US House Redistricting: Ohio

[BigSkyBob]

Jim Jordan is making redistricting easy for the Ohio GOP.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/07/28/payback-coming.html

U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan's open defiance of Speaker John Boehner's efforts to solve the debt-ceiling crisis could cost the Urbana Republican his safe seat in next year's election.

Two Republican sources deeply involved in configuring new Ohio congressional districts confirmed to The Dispatch today that Jordan's disloyalty to Boehner has put him in jeopardy of being zeroed out of a district.

Of course, targeting Jordon will result in the Republican legislators whom vote to screw him being targeted in turn.

Let it play out!

[BigSkyBob]

Jim Jordan is making redistricting easy for the Ohio GOP.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/07/28/payback-coming.html

U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan's open defiance of Speaker John Boehner's efforts to solve the debt-ceiling crisis could cost the Urbana Republican his safe seat in next year's election.

Two Republican sources deeply involved in configuring new Ohio congressional districts confirmed to The Dispatch today that Jordan's disloyalty to Boehner has put him in jeopardy of being zeroed out of a district.

If they could find a way to lump Jordan and Schmidt together into a district that would be a fun one to watch.

That won't happen. Turner and Austria are in the way.

Of course, it's very easy to give Jordan the ultimate "f--- you" by putting him in Boehner's district.

That assumes Jordan doesn't beat Boehner. That is just an assumption on your part.

I have to take issue with the rhetoric of "open defiance." Jim Jordan  was elected to represent the folks in the 4th district. He took an oath of loyality to the Constitution of the United States of America. He did not swear an oath to a political party, or its officiers.

[BigSkyBob]

Jim Jordan is making redistricting easy for the Ohio GOP.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/07/28/payback-coming.html

U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan's open defiance of Speaker John Boehner's efforts to solve the debt-ceiling crisis could cost the Urbana Republican his safe seat in next year's election.

Two Republican sources deeply involved in configuring new Ohio congressional districts confirmed to The Dispatch today that Jordan's disloyalty to Boehner has put him in jeopardy of being zeroed out of a district.

If they could find a way to lump Jordan and Schmidt together into a district that would be a fun one to watch.

That won't happen. Turner and Austria are in the way.

Of course, it's very easy to give Jordan the ultimate "f--- you" by putting him in Boehner's district.

That assumes Jordan doesn't beat Boehner. That is just an assumption on your part.

I have to take issue with the rhetoric of "open defiance." Jim Jordan  was elected to represent the folks in the 4th district. He took an oath of loyalty to the Constitution of the United States of America. He did not swear an oath to a political party, or its officers.

While it is, of course, possible that Jordan can beat Boehner, I consider that possibility very remote. The plan that draws Jordan into Boehner's district would carve up the existing 4th. The 8th would probably only absorb Jordan's home county of Champaign, while the rest of the district would be carved up among Latta, Stivers, Tiberi,  and possibly even Renacci. This means that Boehner's base would remain intact. Also, the NRCC would undoubtedly support the Speaker over the thorn in the Speaker's side.

No doubt, the powers that be might very well try to stack the deck against Jordan. Then again, if the electorate in Ohio is for Jordan, it won't particularly matter.

I think it is a bit of an academic exercise. The question is simply who is in a position to punish whom?  Can the establishment meaningfully punish the Tea Party, or can the Tea Party punish the establishment? All this talk is predicated on the assumption that the establishment is flexing its muscle and putting some upstart in his place. The openness in which Jordan was threatened, I predict, will backfire. The establishment will back off out of fear of retribution from the Tea Party. Undoubtedly, Tea Party members will be screwed in redistricting, but, Jordan will probably not be one of them.

[BigSkyBob]

Jordan against Boehner hah. Brilliant. Especially as with today's GOP primary electorate Jordan very well could win.

Jordan ought to win.

[BigSkyBob]

The Illinois maps and the Ohio maps are clear evidence that the redistricters here are amateurs compared to career politicians. The Illinois Democrats worked their magic by shuffling constituents between districts as much as running up the Obama percentages. In Ohio, they not only created a pretty sold 12-4, but, they set the groundwork for cracking Kaptur's district in the next round. That was one of the things for which I was looking.

[BigSkyBob]

If Republicans are smart, they'll have someone lined up to primary Schmidt. She could lose that seat.

If Republicans were smart they wouldn't take the advice of liberal Democrats.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

But the fundamental basis for Wesberry v Sanders is that representatives be chosen (elected) by the People (voters) of the State.  There is no other way to read the Constitution.

It doesn't matter on what basis the apportionment of representatives is.  If representatives were chosen at at-large by some method of proportional representation, you wouldn't get more votes because you had 4 children, or had a family of aliens living next door.  So why should you get more votes based on where you live, simply because district elections are used?

Well, if you live in Minnesota, as opposed to the South, your district will probably have much higher turnout. Does that mean that you, effectively, have a smaller vote than folks elsewhere? Certainly! Is that unfair in any way? No. Even equally sized electorates  [same number of adult, citizen, non-felons] are going to have unequal numbers of voters. Your logic seems to suggest that you are committed to granting Minnesota more seats than other states with the same CVAP.[In regards to the VRA, the CVAP-Majority standard should be modified to citizen-and-those-that reasonably-could-have-been-citizens-but-chose-otherwise-majority. The government shouldn't be the business of rebalancing electorates to ameliorate voter apathy or indifference towards taking citizenship.]

The folks that don't vote are still entitled to representation. They still have the right to call their Congressman for assistance. Why shouldn't an equal number of claimants on a Representative's time have an equal claim to a representative? The children of the adults, including the felons, in a district, too, have the right to call their Congressman for assistance...

I agree that illegal aliens, foreign students, tourists, diplomats and their staffs, etc., aren't entitled to representation, and, thus, shouldn't be counted when apportioning districts.

[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.

That sounds like Singapore.

Also, sounds like New Hampshire.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And, in New Hampshire the same system is used to keep from splitting whole towns. Guilt by association isn't going to advance your position very well.

Apparently, the folks in the US don't take that dim a view of such a system given that variably-sized multi-member districting were used in North Carolina and Virginia up to recent times. Apparently, they still exist in West Virginia [SD? VT?]. Why isn't it "blatantly illegal" in West Virginia? There, real "shenanigans" are being legislated.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

But the fundamental basis for Wesberry v Sanders is that representatives be chosen (elected) by the People (voters) of the State.  There is no other way to read the Constitution.

It doesn't matter on what basis the apportionment of representatives is.  If representatives were chosen at at-large by some method of proportional representation, you wouldn't get more votes because you had 4 children, or had a family of aliens living next door.  So why should you get more votes based on where you live, simply because district elections are used?

Well, if you live in Minnesota, as opposed to the South, your district will probably have much higher turnout. Does that mean that you, effectively, have a smaller vote than folks elsewhere? Certainly! Is that unfair in any way? No. Even equally sized electorates  [same number of adult, citizen, non-felons] are going to have unequal numbers of voters. Your logic seems to suggest that you are committed to granting Minnesota more seats than other states with the same CVAP.[In regards to the VRA, the CVAP-Majority standard should be modified to citizen-and-those-that reasonably-could-have-been-citizens-but-chose-otherwise-majority. The government shouldn't be the business of rebalancing electorates to ameliorate voter apathy or indifference towards taking citizenship.]

The folks that don't vote are still entitled to representation. They still have the right to call their Congressman for assistance. Why shouldn't an equal number of claimants on a Representative's time have an equal claim to a representative? The children of the adults, including the felons, in a district, too, have the right to call their Congressman for assistance...

I agree that illegal aliens, foreign students, tourists, diplomats and their staffs, etc., aren't entitled to representation, and, thus, shouldn't be counted when apportioning districts.

Comparisons between States are irrelevant for this discussion, since the Constitution directs that representatives be chosen by the People of each individual State, and that the representatives be apportioned on the basis of the number of persons in the respective States.  Are aliens non-persons?

Technically correct. I'll amend my response to your statement of,


"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."


as, more or less, committing you to supporting a Constitutional amendment to alter the distribution formula of Congressional seats so that each Congressional district has an equal number of voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Subject to the amendment process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait, I'm taking your position about an equal number of electors to its logical conclusion that that means an equal number of voters, be it the result of failure to take citizenship, failure to register, or failure to vote. Absent such a target, the system will grant a smaller share of the electorate to a voter in Minnesota than South Carolina. Either such inequalities are compelling, or they aren't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[BigSkyBob]

"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."

as, more or less, committing you to supporting a Constitutional amendment to alter the distribution formula of Congressional seats so that each Congressional district has an equal number of voters.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires that representatives be elected from congressional districts.   Why would I favor putting such a restriction in the Constitution?

The point I raised is that the position you stated consistently leads to conclusion that it would be a more perfect union if each state where granted House seats based on the number of actual voters in those states.  [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.]

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait, I'm taking your position about an equal number of electors to its logical conclusion that that means an equal number of voters, be it the result of failure to take citizenship, failure to register, or failure to vote. Absent such a target, the system will grant a smaller share of the electorate to a voter in Minnesota than South Carolina. Either such inequalities are compelling, or they aren't.
[/quote]
If one is not a citizen, they are not a citizen.  It doesn't matter whether it is because they are not qualified to become a citizen, or have failed to become a citizen, or have made no effort to become a citizen.   If non-citizens are not eligible to vote for the larger house of the legislature, they are not voters for US Representatives.[/quote]

Equivocating on the meaning of "eligible," are folks qualified to receive citizenship conditional on applying for it, and following all the appropriate steps as "eligible" to vote as a citizen whom fails to register?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't it be fairer to strive for equality in the number of actual voters as opposed to eligible voters so as to give each actual vote as equal of a weighting as possible?

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The point I raised is that the position you stated consistently leads to conclusion that it would be a more perfect union if each state where granted House seats based on the number of actual voters in those states.  [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.]

You articulated the point in terms of congressional districts.  You are equating the number of representatives to the number of districts - but that implies the choosing is done by districts.  It needn't be.

If you didn't mean districts, you shouldn't have used the term.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait, I'm taking your position about an equal number of electors to its logical conclusion that that means an equal number of voters, be it the result of failure to take citizenship, failure to register, or failure to vote. Absent such a target, the system will grant a smaller share of the electorate to a voter in Minnesota than South Carolina. Either such inequalities are compelling, or they aren't.

If one is not a citizen, they are not a citizen.  It doesn't matter whether it is because they are not qualified to become a citizen, or have failed to become a citizen, or have made no effort to become a citizen.   If non-citizens are not eligible to vote for the larger house of the legislature, they are not voters for US Representatives.

Equivocating on the meaning of "eligible," are folks qualified to receive citizenship conditional on applying for it, and following all the appropriate steps as "eligible" to vote as a citizen whom fails to register?
[/quote]
I think you mean to say that you are "confabulating" rather than "equivocating".

North Dakota does not have voter registration.   A North Dakota citizen simply shows up at the polls and votes.   Many States permit voters to register on election day at the polling place.  All States permit voters to register a very short time before an election.

Naturalization is a much longer and more complicated process. [/quote]

Whether people voluntarily forfeit their right to vote due to inaction two years ago, 90 days ago, or on election day, the principle is the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't it be fairer to strive for equality in the number of actual voters as opposed to eligible voters so as to give each actual vote as equal of a weighting as possible?
[/quote]

Before passage of the 19th amendment, many States permitted women to vote.  They might have had twice as many actual voters as other States with similar population.  Compare the actual number of voters in the 1892 and 1896 elections.  Would you have apportioned more representatives to such States?[/quote]

Again, I would have apportioned according to number of people in the district entitled to representation [all citizens regardless of age or criminal record, and, arguably, aliens within the naturalization process]. You are the one whom suggested that districts should have an equal number of adult citizen non-felons. I have merely suggested that the consistent application of your principle to the apportionment of Congress seats to the various states would
assign districts to the state based on their actual number of voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't doubt their are problems with apportionment based on the number of voters. But, that is where the logic of claiming some voter's votes are weighted differently than others  leads.

[BigSkyBob]

Apparently Republicans are proposing to pick off Democratic votes by stretching OH-3 from Columbus to Dayton, making it 42% black and possibly violating court precedents while wrecking one of the few areas of the map that didn't look like Maryland.

Was that the GOP is attempting to pick off Black Democrat legislators?

[BigSkyBob]

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.

First of all, the article is wrong. They have until Christmas to collect 231,150 signatures. They don't have to be valid, and they don't have to be real, and they don't have to have any correlation between any person living or dead. When those signatures are thrown out, and, who wouldn't challenge "Micheal E. Mouse," they will have a couple of more months to collect enough signatures from the registered living as a reward for gaming the system.

Second, the article is a giant fundraising appeal for the Democratic party of Ohio. I'm sure there are enough redistricting nerds in the Democratic party willing to pony up a few bucks that the professional signature gatherers will be out in force next week.

Third, if the referendum actually fails for lack of signatures, I would be embarrassed to be a member of the Democratic party.

[BigSkyBob]

As predicted:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/13/1044925/-OH-redistricting-fund-drive:-House-in-the-balance?via=sidebytagfeed

[BigSkyBob]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/12/14/dems-gop-decide-on-single-march-primary-in-2012.html

Deal cut for GOP map to be enforced for the next decade in exchange for small changes.

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think I have ever seen such political incompetence on the part of the Democrats. All they had to do is throw a monkey wrench into the process by spending a million to find partisan Democrats willing to sign a petition in the partisan interest of Democrats. They could have gained a seat, or two, for a decade. Instead, they'll blow the money on a district in Oregon they would have won anyway later in the decade in the worst case! Pathetic.

[BigSkyBob]

The new map:

[BigSkyBob]

Neither 10 nor 14 is remotely competitive as long as the current incumbent is scandalfree and not going anywhere.

That's why they were drawn that way. The Dems wanted more competitive districts, but the GOP wasn't going to budge on that. They would agree to changes that made blacks more competitive in the primaries, but even then they wouldn't go so far as to reduce the GOP numbers very much.

It appears that the map was extremely skillfully drawn, for a host or reasons, including having Stivers (OH-15) take Athens, since he presumably runs reasonably well among the academic community.  However, the Columbus CD (OH-03) is short 6,000 folks, and this time, the CD's surrounding it, have spot on numbers, so this is going to be a really puzzler. Mapping Columbus is a real horror show of course, given how screwed up the precincts are.  It is kind of interesting that OH-04's primary task was taking out heavily Dem Elyria and Oberlin. Who would have thunk it?  Kaptur only has 45% of the population of her old CD, with 55% mostly Kucinich country (I think, I haven't drawn the Cleveland area yet), also clever. That Dem primary should be a barn burner. I suspect the Pubs enjoy keep Kuch around.

The one possible real trouble spot is that Gibbs in OH-07 (who hangs out in a rural portion of hyper GOP Holmes County), which takes both Canton and Massilon. I suspect he won't run well there relatively speaking, and a Canton based Dem who is reasonably moderate might give him trouble. The Pubs should have a Canton based candidate themselves really. Such is life.

I assume OH-16 is reasonably safe, but I have not drawn it yet.

OH-04 had the original task of taking up parts of Toledo in the September map. Putting most of the black areas in Toledo back into Kaptur's district was a result of negotiations between the GOP and black legislators. Neither side got all they wanted, since Toledo is still split, just not as much. To compensate for the extra population that needed to go into 09, OH-04 had to take on a different Dem area. Elyria is not part of Kaptur's current district, nor is it part of Kucinich's, so it was sent to 04 in exchange for the aforementioned Toledo areas.

Yes, that was my guess, without having really studied the original mess the GOP came up with. The Pubs just did an exchange with OH-09, where instead of OH-04 taking some of Toledo, it took Oberlin and Elryia instead, accomplishing the mission just as well, if not better, since that avoids a Toledo tri-chop.  As I said, the Pubs here were very clever, considerably more so than the PA clowns. I quite admire their handiwork. In I think each and every instance, I said to myself, hey that makes sense.

Why not just do it in the first place?