At Wednesday’s Ohio Issue 1 forum, both sides criticized Ohio’s current redistricting system, but supporters of the proposed amendment argued it would prevent territorial gerrymandering by removing politicians from the process, while opponents said it would create other problems.
Proposition 1, put on the Citizens, Not Politicians ballot, would replace Ohio’s current Redistricting Commission of seven elected officials with a 15-member commission of citizens.
The current commission includes Ohio’s governor, auditor and secretary of state, as well as four lawmakers – one from each party in each chamber of the Legislature. The proposed 15-member citizens commission would consist of five Republicans, five Democrats and five independents, selected by a bipartisan panel of former judges.
A “yes” vote on Issue 1 would create a 15-member Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission. A “no” vote on Issue 1 would maintain the current Ohio Redistricting Commission.
Two of the forum’s panelists played prominent roles in Ohio’s 2021 and 2022 redistricting battle, during which the bipartisan Ohio Supreme Court invalidated a total of seven Statehouse and U.S. Congressional district maps – passed by Republican members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission without cross-party support – as unconstitutional.
Former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Maureen O’Connor had the final say in these decisions striking distorted maps. Republican Ohio State Auditor Keith Faber serves on and co-chairs the Ohio Redistricting Commission.
Because the deadline for drawing constitutional maps in 2022 has expired, a federal court has ordered Ohio to exploit the commission’s maps regardless of this election cycle. O’Connor was forced to leave the court due to age. Shortly thereafter, she began work on the “Citizens, not politicians” proposal.
In 2023, Faber and the rest of the Ohio Redistricting Commission members unanimously adopted the maps that will be used in the November election, although Democrats they said they only support them because redistricting reform is on the way and if they voted for it, Republicans on the committee would draw even more gerrymandered maps.
On Wednesday, O’Connor joined Kareem Crayton, vice president of the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, in supporting the “Citizens, Not Politicians” amendment. Faber opposed the Amendment 1 along with Capital University law professor Bradley Smith.
Although Faber opposes changing the current system in Issue 1, he spent no time in Wednesday’s issue Columbus Metropolitan Club Forum in defense of the current process.
“I will be the first to stand up and say, hey, the current system doesn’t work very well, it was designed not to work very well, it was designed with compromise in mind,” Faber said.
At the forum, Faber also acknowledged that while the 2023 maps have received bipartisan support, they are not without flaws.
“I won’t praise the current map because there are things we could do better if we were clear on some issues,” he said.
And while his reason for opposing Issue 1 was the risk of litigation associated with the up-to-date system, Faber said that “no one expected (the Ohio Supreme Court) to inject itself the way it did” into the current system.
The court was appointed as the final arbiter of the constitutionality of maps under redistricting reforms passed by Ohio voters in 2015 and 2018.
Still, Faber said the move to a 15-citizen independent redistricting commission and the mapping requirements in the ballot initiative will only make the system worse.
“It was drafted based on a political ideology based on ‘heads we win, tails we win twice,’” Faber said.
For former president O’Connor, the specter of the current system is a sufficient argument to make changes.
“It’s time,” she told forum participants. “You have a trigger, and the trigger was the dysfunction of the current system.”
O’Connor defended himself against criticism from Faber and Capital University law professor Bradley Smith that Issue 1 “forces” gerrymanders to create Democratic strongholds in the state through map-drawing requirements, that the solution will “slice and dice communities.” ” – claims unelected commission members would lack accountability to Ohioans, and even Smith’s argument that redistricting is an “inherently political process.”
Faber also touched on Michigan’s independent citizens commission, whose chairman appeared with state Sen. Michele Reynolds, R-Canal Winchester, at Tuesday’s press conference, calling for a vote against No. 1.
At an anti-Issue 1 press conference attended by Ohioans opposed to the measure, Rebecca Szetela warned of a “repeat of what happened in Michigan,” where she portrayed her colleagues on the citizens commission as “unqualified” people, insulated from criticism and irresponsible audience.
O’Connor said the “Citizens, Not Politicians” reform proposal includes Michigan’s process as part of a comprehensive review of the nation’s redistricting systems. She said that in formulating the Ohio process, the authors “took what was good and threw out what wasn’t.”
“Yes, it’s specific, yes, it’s specific and no, it’s not Michigan,” O’Connor said.
Specifically, she said Ohio’s plan provides “a much more detailed way to ensure that commissioners are the right candidates for the position they are looking for.”
“We want people to vote who are good citizens, who have the initiative and the desire to serve and serve Ohio so that we can have fair districts where there is fair representation,” O’Connor said.
Kareem Crayton, vice president of the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, said the citizens commission’s redistricting process “decouples elections from government” and that Issue 1’s gerrymandering provision resets the concept in Ohio.
“In a functioning democracy, elections are the power,” Crayton said. “In a rigged system, power is completely immune, isolated from elections.”
In a commission that must agree across lines, maps must be drawn with that consent in mind and with the public’s consent in mind.
“In any state with an independent commission, you see greater public engagement, more discussion about how the rules should fit together, and ultimately an outcome that generally provides broad public agreement,” Crayton said.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
