US House Redistricting: Ohio

[Padfoot]

I'm not sure how likely this is (or if it even really exists) but I've seen it reported several times that the Democrats are trying to float a map that creates 6 solid R, 4 solid D, and 6 competitive/R-lean seats.  I've never seen an actual map or heard any details beyond that but I assume that something akin to this would be the starting point for any legitimate negotiations on a compromise map.  I think it's going to take a minimum of 7-8 seats that Democrats view as potentially winnable in order to pass any kind of compromise map.

Given their track record of noncooperation I have very little faith that a compromise map will emerge.  Assuming the Democrats get the map on the ballot I have a lot of faith that it will go down.  My hope is that some sort of fair redistricting amendment gets passed at the same time and the new legislature is forced to draw a new map under those rules.

[TJ in Oregon]

If the Democrats are asking for 7-8 seats they would have a good chance of winning, then the Republicans should never agree to that. That's not too far from a Democratic max gerrymander. The GOP is better off trying our luck with the courts.

[Brittain33]

Can we agree there's a distinction between "winnable" and "a good chance of winning"? Loads of seats in Ohio were won by Dems in '08 that were lean or likely R as drawn. Having a minority of seats not be completely out of reach for a party that is competitive statewide is reasonable.

[Torie]

Can we agree there's a distinction between "winnable" and "a good chance of winning"? Loads of seats in Ohio were won by Dems in '08 that were lean or likely R as drawn. Having a minority of seats not be completely out of reach for a party that is competitive statewide is reasonable.

"Reasonable" is not a word in common parlance in the redistricting world. And nobody seems to agree what is reasonable anyway, as we have all observed (I refer you to the matter of Torie v Lewis in AZ), even if there is some effort to appear that way in one's own mind.  And why should the Pubs give up much, if the referendum going forward is in doubt?  The best the Dems can hope for is a few odd lagniappes. If the referendum goes forward, probably the existing map will be used in the interim, and all those Pubs can get better entrenched at a minimum with their new sets of voters.

[DrScholl]

The map can easily be 5-5-6 and be completely satisfactory to both sides. Honestly, once pictures of the GOP map are distributed widely among voters, it would be voted down with no problem.

[TJ in Oregon]

Oh, the map will be voted down all right, but that doesn't mean the Democrats will get to draw the next one.

The GOP should never settle for a 5-5-6 map. Ohio may be an R+1.36 state overall but once you draw the D+30ish seat on the East side of Cleveland the rest of the state is around R+3. A 5-5-6 map would need to be a Democratic gerrymander because the Democrats are so concentrated unless the 6 swing districts are in the R+2 range.

I think the GOP is going to have to sacrifice that awful OH-9 lake thing. The bargaining chip would be a contested seat in Cincinnati or Akron. The GOP should not give up both and should give neither unless there are enough votes to pass the map that way. With neither, we stand at 10-4-2 and with one of them we stand at 9-4-3. I suppose we could attempt to argue that LaTourette's seat is "swingy" and maybe call it 8-4-4.

[minionofmidas]

If a court were to ignore what the legislature drew, and used what the "leaders" of the referendum said they wanted, the court might be deferring to what a small disgruntled population wanted, rather than the overwhelming majority of the legislators passed.

[/quote]

A referendum petition needs signatures from 6% of voters.

...

[minionofmidas]

Out of interest, did you ever do one of your nodal analyses for Ohio?

[Skill and Chance]

Oh, the map will be voted down all right, but that doesn't mean the Democrats will get to draw the next one.

The GOP should never settle for a 5-5-6 map. Ohio may be an R+1.36 state overall but once you draw the D+30ish seat on the East side of Cleveland the rest of the state is around R+3. A 5-5-6 map would need to be a Democratic gerrymander because the Democrats are so concentrated unless the 6 swing districts are in the R+2 range.

I think the GOP is going to have to sacrifice that awful OH-9 lake thing. The bargaining chip would be a contested seat in Cincinnati or Akron. The GOP should not give up both and should give neither unless there are enough votes to pass the map that way. With neither, we stand at 10-4-2 and with one of them we stand at 9-4-3. I suppose we could attempt to argue that LaTourette's seat is "swingy" and maybe call it 8-4-4.

That's why you can fully expect that if this referendum is successful, they will attempt to repeat the process until they take back part of the state government later in the decade.  The days of partisan map drawing without a 2/3rds majority in OH could be over.

[Torie]

Oh, the map will be voted down all right, but that doesn't mean the Democrats will get to draw the next one.

The GOP should never settle for a 5-5-6 map. Ohio may be an R+1.36 state overall but once you draw the D+30ish seat on the East side of Cleveland the rest of the state is around R+3. A 5-5-6 map would need to be a Democratic gerrymander because the Democrats are so concentrated unless the 6 swing districts are in the R+2 range.

I think the GOP is going to have to sacrifice that awful OH-9 lake thing. The bargaining chip would be a contested seat in Cincinnati or Akron. The GOP should not give up both and should give neither unless there are enough votes to pass the map that way. With neither, we stand at 10-4-2 and with one of them we stand at 9-4-3. I suppose we could attempt to argue that LaTourette's seat is "swingy" and maybe call it 8-4-4.

That's why you can fully expect that if this referendum is successful, they will attempt to repeat the process until they take back part of the state government later in the decade.  The days of partisan map drawing without a 2/3rds majority in OH could be over.

It doesn't appear to me the Dems are willing to spend the money to do all of this. Heck, they are too cheap to even hire paid signature gatherers, and unless they do, and soon, the GOP map will be good for the decade, and the Dems will get squat. Let's see:  every two years, the Dems spend a few million repealing the map, the Pubs re-enact it, the GOP control court uses it as the interim map, and repeat. Hey, that is a good way to drain the Dem coffers. I like it.    You see, the law is flawed.  Who knew? 

It will slowly sink in here I assume, that the Dems don't have that much bargaining power, and they will per present course, soon have zero bargaining power.

[Skill and Chance]

Oh, the map will be voted down all right, but that doesn't mean the Democrats will get to draw the next one.

The GOP should never settle for a 5-5-6 map. Ohio may be an R+1.36 state overall but once you draw the D+30ish seat on the East side of Cleveland the rest of the state is around R+3. A 5-5-6 map would need to be a Democratic gerrymander because the Democrats are so concentrated unless the 6 swing districts are in the R+2 range.

I think the GOP is going to have to sacrifice that awful OH-9 lake thing. The bargaining chip would be a contested seat in Cincinnati or Akron. The GOP should not give up both and should give neither unless there are enough votes to pass the map that way. With neither, we stand at 10-4-2 and with one of them we stand at 9-4-3. I suppose we could attempt to argue that LaTourette's seat is "swingy" and maybe call it 8-4-4.

That's why you can fully expect that if this referendum is successful, they will attempt to repeat the process until they take back part of the state government later in the decade.  The days of partisan map drawing without a 2/3rds majority in OH could be over.

It doesn't appear to me the Dems are willing to spend the money to do all of this. Heck, they are too cheap to even hire paid signature gatherers, and unless they do, and soon, the GOP map will be good for the decade, and the Dems will get squat. Let's see:  every two years, the Dems spend a few million repealing the map, the Pubs re-enact it, the GOP control court uses it as the interim map, and repeat. Hey, that is a good way to drain the Dem coffers. I like it.    You see, the law is flawed.  Who knew? 

It will slowly sink in here I assume, that the Dems don't have that much bargaining power, and they will per present course, soon have zero bargaining power.

You don't think the GOP would be doing the same thing if it was a Dem trifecta right now?  I guess whether the repeating strategy makes sense comes down to how long you think the GOP will retain full control.  They could at least try to hold the maps off until after the 2014 governor's race (probably not worth it anymore if they still have nothing then).  And on the chance the court doesn't take the GOP map, you win huge.   

[Torie]

Oh, the map will be voted down all right, but that doesn't mean the Democrats will get to draw the next one.

The GOP should never settle for a 5-5-6 map. Ohio may be an R+1.36 state overall but once you draw the D+30ish seat on the East side of Cleveland the rest of the state is around R+3. A 5-5-6 map would need to be a Democratic gerrymander because the Democrats are so concentrated unless the 6 swing districts are in the R+2 range.

I think the GOP is going to have to sacrifice that awful OH-9 lake thing. The bargaining chip would be a contested seat in Cincinnati or Akron. The GOP should not give up both and should give neither unless there are enough votes to pass the map that way. With neither, we stand at 10-4-2 and with one of them we stand at 9-4-3. I suppose we could attempt to argue that LaTourette's seat is "swingy" and maybe call it 8-4-4.

That's why you can fully expect that if this referendum is successful, they will attempt to repeat the process until they take back part of the state government later in the decade.  The days of partisan map drawing without a 2/3rds majority in OH could be over.

It doesn't appear to me the Dems are willing to spend the money to do all of this. Heck, they are too cheap to even hire paid signature gatherers, and unless they do, and soon, the GOP map will be good for the decade, and the Dems will get squat. Let's see:  every two years, the Dems spend a few million repealing the map, the Pubs re-enact it, the GOP control court uses it as the interim map, and repeat. Hey, that is a good way to drain the Dem coffers. I like it.    You see, the law is flawed.  Who knew? 

It will slowly sink in here I assume, that the Dems don't have that much bargaining power, and they will per present course, soon have zero bargaining power.

You don't think the GOP would be doing the same thing if it was a Dem trifecta right now?  I guess whether the repeating strategy makes sense comes down to how long you think the GOP will retain full control.  They could at least try to hold the maps off until after the 2014 governor's race (probably not worth it anymore if they still have nothing then).  And on the chance the court doesn't take the GOP map, you win huge.   

Sure, all is fair in love and war, and redistricting is a blood sport. More is at stake in drawing the lines than elections themselves really, given our polarized electorate. 

[jimrtex]

If a court were to ignore what the legislature drew, and used what the "leaders" of the referendum said they wanted, the court might be deferring to what a small disgruntled population wanted, rather than the overwhelming majority of the legislators passed.

A referendum petition needs signatures from 6% of voters.

...

California Supreme Court Opinions

Click on Officials Reports Opinion center of page.  Click on "I agree to name my firstborn Jerry Garcia Brown",  Search Supreme Court for Parties "Assembly v Deukmejian"

Go down to Sections IV and V.   There were some issues whether the referendum petition was even valid, and whether a referendum petition did have the effect of staying the new districts.  The court ruled that it did.

Sections IV and V are about which districts should be used.  It was a 7-0 decision to use the congressional districts drawn by the legislature since they had the right number of districts (40-something?).  It was a a 4-3 decision on whether to use the legislative maps drawn by the legislature.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note the dissent in the case was written by the only justice appointed by Governor Reagan, and the two justices who joined him were considered somewhat independent minded (they didn't get their head chopped off in the death penalty retention election).

[jimrtex]

Supreme Court to Hear Redistricting Case on Expedited Basis

The Supreme Court is the California Supreme Court.

A petition with 700,000 signatures has been filed calling for a referendum on the senate plan drawn by the redistricting commission.  Signatures are now in the process of being counted.  If it qualifies, the redistricting map is suspended until after the referendum (November 2012).

The lawsuit calls on the Supreme Court to provide an interim map for the senate elections, and overturn its decision in Assembly v Deukmejian.

If there were a successful petition drive on the Ohio congressional maps passed by the legislature, the Ohio Supreme Court would face the same issues.

Briefs for Vandermost v Bowen

[TJ in Oregon]

Here’s my attempt at a 5-5-6 Ohio. I would classify this as a moderate Democratic gerrymander.
My intent
Democratic: 7,9,11,13,16
Republican: 2,4,8,12,15
“Swingy”: 1,3,5,6,10,14

Notice how many of the “swing” districts are really Republican seats under most circumstances and how flaky 9, 13, and 16 are for the Democrats. This would be an epic Dummymander if they tried to draw it, yet without cutting up OH-11 or making it look hideous, they can’t do much better. The Republican would be favored in every swing district except maybe District 1. Even with Lorain and Elyria gerrymandered into District 5, Latta will likely still win. Once Kaptur retired, OH-9 could be won by a Republican. You can’t do much better than this for the Democrats.

1 Cincinnati D+2
2 Ohio river near Cincinnati R+17
3 Dayton R+1
4 West-Central R+19
5 North-Central R+2
6 Ohio River R+4
7 Columbus D+16
8 Cincinnati Suburbs R+18
9 Toledo D+4
10 Cleveland West EVEN
11 Cleveland East D+27
12 Columbus Northern Suburbs R+10
13 Akron/Medina D+1
14 Lake/Geauga R+3
15 Columbus Southern Suburbs R+11
16 Youngstown/Canton D+6

[Padfoot]

Here’s my attempt at a 5-5-6 Ohio. I would classify this as a moderate Democratic gerrymander.
My intent
Democratic: 7,9,11,13,16
Republican: 2,4,8,12,15
“Swingy”: 1,3,5,6,10,14

Notice how many of the “swing” districts are really Republican seats under most circumstances and how flaky 9, 13, and 16 are for the Democrats. This would be an epic Dummymander if they tried to draw it, yet without cutting up OH-11 or making it look hideous, they can’t do much better. The Republican would be favored in every swing district except maybe District 1. Even with Lorain and Elyria gerrymandered into District 5, Latta will likely still win. Once Kaptur retired, OH-9 could be won by a Republican. You can’t do much better than this for the Democrats.

1 Cincinnati D+2
2 Ohio river near Cincinnati R+17
3 Dayton R+1
4 West-Central R+19
5 North-Central R+2
6 Ohio River R+4
7 Columbus D+16
8 Cincinnati Suburbs R+18
9 Toledo D+4
10 Cleveland West EVEN
11 Cleveland East D+27
12 Columbus Northern Suburbs R+10
13 Akron/Medina D+1
14 Lake/Geauga R+3
15 Columbus Southern Suburbs R+11
16 Youngstown/Canton D+6

Although the Democrats might try to go for 5-5-6 if they were in complete control I don't think that's their aim in this situation.  I'm pretty sure they're going to for 4-6-6 which is much easier to do.  That allows you to draw 4 solidly Democratic seats based in Toledo/Lake Erie, Cleveland, Akron, and Youngstown.  Then you have 6 lean Republican seats that Democrats could realistically win: Cincinnati, Dayton, the northeast corner, the Ohio River, and two Columbus districts.  That leaves 6 solid Republican districts: 2 in western Ohio, 2 Cincy suburban districts, a conservative Cleveland outskirts district and a conservative southeastern district.  That would give Democrats the opportunity to win up to 10 districts and Republicans up to 12.  I don't think there is any realistic path for the Democrats to achieve a 5-5-6 map.  They might even willing to settle with a 4-8-2 map as long as the 2 competitive seats were almost evenly split.

[muon2]

Oh, the map will be voted down all right, but that doesn't mean the Democrats will get to draw the next one.

The GOP should never settle for a 5-5-6 map. Ohio may be an R+1.36 state overall but once you draw the D+30ish seat on the East side of Cleveland the rest of the state is around R+3. A 5-5-6 map would need to be a Democratic gerrymander because the Democrats are so concentrated unless the 6 swing districts are in the R+2 range.

I think the GOP is going to have to sacrifice that awful OH-9 lake thing. The bargaining chip would be a contested seat in Cincinnati or Akron. The GOP should not give up both and should give neither unless there are enough votes to pass the map that way. With neither, we stand at 10-4-2 and with one of them we stand at 9-4-3. I suppose we could attempt to argue that LaTourette's seat is "swingy" and maybe call it 8-4-4.

That's why you can fully expect that if this referendum is successful, they will attempt to repeat the process until they take back part of the state government later in the decade.  The days of partisan map drawing without a 2/3rds majority in OH could be over.

It doesn't appear to me the Dems are willing to spend the money to do all of this. Heck, they are too cheap to even hire paid signature gatherers, and unless they do, and soon, the GOP map will be good for the decade, and the Dems will get squat. Let's see:  every two years, the Dems spend a few million repealing the map, the Pubs re-enact it, the GOP control court uses it as the interim map, and repeat. Hey, that is a good way to drain the Dem coffers. I like it.    You see, the law is flawed.  Who knew? 

It will slowly sink in here I assume, that the Dems don't have that much bargaining power, and they will per present course, soon have zero bargaining power.

One problem for Dem bargaining may have been a partisan insistence on staying together. The GOP might well have conceded a seat or two to the blacks from their original plan for a veto proof majority on the map and no referendum. News reports even suggested that, until the head of the OH Dems pushed for party unity. The party didn't want to settle for a 8-5-3 since the swing seats would be held by GOP incumbents and they would be faced with 10-6 at best given the actual candidates.

[muon2]

Here’s my attempt at a 5-5-6 Ohio. I would classify this as a moderate Democratic gerrymander.
My intent
Democratic: 7,9,11,13,16
Republican: 2,4,8,12,15
“Swingy”: 1,3,5,6,10,14

Notice how many of the “swing” districts are really Republican seats under most circumstances and how flaky 9, 13, and 16 are for the Democrats. This would be an epic Dummymander if they tried to draw it, yet without cutting up OH-11 or making it look hideous, they can’t do much better. The Republican would be favored in every swing district except maybe District 1. Even with Lorain and Elyria gerrymandered into District 5, Latta will likely still win. Once Kaptur retired, OH-9 could be won by a Republican. You can’t do much better than this for the Democrats.

1 Cincinnati D+2
2 Ohio river near Cincinnati R+17
3 Dayton R+1
4 West-Central R+19
5 North-Central R+2
6 Ohio River R+4
7 Columbus D+16
8 Cincinnati Suburbs R+18
9 Toledo D+4
10 Cleveland West EVEN
11 Cleveland East D+27
12 Columbus Northern Suburbs R+10
13 Akron/Medina D+1
14 Lake/Geauga R+3
15 Columbus Southern Suburbs R+11
16 Youngstown/Canton D+6

Although the Democrats might try to go for 5-5-6 if they were in complete control I don't think that's their aim in this situation.  I'm pretty sure they're going to for 4-6-6 which is much easier to do.  That allows you to draw 4 solidly Democratic seats based in Toledo/Lake Erie, Cleveland, Akron, and Youngstown.  Then you have 6 lean Republican seats that Democrats could realistically win: Cincinnati, Dayton, the northeast corner, the Ohio River, and two Columbus districts.  That leaves 6 solid Republican districts: 2 in western Ohio, 2 Cincy suburban districts, a conservative Cleveland outskirts district and a conservative southeastern district.  That would give Democrats the opportunity to win up to 10 districts and Republicans up to 12.  I don't think there is any realistic path for the Democrats to achieve a 5-5-6 map.  They might even willing to settle with a 4-8-2 map as long as the 2 competitive seats were almost evenly split.

Remember that the Dems filed a map that was 4R-1D-11.

[jimrtex]

Out of interest, did you ever do one of your nodal analyses for Ohio?

This was based on similar ideas.

Minimum change map

Also messages 638, 639, 640, 641, 650, 658, 674 under this topic.

I started out by eliminating population-balancing county splits, and then merged OH-10 and OH-11 in Cuyahoga, which were the smallest neighboring CDs.  The merged CD is OH-10, which is the lower number and also the more populous CD.  Working outward, I figured out how far the surplus from 10+11 could be distributed.  This in effect protected OH-9 (Toledo) and OH-17 (Youngstown/Akron).

I then merged OH-4 and OH-5 in the northwest, which had the smallest combined population.  OH-1 (Cincinnati) and OH-6 (Ohio River) had the smallest individual populations, but larger neighbors.  The combined district was numbered OH-4, again because OH-4 had more population and was the lower number.  At the end of the process, 5 and 11 were reassigned to OH-18 (Eastern) and OH-17 (Youngstown/Akron), though the map above messed that numbering up.

I was envisioning the map as something that a court might draw, so was conscious of maintaining district cores, and to a reasonable extent protecting incumbents.  A court would likely pay special attention to leadership (Boehner/OH-8) and Black minority district (Cleveland/OH-10).  So the southern boundary of OH-8 and split of Butler County was fixed.  And OH-10 ended up being Cleveland and eastern suburbs.  I also wanted to eliminate city splits, and Cleveland, Akron, Dayton, and Cincinnati are unified in a single district.

The three Columbus area districts (OH-7, OH-12, OH-13) had almost the correct population collectively, and only needed to add Champaign.   Because of the decision to fix the southern boundary of OH-8, only OH-3 (Dayton) and OH-8 could move north from the southwest.  After putting all of Dayton and Montgomery county in OH-3, I then moved the boundary of OH-8 north to where its deficit was eliminated.  OH-1 (Cincinnati) was shifted eastward in Hamilton county to include all of Cincinnati.  OH-3 moved south in Warren to eliminate its deficit.  Because the Columbus area was collectively at the right population, this meant that OH-2 (Cincinnati suburbs and east), OH-6 (Ohio River), and OH-18 (eastern) would have to move counter-clockwise around Columbus.  Since this would require a lot of transfers, I decided to augment OH-9 (Toledo) to the south to take up some of the surplus of the merged OH-4, rather than to the east as I had originally intended.  

The boundary in Lorain ends up about where it is now, as did the boundary in Mahoning.  You can think of these as defining the limits of the districts shifting towards Cleveland and those towards the northwest.  OH-16 is where the population balancing between the regions was done.

Because OH-18 was going to have to pass population through, it lost its southern tail, which was largely an artifact of the 2000-redistricting when OH-6 was moved from a southern district to being the river snake.  Restoration of some of this southern area to OH-6 was more coincidence than intent.  

OH-2 moved somewhat eastward when it ran into OH-6, so it was forced northward.  When it added Fayette, it split OH-7.  So Madison was moved to OH-7, which split OH-15.  Union was also added to OH-7 which returned it more to its traditional configuration as a Springfield-Columbus district.  The inclusion of SE Franklin is ugly, but I had no real reason to shift it around.

OH-15 was now entirely in Franklin County, and needed to make up for the loss of Madison and Union.  So I simply started moving north in central Columbus until I had enough population.  OH-12 then added the remainder of Licking County, including Newark and a county to its southeast whose name I forget.  So I actually did end up shifting some population through Columbus, rather than around to the east.

OH-18 shifted westward and northward, and along with OH-13 was one of the most modified districts.  It just happened to be nearest the popped balloon.  It was then renumbered OH-5

Instead of a merger of OH-4 and OH-5, it was more the case of the OH-5 absorbing some of OH-4 and taking its number.  This is not really unexpected given its position in the corner of the state.  Ohio can't support 4 small city/rural districts, especially with OH-2 and OH-8 extending so far out from Cincinnati, and OH-4 was in the wrong place,  Since Jordan lives in Champaign County, his home is a small part of the new OH-7, and he would probably lose to Latta if he moved.  He wasn't targeted, but he did get knocked out.

Because of the big increase in the Black population, Stivers in OH-15 would likely be defeated, while OH-12 becomes strongly Republican.  so essentially, two competitive districts were differentiated.  OH-1 and OH-6 remain competitive.

In the northeast, only OH-13 and OH-14 surround the newly merged OH-10.  OH-14 moved west until it reached substantially Black suburbs, and then wrapped around into southern Cuyahoga County and somewhat into northern Summit County.  This meant that OH-13 had to absorb most of the excess from from the merged OH-10, including all the western and near southern suburbs in Cuyahoga County.  OH-13 is currently pretty much an agglomeration stretching from Lorain to Summit, with a bit of Cuyahoga and Medina between, a kind of distorted barbell.  In the 2000 redistricting, the Summit County seat was eliminated, which explains the Akron split, and generally carved up look of Summit County.  The new OH-13 is much more compact, and is actually pretty close to a merger of OH-10 and OH-13 without the incumbents.

OH-17 picked up all of Akron.  Originally, it had a keyhole appearance, so I switched Cuyahoga Falls and other areas from OH-14 to OH-17, and the more rural parts of Trumbull and Portage to OH-14.  This makes OH-14 more like its current configuration.  I had originally, unsplit the two counties.  OH-17 was renamed to OH-11 (the numbers of OH-11 and OH-14 are swapped on the district builder)

OH-16 moves into the western part of Summit County shifting somewhat north, and OH-18 (now OH-5) moved a bit north to balance things out.  I did another round of balancing to the precinct level.

Final districts.

OH-1 (Cincinnati) Chabot, no change in competitiveness
OH-2 (E Cincinnati suburbs, southern Ohio) Schmidt, a bit more R.
OH-3 (Dayton, Montgomery+Warren) Turner, no change, safe R.
OH-4 (Northwest Ohio) Latta, merges OH-5 and OH-4, safe R.
OH-5 (Mid-Northeastern Ohio) Gibbs, formerly OH-18, a bit more R with loss of southern tail, perhaps a bit more small city for farmer Gibbs.
OH-6 (Ohio River) Johnson, no change in competitive ness.
OH-7 (Springfield, Greene, SE Franklin) Austria + technically Jordan.  A bit more Republican.  Since both incumbents are from the western part of the district, perhaps a primary could be won based on advertising in Columbus.
OH-8 (Butler, and western Ohio) Boehner, even more R.
OH-9 (Toledo and Erie shore) Kaptur, a tad less D, but no risk.
OH-10 (Cleveland) Fudge + Kucinich.  Merged OH-10 and OH-11, but more of OH-11, 48% BVAP, so Fudge should win a primary.
OH-11 (Youngstown-Akron) Ryan, formerly OH-17 More D, and more Black with inclusion of all of Akron.  Could attract an Akron-area candidate, but I'd guess not Sutton.  Because it is the smaller area, Youngstown and Warren voters are more likely to vote their city.
OH-12 (Northern Columbus suburbs) Tiberi, much more R.
OH-13 (Western and Southern Cleveland suburbs) Open.  Kucinich and Sutton represent equal shares of the district, but neither live in it.  Kucinich should have the advantage and disadvantage of name recognition.  This is also a competitive D/R district.
OH-14 (Northeast Ohio) LaTourrette, a shade less R.
OH-15 (Columbus, western Franklin) Stivers, significantly more D.
OH-16 (Canton, Medina, western Summit) Renacci, technically Sutton.  Slightly more D,

I'd score it: 4D (OH-9, 10, 11, 15), 3 competitive (OH-1, 6, 13), 9R (OH-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16), with OH-14 and 16 vulnerable in a strong D year.

So perhaps 9D-7R in a strong year.  Generally somewhere between 4-12 and 7-9.

[jimrtex]

Out of interest, did you ever do one of your nodal analyses for Ohio?

This is a retrospective look, based on the actual transfers.



Erk ... lots of typing lost ... I might redo some of it.

[minionofmidas]

I have trouble understanding how that 13th comes to be so competitive.

Good map though overall, and I remember it now.

[jimrtex]

I have trouble understanding how that 13th comes to be so competitive.

Good map though overall, and I remember it now.

Because Lakewood, Parma, Lorain, and Elyria are the big cities, and all of Cleveland and Akron are removed.  It drops from 11.6% BVAP to 4.5% BVAP.  Besides including the outermost western and southern tier of Cuyahoga, it includes the easternmost and northernmost tier of Lorain and Medina.

[krazen1211]

I have trouble understanding how that 13th comes to be so competitive.

Good map though overall, and I remember it now.

It's full of white, not high income voters. I wouldn't really describe it as competitive; the right Democrat should hold it easily.

[TJ in Oregon]

I have trouble understanding how that 13th comes to be so competitive.

Good map though overall, and I remember it now.

It's full of white, not high income voters. I wouldn't really describe it as competitive; the right Democrat should hold it easily.

But the incumbent is exactly the wrong Democrat: Dennis Kucinich. To add to the Democrats issues, the west side of Cleveland has been slowly drifting away from them over the last ten years. OH-10 was a D+10 seat in '04 and a D+6 seat in '08. The Republicans also have exactly the right candidate running in 2012 in Rob Frost. In order for the Democrats to be favored to keep a western Cleveland seat like that it would probably need to be in the D+2 or D+3 range, especially with Kucinich.

[krazen1211]

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/12/democrat-led_petition_drive_on.html

Redfern said Democrats have collected about 135,000 signatures right now in roughly five weeks of signature-gathering by 1,000 volunteers, but declined to handicap the chances that his volunteer army can harvest 231,150 valid signatures by a Christmas Day deadline. "You work real hard and you stand out in front of libraries, and you talk to people and you gather signatures," Redfern said. "This is an extraordinarily challenging effort, but one that needs to be taken on."


Generally, successful ballot drives need to gather at least 400,000 signatures to get enough valid signatures to qualify an issue for the ballot. That would put Democrats about one-third of the way to the number of signatures needed with less than three weeks left--although state elections law would allow them at least several weeks extra time if they can muster the minimum needed by the Christmas Day deadline.



Yeah, the map is a go.