election procedure while the voters were still considering whether to veto the legislature's plan.

The maximum deviation is 0.064%, and from largest to smallest 0.128%.  Standard deviation is 311, and relative standard deviation is 0.043%.

I don't think I understand the US Supreme Court's insistence on complete equality.  As I understand it, the basis for relative equality of legislative districts is based on the equal protection clause, while that for congress is somehow derived from the constitution that says that representatives should be chosen by the people of the States.

Could I get you to total the population of the districts of the state?  I can't get the total to come out right.  The average should be exactly 721031.5 but I don't get that.  I couldn't figure out a way to copy the population to a spreadsheet, so I had to do it by hand, but I checked it about 10 times.

[jimrtex]

I've whipped up a couple of nuclear response:

1) Modify state law to state laws subject to a referedum that are time sensitive remain in effect, until, and unless, they are repealed. If repealed, the existing deadlines are moved back the appropriate timeframe. [In this case, the current map remains in effect for 2012, and the entire redistricting process restarts for 2014 with the new finalization date two years after the old one, etc.]

2) Mandate at-large elections with the specific exception of any VRA districts. Let Fudge run in an AA-majority district centered in East Cleveland. The remaining fifteen [almost] at-large districts would be problematic for the Democrats.

At large elections violate federal law.

The referendum provisions are in the Ohio Constitution.

The legislature could pass a law delaying the congressional elections until after the referendum.  If the referendum fails, the special election would be conducted based on the districts drawn by the legislature.  If the referendum succeeds, the districts could be drawn by a specially appointed board.

[muon2]

This is my map:

https://districtbuilder.drawthelineohio.org/districtmapping/plan/1585/view/

Were you going to equalize population? I assume that it would be difficult for OH to make a case for anything other than complete equality unless a constitutional amendment was passed to create a compelling interest in some minor inequality.

I equalized population to the precinct level.  Courts have regularly created congressional districts with less than perfect equality.  Since this would be an interim map, it is unlikely that a court would want to force a change in election procedure while the voters were still considering whether to veto the legislature's plan.

The maximum deviation is 0.064%, and from largest to smallest 0.128%.  Standard deviation is 311, and relative standard deviation is 0.043%.

I don't think I understand the US Supreme Court's insistence on complete equality.  As I understand it, the basis for relative equality of legislative districts is based on the equal protection clause, while that for congress is somehow derived from the constitution that says that representatives should be chosen by the people of the States.

I understand the distinction between Congress and the state legislatures due to specific constitutional language relating to Congress. However, the logic is not clear to me that leads from "chosen ... by the People of the several States" in Art I sect 2 to drawing districts of equal population "as nearly as practicable" in Wesberry v Sanders. Though it seems a stretch, I can at least follow the train of thought in Kirkpatrick v Preisler that goes from the Wesberry language to a standard with "only the limited population variances which are unavoidable despite a good faith effort. to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is shown." In any case Kirkpatrick controls.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I added up your districts and I get a total that exceeds the actual state population by 10. I found that there is a bug in DistrictBuilder that sometimes fails to shift population out of a district when an area is moved. There is no recalculation feature that could clear the overcount. The only solution I found is to get a blank map and copy the districts one at a time from the miscalculated map. The new map won't have the the error.

[TJ in Oregon]

OH-05: This is kind of the same, now includes Lima I guess, almost 55% McCain, that boring forgettable white guy that Ohio is full of is safe.

Hey now, the Latta family is a dynasty

OH-06: Now a bit more Mahoning Valley based, narrowly for McCain but over 60% Dem average, if Wilson lives here prime for a comeback. Probably would vote Dem in most cases.

Wilson does live here and would be a great candidate for the Democrats. Still, this seat is somewhere in the neighborhood of R+5, so it’s probably a true toss-up.

OH-07: This is now completely different and has removed Austria's home and his base (cue krazen: OMG RACIST CONSPIRACY!), now it's more of an Appalachian seat like the current OH-18, so the guy who holds it probably runs here, a bit more Republican than OH-07 but definitely winnable for the right Democrat. 52.3% McCain, 56.5% Democratic.

This is probably a solid GOP seat because it includes more of the area away from the river, which is less West Virginia Democratish, and it has more of the safer Republican river counties (Washington, Gallia, Meigs, Lawrence). The %Democratic numbers are really misleading for this area because it includes the 2010 gubernatorial race and Strickland is from Scioto County.

OH-10: Yeah Kucinich hangs on. Actually the seat is only 54.3% Obama, so he might be sort of vulnerable.

Kucinich would be toast in this district. However, if the Democrats choose a more moderate candidate in the future they could win it back.

OH-14: This seat now contains Youngstown and is no longer an attempt to gerrymander a Republican seat in a region that shouldn't have one. 56.5% Obama, 61.5% Dem. Bye bye LaTourette. Tim Ryan probably runs here.

So now instead of a Republican gerrymander we have a Democratic gerrymander. Lake and Geauga Counties aren’t the same metropolitan area as Youngstown at all. This is a terrible COI district. There really isn’t a good way to draw this part of the state because you invariably are left with about half the population of a district that doesn’t belong anywhere stuck in the corner. This may look cleaner on a map but it’s a pretty egregious Democratic gerrymander. If you wanted to make this un-gerrymandered as possible, I think Portage County would be a the best candidate to add to the current OH-14.

By the way, LaTourette no longer lives here and you drew him into the Akron district.

[BigSkyBob]

I've whipped up a couple of nuclear response:

1) Modify state law to state laws subject to a referedum that are time sensitive remain in effect, until, and unless, they are repealed. If repealed, the existing deadlines are moved back the appropriate timeframe. [In this case, the current map remains in effect for 2012, and the entire redistricting process restarts for 2014 with the new finalization date two years after the old one, etc.]

2) Mandate at-large elections with the specific exception of any VRA districts. Let Fudge run in an AA-majority district centered in East Cleveland. The remaining fifteen [almost] at-large districts would be problematic for the Democrats.

At large elections violate federal law.

The referendum provisions are in the Ohio Constitution.

The legislature could pass a law delaying the congressional elections until after the referendum.  If the referendum fails, the special election would be conducted based on the districts drawn by the legislature.  If the referendum succeeds, the districts could be drawn by a specially appointed board.

The legislature could pass a new map conditional of the rejection of the old map. It could then pass another map conditional on the rejection of the first two maps. It could pass a third bill specifying a map if the first three maps are rejected. Staggering those bill every week, or so, would make it impossible for one not to be in effect when the matter 2012 maps were finalized, presumably, by the courts.

A conditional change bill was passed in Pennsylvania in the last cycle, and upheld by the courts when the original map was declared Unconstitutional because of population deviations of up to forty-some people.

I don't doubt that the Ohio Constitution allows for the repeal of redistricting legislation. I do seriously doubt the Ohio Constitution states that redistricting provisions in the Constitution don't apply if three percent object in writing.

[jimrtex]

Could I get you to total the population of the districts of the state?  I can't get the total to come out right.  The average should be exactly 721031.5 but I don't get that.  I couldn't figure out a way to copy the population to a spreadsheet, so I had to do it by hand, but I checked it about 10 times.

I added up your districts and I get a total that exceeds the actual state population by 10. I found that there is a bug in DistrictBuilder that sometimes fails to shift population out of a district when an area is moved. There is no recalculation feature that could clear the overcount. The only solution I found is to get a blank map and copy the districts one at a time from the miscalculated map. The new map won't have the the error.

OK, I will report it as a bug.

If you noticed there were shared maps of the legislative districts that Jim Slagle put up as shared plans that have fuzzy boundaries.   The State's data base created "block splits" so that wards and precincts would be comprised of whole "block splits" where the precincts and wards did not conform to census blocks.  Fractional populations were attributed to these sub areas. 

In the data base, the block splits were given IDs that consisted of the containing census block and additional digits (so the IDs used the general pattern of census block IDs which are a concatenation of state, county, census tract, block group, and block IDs.  If you chop off these last digits, you get the encompassing block number.  But if you upload these into District Builder, you get doubly assigned blocks, which it appears are displayed using the transparency controls.  If you manually assign these areas, whether by whole county or whole township or by block, the existing double assignments are eliminated.

[jimrtex]

I understand the distinction between Congress and the state legislatures due to specific constitutional language relating to Congress. However, the logic is not clear to me that leads from "chosen ... by the People of the several States" in Art I sect 2 to drawing districts of equal population "as nearly as practicable" in Wesberry v Sanders. Though it seems a stretch, I can at least follow the train of thought in Kirkpatrick v Preisler that goes from the Wesberry language to a standard with "only the limited population variances which are unavoidable despite a good faith effort. to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is shown." In any case Kirkpatrick controls.

A footnote in Justice Harlan's dissent in Wesberry gives the variation in district population for each state at that time.   They might not have given much attention to the phrase "as nearly as practicable" when faced with variations of 4X.  Later, they got stuck with figuring out what they had meant.

Had Wesberry been based on the legislative apportionment logic of equal protection, the Supreme Court might have tumbled upon the realization that 10% variation is not reasonable for congressional-sized districts by now.

In modern terms, "chosen by the People" means "chosen by the CVAP, excluding felons" and districts should therefore have equal electorates without regard to minor and alien populations.  It is quite practicable to combine the census data and ACS data to make a good faith effort at electorate equality.  Political expediency would not serve as justification for not doing this.

[BigSkyBob]

I understand the distinction between Congress and the state legislatures due to specific constitutional language relating to Congress. However, the logic is not clear to me that leads from "chosen ... by the People of the several States" in Art I sect 2 to drawing districts of equal population "as nearly as practicable" in Wesberry v Sanders. Though it seems a stretch, I can at least follow the train of thought in Kirkpatrick v Preisler that goes from the Wesberry language to a standard with "only the limited population variances which are unavoidable despite a good faith effort. to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is shown." In any case Kirkpatrick controls.

A footnote in Justice Harlan's dissent in Wesberry gives the variation in district population for each state at that time.   They might not have given much attention to the phrase "as nearly as practicable" when faced with variations of 4X.  Later, they got stuck with figuring out what they had meant.

Had Wesberry been based on the legislative apportionment logic of equal protection, the Supreme Court might have tumbled upon the realization that 10% variation is not reasonable for congressional-sized districts by now.

In modern terms, "chosen by the People" means "chosen by the CVAP, excluding felons" and districts should therefore have equal electorates without regard to minor and alien populations.  It is quite practicable to combine the census data and ACS data to make a good faith effort at electorate equality.  Political expediency would not serve as justification for not doing this.

There are those entitled to vote, and those entitled to representation.

Minors, and aliens within the nationalization process are, arguably, entitled to representation, while illegal aliens, tourists, foreign students, diplomats and their staffs are not.

[krazen1211]

Branch v Smith allows for 'at large' elections when an election is so imminent that districts cannot be reasonably drawn without disrupting the process.