US House Redistricting: Ohio

[Skill and Chance]

The Court adopts the Pubbie plan as an interim map (reasonably likely, but uncertain), and the referendum then passes (assuming it does), and the Pubs draw the same map again, or worse - as they are threatening. This is one of those classic tractor games (you remember that movie don't you Brittain33?).  

I'm still not seeing the downside for the Dems vs the rather substantial downside for the Republicans. For one, the map can not possibly get any worse for the Dems, so that's an empty threat. (Even if it could get marginally worse in a few places, that is of no practical significance when you are down to 4 Dems, and most likely leads to a dummymander.) For another, there will almost certainly be fewer Republicans in the legislature after the 2012 election, although they will still have a majority, which will limit their maneuver room. For another another, drawing the same map again after losing a referendum would invite another referendum which they know they will lose, and the Pubbies are counting on low Dem turnout in 2014.

A law passed by a 2/3 majority is not subject to a referendum.

Back in 1981 there were referendum petitions filed against both the legislative and congressional maps in California.  The California Supreme Court ruled that the congressional map passed by the legislature should be used, since it was the only map with the correct number of representatives (this was a 7-0 vote and followed the precedent of 1971 when then Governor Reagan vetoed the maps).  The Supreme Court on a 4-3 decision written by Chief Justice Bird ruled that the the legislative maps passed by the legislature should also be used, since these were said to have more equal population.  This overturned the precedent from 1971 where the existing boundaries were used after a veto.  Since the Republicans were petitioning for the referendum, and Bird's given name was Liberal Rose, I suspect the 4-3 decisions was partisan aligned.

The voters overturned the maps.  The legislature elected on the gerrymandered maps then passed the same maps with an urgency clause (2/3 vote) which was signed by Jerry Brown the Younger.

If the Ohio Supreme Court has a Republican majority, they can rule that the 16-district plan should be used.  Even if the voters turn down the map, the legislature elected in 2012 can pass the map with an emergency clause.

If and only if the Republicans have 2/3rds of the seats in both chambers, right?  If they wanted to play super hardball, Democrats could just keep iterating the referendums until they get a Democratic governor or take back a statehouse.

[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.

[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.