Surprise from Gov. Kasich

Kasich Calls For Dramatic Reform To Congressional Redistricting

By Andy Chow  Dec. 23, 2015

While looking back at the state’s accomplishments in 2015, Gov. John Kasich came out with a firm stance to reform redistricting both in Ohio and nationally. 

Gov. John Kasich said he wants to see dramatic reform to the way voting districts are drawn to stop the practice known as gerrymandering, where a district heavily favors one political party.

Kasich says gerrymandering is forcing politicians to take up more extreme stances.

“It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, I think we need massive…I think we need to eliminate gerrymandering, we gotta figure out a way to do it, we gotta be aggressive on it and we gotta have more competitive districts. That to me is what’s good for the state of Ohio and what’s good for the country,” said Kasich.

He made this announcement with the House Speaker and Senate President sitting just to his right. The General Assembly helped pass state legislative redistricting, but they’ve pumped the breaks on trying to change the way congressional districts are drawn.

Copyright 2015 90.3 WCPN Ideastream. To see more, visit 90.3 WCPN Ideastream.

Found this article on WOSU Radio web page

Brennan Center Analysis of Evenwel v Abbott

The Impact of Evenwel: How Using Voters Instead of People Would Dramatically Change Redistricting

A big upheaval could be coming for America’s state legislatures. On December 8, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Evenwel v. Abbott, a closely watched case from Texas that will decide whether states must change the way they draw legislative districts. The new analysis in this paper shows that if the Evenwelchallengers prevail, the nationwide impact will be far greater than previously assumed.

Like other states, Texas currently draws districts so they contain a roughly equal number of people rather than voters. Indeed, over the course of American history districts have overwhelmingly been drawn this way. But the Evenwel challengers say Texas’s legislative plans are unconstitutional because while districts may contain approximately the same number of people, many vary widely in the number of eligible voters.

So far, a lot of the attention around the case has focused on how changing the way districts are drawn would impact fast-growing Latino communities in certain states. And to be sure, some of the biggest changes would be in booming metro areas, such as Dallas, Houston, and Los Angeles, which have high numbers of both children and non-citizen immigrants. Latino majority districts, in particular, would become much harder to draw in many parts of the country.

But this new Brennan Center analysis shows the impact of a change would be far greater than expected and not confined to just a few states. In fact, if the Evenwelplaintiffs win and the rules are changed so lines must be drawn based on citizen voting age population instead of total population:

• Every state legislative map in the country would become presumptively unconstitutional under Equal Protection principles and would need to be redrawn.
   
• Nationwide, 21.3 percent of state house seats and 16.7 percent of state senate seats would be presumptively unconstitutional. In eight states, the percentage of house or senate districts with constitutional problems would be more than 40 percent.
   
• Redrawing maps to comply with constitutional requirements would require changing far more districts because of cascade effects from changes elsewhere on the map. 

Read the full analysis here .

Speaker Rosenberger 71% Want Change

Cleveland.com Editorial Nov. 14, 2015

Congressional redistricting reform cannot be shoved to Ohio House's back burner: editorial

Ohio voters made it irrefutably clear on Nov. 3 that they want the state's General Assembly districts drawn fairly. Issue 1, a bipartisan plan sponsored by then-state Reps. Matt Huffman, a Lima Republican, and Vernon Sykes, an Akron Democrat, drew "yes" votes from 71 percent of those voting on the measure, which carried all 88 counties.

Issue 1 changes how Ohio will draw its 99 state House and 33 state Senate districts after the 2020 Census.

State panel wants congressional redistricting reform

The goal is to present the General Assembly a proposal for drawing congressional districts that is similar to one voters approved overwhelmingly Nov. 3 that amended the process laid out in the Ohio Constitution for drawing legislative districts for the Ohio House and Senate.

The next step toward fairness should be an equally bipartisan mechanism for drawing Ohio's 16 U.S. House districts. But based on post-election comments by Ohio House Speaker Clifford Rosenberger, a Clarksville Republican, it appears that reforming how Ohio draws congressional districts will be a tough sell in Columbus. Rosenberger has to find a way to make it happen.

About our editorials

Editorials express the view of the editorial board of cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer -- the senior leadership and editorial-writing staff. As is traditional, editorials are unsigned and intended to be seen as the voice of the news organization.

• Talk about the topic of this editorial in the comments below.

• Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.

• Email general questions or comments about the editorial board to Elizabeth Sullivan, opinion director for cleveland.com.

Congressional districts are now drawn by the Ohio General Assembly. When the Republican-run legislature last redrew them, in a bill Republican Gov. John Kasich signed in September 2011, Butler County Republican John Boehner, then the U.S. House's speaker, had as much to say about the new district boundaries as anyone at the Statehouse. Aim: to maximize the number of Republicans in Ohio's congressional delegation. Boehner succeeded: Of 16 U.S. House members from Ohio, 12 are Republicans, four, Democrats, from a state that twice backed Barack Obama.

Public documents obtained by Ohio voter advocates show a key representative of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner was central in drawing the state's disputed congressional map.

Now pending in the General Assembly is a reasonable plan for fairly drawing Ohio congressional districts, sponsored by state Sens. Frank LaRose, a Copley Township Republican, and Tom Sawyer, an Akron Democrat.

The LaRose-Sawyer bill is a good starting point for legislative action. But there are two obstacles.

Problem One: Public pieties aside, Ohioans now in the U.S. House, regardless of party, likely don't want to change how Ohio draws its congressional districts because, after all, Ohio's current method got them where they are – in lavishly paid and essentially lifetime jobs.

Reforming congressional redistricting apt to take time

Reform has backers on both sides of the aisle, but it could be some time before voters see another ballot proposal. Ultimately, the most important opinions may come from those who hold the congressional seats that would be affected.

But Ohio voters have signaled they're tired of business as usual, which brings up Problem Two: Speaker Rosenberger wants "to see a conversation continue to happen" on redistricting, he told cleveland.com's Robert Higgs.

With all due respect, the General Assembly has talked itself hoarse about congressional redistricting; the outrages today's method allows are self-evident. Action is what Ohioans want -- not more talk.

This editorial was updated at 4:05 pm to correct the party affiliation for former state Rep. Matt Huffman of Lima.

Fair Design of Congressional Districts

Columbus Dispatch November 14, 2015

Letter to the Editor

Let’s extend fair design of districts to Congress

Voters sent a clear message on Nov. 3 when they approved State Issue 1: They want fair legislative districts.

We agree. The League of Women Voters of Ohio and our allies have long been calling for an end to gerrymandering, in the form of fair rules and a transparent process for drawing districts.

Passing State Issue 1 only got us halfway there. It created a new, fair process for drawing Ohio General Assembly districts but did not include congressional districts. The League, Common Cause Ohio, Progress Ohio and other allies seized on landslide voter approval of Issue 1 to call for extending the same fair-districts process to Congress, whose districts are even more gerrymandered.

Some political leaders didn’t even wait 24 hours before coming out as publicly opposed to congressional-redistricting reform. Why would Ohio’s political leaders who endorsed Issue 1 and praised this new bipartisan redistricting plan for state legislative districts in the same breath voice opposition to applying the same fair rules to congressional redistricting?

This is what Issue 1 will do:

• Create a bipartisan process for drawing districts so that one party cannot rig districts in its favor.

• Require districts to reflect the voting history of each community, instead of being manipulated to artificially favor or disfavor a political party or a particular candidate.

• Ensure transparency, in the form of public hearings and a public process for drawing maps.

• Keep communities whole, so that we don’t have oddly shaped districts that stretch long distances across numerous counties whose residents might have little in common.

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said Ohioans voted against monopolies, both economic monopolies in States Issues 2 and 3 and political monopolies in Issue 1. Of all three, Issue 1 won by the widest margin, with 71.5 percent of voters saying no to politicians rigging legislative districts in their favor. Issue 1 passed by wide margins in all 88 counties.

Voters clearly expressed their support of fair districts. And the people of Ohio deserve nothing less than a fair and open redistricting process for all districts, including those for Congress.

CARRIE DAVIS

Executive director

League of Women Voters of Ohio

Columbus

Columbus Dispatch Editorial

Redrawing the maps

Success of redistricting reform depends on willingness of parties

Friday November 6, 2015 6:12 AM

The passage of State Issue 1 Tuesday by a wide margin is a victory for all Ohioans, finally creating an opportunity for fairer districts for the Statehouse to replace the highly partisan winner-take-all approach. Now, it will be up to Ohio’s elected representatives to fulfill the will of the voters and work together for the common good.

The issue’s effect won’t be seen for several more years, since the next 10-year redistricting process doesn’t come around until 2021. But the makeup of the apportionment board and the transparency under which it works will significantly change. The board will include two legislators from each party in addition to the governor, Ohio secretary of state and Ohio auditor. The board will be required to hold at least three public meetings that will be webcast. Currently, much of the work can be done behind closed doors. Public comment will be allowed on the proposed map, and the board must issue an explanation for its map and any reasons for splitting counties or townships.

Two votes from the minority party will be needed to approve a map for a full 10-year period; the hope is that this will encourage Republicans and Democrats to work together and reduce the districts that critics say have been unfairly gerrymandered to favor Republicans in the past two cycles.

Without the support of two minority members, the process will have to be repeated just four years later. It would be counterproductive if Ohio’s redistricting process simply shifted from an every-10-years process to an every-four-years one because the parties can’t agree or the minority party thinks it will be in control four years down the road. That is an unfortunate possibility given the events leading up to the election.

Issue 1 had the backing of both state Republicans and Democrats, along with a number of groups, including the League of Women Voters, the AFL-CIO, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the Ohio State Bar Association. But there was plenty of political jockeying that hampered the campaign’s efforts to raise money and get the word out to voters.

Despite the early support of groups normally allied with Democrats, the state Democratic Party waited until September to endorse the ballot issue. The party’s executive committee waited to run computer models to see how the party might fare under the new system, only signing on after party leaders didn’t see any sure way of coming out better without the changes Issue 1 institutes.

Meanwhile, several liberal-leaning groups took initiative on their own to launch a grassroots campaign in favor of Issue 1 after the official campaign’s Democratic lobbying firm stepped down. Thankfully, Ohioans got the message despite this less-than-unified effort.

Tuesday’s message at the ballot box should be heeded broadly by legislative leaders: Ohioans want fairer districts and bipartisan cooperation from lawmakers. That goes for U.S. congressional districts, too, something Ohio House Speaker Cliff Rosenberger, R-Clarksville, should recognize. The day after the election, Rosenberger indicated he was in no rush to reform congressional redistricting; he said he’d like to see how the process put in place by Issue 1 is going to work.

Seeing as how that process won’t start until 2021, that long a wait is not in the best interests of Ohio residents.

Ohio Voters should vote NO on Issue 1

Voting NO on Ohio’s Issue 1 may seem incompatible with what I’ve written on this blog. 

Here are some reasons:

1. Still be 5 incumbents drawing districts.

2. Might be term-limited incumbents drawing new districts for themselves. The new law does not address this potential issue.

3. The law provides fail-safe back door for incumbents whereby a simple majority may approve a 4 year district map if the Commission fails to adopt a plan in accordance with the rules in division (A) (3).

 ((So stated in Section 8 parts B C And A )

4. The law does not seat even one non-politically affiliated person on the board. Two members are appointed by a elected member of Ohio government.

5. Legislative influence could occur because Members of the Commission must work with current members of the General Assembly and Senate. 

6. Does not change way we draw our US Congressional Districts. 

7. The Redistricting Reform Act of 2015 sponsored in the U S House by Lofgren, Brownley, Lowenthal and Edwards supported by 19 House Democrats offers a better plan.  Ohio has time to write a better bill. Voters should not be asked to settle for legislation that does not fix the problem. 

8. The Supreme Court is going to hear gerrymandering issues this term. Waiting for their decisions on the matters before them may very well help Ohio build a better law.

And finally, giving incumbents the authority to draw their own districts is just plain voter neglect of the duty we all have to help build a responsible government. 

link to SCOTUSblog

Round-up: Continuing commentary on #KimDavis in jail, a case with congressional #gerrymandering consequences, & more http://t.co/8Qgn5hFlhA

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) September 8, 2015

Maryland - Takes Gerrymander to Supreme Court

Supreme Court case based in Md. could have wide impact http://t.co/1nSUHsFwQA #gerrymandering

— Steve Sager (@Steven_Sager) September 8, 2015

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-redistricting-case-20150906-story.html

Wisconsin - Our Votes Just Don't Matter

Opinion: Our votes just don't matter, says @BruceMurphyMKE #gerrymandering #wipolitics http://t.co/aTxRcW1qRs pic.twitter.com/LezoDmZBMF

— Isthmus (@isthmus) September 1, 2015

link:
http://www.isthmus.com/news/opinion/wisconsin-gerrymandered-election-districts/

Does AZ redistricting commission differ from proposed OH commission?

ARIZONA
Proposition 106, vesting redistricting authority in the AIRC, was adopted by citizen initiative in 2000 against a “background of recurring redistricting turmoil” in Arizona. 

¶18. The highest ranking officer and minor­ity leader of each chamber of the legislature each select one member of the AIRC from a list compiled by Arizona’s Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. ¶¶4–7. The four appointed members of the AIRC then choose, from the same list, the fifth member, who chairs the Commission. ¶

¶23.

Holders of, or candidates for, public office may not serve on the AIRC, except candidates for or members of a school board. ¶3. No more than two members of the Commission may be members of the same political party, ibid., and the presiding fifth member cannot be registered with any party already represented on the Commission, ¶8. Subject to the concurrence of two-thirds of the Arizona Senate, AIRC members may be removed by the Arizona Governor for gross misconduct, substantial neglect of duty, or inabil­ ity to discharge the duties of office. ¶10.5

OHIO  -  following quote from BALLOTPEDIA 

"The Ohio Bipartisan Redistricting Commission Amendment is on the November 3, 2015 ballot in Ohio as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure, upon voter approval, would create a bipartisan redistricting commission, the Ohio Redistricting Commission, to draw state legislative districts. The measure would also establish new requirements for district standards.^[1][2]

The Ohio Redistricting Commission would consist of the following seven members: the Governor, State Auditor, Secretary of State, one person appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, one person appointed by the legislative leader of the largest political party in the house of which the speaker is not a member, one person appointed by the President of the Ohio Senate and one person appointed by the legislative leader of the largest political party in the senate of which the president is not a member.^{[1]"    (end quote)}

1. GOV = R
2. AUDITOR = R
3. SEC. OF STATE = R
4. APPOINTED BY SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE = R
5. APPOINTED BY PARTY OF WHICH SPEAKER IS NOT A MEMBER = D
6. APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT OF OHIO SENATE = R
7. APPOINTED BY PARTY IN SENATE OF WHICH THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A MEMBER = D

The current redistricting board is 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat...

The new board will be 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats ...

I do not see much difference between the old and the new method, especially when I consider the new legislation allows the redistricting plan to be used for 4 years IF the commission fails to pass a bipartisan vote. A simple majority vote is all that will be required in that case.

The Arizona plan says holders of or candidates for public office may not serve on the Arizona Redistricting Commission. Ohio's plan names top 5 ranking office holders and 2 minority office holders. ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS 

Ohio's "new" plan is not so new after all. There isn't much difference between getting beat 5 to 2 or 4 to 1. The so called new plan still allows for partisan control of the process by elected officials. Which is exactly the opposite of Arizona's reform plan. 

Which state will likely end gerrymandering? 

Passing a bill that gives voters the wrong idea is political chicanery. Voters who vote for this bill to pass will walk away thinking they have done something to fix the problem of gerrymandering. How many years will it take for voters to see the truth?

HJR 12 as enrolled - we vote on this Nov. 2015 election

I decided to post this unedited copy of HJR 12 because I had so much trouble finding it - thought I'd do someone a favor.. hope Ohio Gov doesn't mind.

Copied from the Ohio General Assembly Archives


The online versions of legislation provided on this website are not official. Enrolled bills are the final version passed by the Ohio General Assembly and presented to the Governor for signature. The official version of acts signed by the Governor are available from the Secretary of State's Office in the Continental Plaza, 180 East Broad St., Columbus.

(130th General Assembly)
(Amended Substitute House Joint Resolution Number 12)



JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing to enact new Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Article XI and to repeal Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Ohio to revise the redistricting process for General Assembly districts.


Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, three-fifths of the members elected to each house concurring herein, that there shall be submitted to the electors of the state, in the manner prescribed by law at the general election to be held on November 3, 2015, a proposal to enact new Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Ohio to read as follows:
ARTICLE XI
Section 1. (A) The Ohio redistricting commission shall be responsible for the redistricting of this state for the general assembly. The commission shall consist of the following seven members:
(1) The governor;
(2) The auditor of state;
(3) The secretary of state;
(4) One person appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives;
(5) One person appointed by the legislative leader of the largest political party in the house of representatives of which the speaker of the house of representatives is not a member;
(6) One person appointed by the president of the senate; and
(7) One person appointed by the legislative leader of the largest political party in the senate of which the president of the senate is not a member.
The legislative leaders in the senate and the house of representatives of each of the two largest political parties represented in the general assembly, acting jointly by political party, shall appoint a member of the commission to serve as a co-chairperson of the commission.
(B)(1) Unless otherwise specified in this article, a simple majority of the commission members shall be required for any action by the commission.
(2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(2)(b) of this section, a majority vote of the members of the commission, including at least one member of the commission who is a member of each of the two largest political parties represented in the general assembly, shall be required to do any of the following:
(i) Adopt rules of the commission;
(ii) Hire staff for the commission;
(iii) Expend funds.
(b) If the commission is unable to agree, by the vote required under division (B)(2)(a) of this section, on the manner in which funds should be expended, each co-chairperson of the commission shall have the authority to expend one-half of the funds that have been appropriated to the commission.
(3) The affirmative vote of four members of the commission, including at least two members of the commission who represent each of the two largest political parties represented in the general assembly shall be required to adopt any general assembly district plan. For the purpose of this division, a member of the commission shall be considered to represent a political party if the member was appointed to the commission by a member of that political party or if, in the case of the governor, the auditor of state, or the secretary of state, the member is a member of that political party.
(C) At the first meeting of the commission, which the governor shall convene only in a year ending in the numeral one, except as provided in Sections 8 and 9 of this article, the commission shall set a schedule for the adoption of procedural rules for the operation of the commission.
The commission shall release to the public a proposed general assembly district plan for the boundaries for each of the ninety-nine house of representatives districts and the thirty-three senate districts. The commission shall draft the proposed plan in the manner prescribed in this article. Before adopting, but after introducing, a proposed plan, the commission shall conduct a minimum of three public hearings across the state to present the proposed plan and shall seek public input regarding the proposed plan. All meetings of the commission shall be open to the public. Meetings shall be broadcast by electronic means of transmission using a medium readily accessible by the general public.
The commission shall adopt a final general assembly district plan not later than the first day of September of a year ending in the numeral one. After the commission adopts a final plan, the commission shall promptly file the plan with the secretary of state. Upon filing with the secretary of state, the plan shall become effective.
Four weeks after the adoption of a general assembly district plan, the commission shall be automatically dissolved.
(D) The general assembly shall be responsible for making the appropriations it determines necessary in order for the commission to perform its duties under this article.

Section 2. Each house of representatives district shall be entitled to a single representative in each general assembly. Each senate district shall be entitled to a single senator in each general assembly.

Section 3. (A) The whole population of the state, as determined by the federal decennial census or, if such is unavailable, such other basis as the general assembly may direct, shall be divided by the number "ninety-nine" and by the number "thirty-three" and the quotients shall be the ratio of representation in the house of representatives and in the senate, respectively, for ten years next succeeding such redistricting.
(B) A general assembly district plan shall comply with all of the requirements of division (B) of this section.
(1) The population of each house of representatives district shall be substantially equal to the ratio of representation in the house of representatives, and the population of each senate district shall be substantially equal to the ratio of representation in the senate, as provided in division (A) of this section. In no event shall any district contain a population of less than ninety-five per cent nor more than one hundred five per cent of the applicable ratio of representation.
(2) Any general assembly district plan adopted by the commission shall comply with all applicable provisions of the constitutions of Ohio and the United States and of federal law.
(3) Every general assembly district shall be composed of contiguous territory, and the boundary of each district shall be a single nonintersecting continuous line.
(C) House of representatives districts shall be created and numbered in the following order of priority, to the extent that such order is consistent with the foregoing standards:
(1) Proceeding in succession from the largest to the smallest, each county containing population greater than one hundred five per cent of the ratio of representation in the house of representatives shall be divided into as many house of representatives districts as it has whole ratios of representation. Any fraction of the population in excess of a whole ratio shall be a part of only one adjoining house of representatives district.
(2) Each county containing population of not less than ninety-five per cent of the ratio of representation in the house of representatives nor more than one hundred five per cent of the ratio shall be designated a representative district.
(3) The remaining territory of the state shall be divided into representative districts by combining the areas of counties, municipal corporations, and townships. Where feasible, no county shall be split more than once.
(D)(1)(a) Except as otherwise provided in divisions (D)(1)(b) and (c) of this section, a county, municipal corporation, or township is considered to be split if any contiguous portion of its territory is not contained entirely within one district.
(b) If a municipal corporation or township has territory in more than one county, the contiguous portion of that municipal corporation or township that lies in each county shall be considered to be a separate municipal corporation or township for the purposes of this section.
(c) If a municipal corporation or township that is located in a county that contains a municipal corporation or township that has a population of more than one ratio of representation is split for the purpose of complying with division (E)(1)(a) or (b) of this section, each portion of that municipal corporation or township shall be considered to be a separate municipal corporation or township for the purposes of this section.
(2) Representative districts shall be drawn so as to split the smallest possible number of municipal corporations and townships whose contiguous portions contain a population of more than fifty per cent, but less than one hundred per cent, of one ratio of representation.
(3) Where the requirements of divisions (B), (C), and (D) of this section cannot feasibly be attained by forming a representative district from whole municipal corporations and townships, not more than one municipal corporation or township may be split per representative district.
(E)(1) If it is not possible for the commission to comply with all of the requirements of divisions (B), (C), and (D) of this section in drawing a particular representative district, the commission shall take the first action listed below that makes it possible for the commission to draw that district:
(a) Notwithstanding division (D)(3) of this section, the commission shall create the district by splitting two municipal corporations or townships whose contiguous portions do not contain a population of more than fifty per cent, but less than one hundred per cent, of one ratio of representation.
(b) Notwithstanding division (D)(2) of this section, the commission shall create the district by splitting a municipal corporation or township whose contiguous portions contain a population of more than fifty per cent, but less than one hundred per cent, of one ratio of representation.
(c) Notwithstanding division (C)(2) of this section, the commission shall create the district by splitting, once, a single county that contains a population of not less than ninety-five per cent of the ratio of representation, but not more than one hundred five per cent of the ratio of representation.
(d) Notwithstanding division (C)(1) of this section, the commission shall create the district by including in two districts portions of the territory that remains after a county that contains a population of more than one hundred five per cent of the ratio of representation has been divided into as many house of representatives districts as it has whole ratios of representation.
(2) If the commission takes an action under division (E)(1) of this section, the commission shall include in the general assembly district plan a statement explaining which action the commission took under that division and the reason the commission took that action.
(3) If the commission complies with divisions (E)(1) and (2) of this section in drawing a district, the commission shall not be considered to have violated division (C)(1), (C)(2), (D)(2), or (D)(3) of this section, as applicable, in drawing that district, for the purpose of an analysis under division (D) of Section 9 of this article.

Section 4. (A) Senate districts shall be composed of three contiguous house of representatives districts.
(B)(1) A county having at least one whole senate ratio of representation shall have as many senate districts wholly within the boundaries of the county as it has whole senate ratios of representation. Any fraction of the population in excess of a whole ratio shall be a part of only one adjoining senate district.
(2) Counties having less than one senate ratio of representation, but at least one house of representatives ratio of representation, shall be part of only one senate district.
(3) If it is not possible for the commission to draw representative districts that comply with all of the requirements of this article and that make it possible for the commission to comply with all of the requirements of divisions (B)(1) and (2) of this section, the commission shall draw senate districts so as to commit the fewest possible violations of those divisions. If the commission complies with this division in drawing senate districts, the commission shall not be considered to have violated division (B)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable, in drawing those districts, for the purpose of an analysis under division (D) of Section 9 of this article.
(C) The number of whole ratios of representation for a county shall be determined by dividing the population of the county by the ratio of representation in the senate determined under division (A) of Section 3 of this article.
(D) Senate districts shall be numbered from one through thirty-three and as provided in Section 5 of this article.
Section 5. At any time the boundaries of senate districts are changed in any general assembly district plan made pursuant to any provision of this article, a senator whose term will not expire within two years of the time the plan becomes effective shall represent, for the remainder of the term for which the senator was elected, the senate district that contains the largest portion of the population of the district from which the senator was elected, and the district shall be given the number of the district from which the senator was elected. If more than one senator whose term will not so expire would represent the same district by following the provisions of this section, the plan shall designate which senator shall represent the district and shall designate which district the other senator or senators shall represent for the balance of their term or terms.
Section 6. The Ohio redistricting commission shall attempt to draw a general assembly district plan that meets all of the following standards:
(A) No general assembly district plan shall be drawn primarily to favor or disfavor a political party.
(B) The statewide proportion of districts whose voters, based on statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years, favor each political party shall correspond closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio.
(C) General assembly districts shall be compact.
Nothing in this section permits the commission to violate the district standards described in Section 2, 3, 4, 5, or 7 of this article.
Section 7. Notwithstanding the fact that boundaries of counties, municipal corporations, and townships within a district may be changed, district boundaries shall be created by using the boundaries of counties, municipal corporations, and townships as they exist at the time of the federal decennial census on which the redistricting is based, or, if unavailable, on such other basis as the general assembly has directed.
Section 8.  (A)(1) If the Ohio redistricting commission fails to adopt a final general assembly district plan not later than the first day of September of a year ending in the numeral one, in accordance with Section 1 of this article, the commission shall introduce a proposed general assembly district plan by a simple majority vote of the commission.
(2) After introducing a proposed general assembly district plan under division (A)(1) of this section, the commission shall hold a public hearing concerning the proposed plan, at which the public may offer testimony and at which the commission may adopt amendments to the proposed plan. Members of the commission should attend the hearing; however, only a quorum of the members of the commission is required to conduct the hearing.
(3) After the hearing described in division (A)(2) of this section is held, and not later than the fifteenth day of September of a year ending in the numeral one, the commission shall adopt a final general assembly district plan, either by the vote required to adopt a plan under division (B)(3) of Section 1 of this article or by a simple majority vote of the commission.
(B) If the commission adopts a final general assembly district plan in accordance with division (A)(3) of this section by the vote required to adopt a plan under division (B)(3) of Section 1 of this article, the plan shall take effect upon filing with the secretary of state and shall remain effective until the next year ending in the numeral one, except as provided in Section 9 of this article.
(C)(1)(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(1)(b) of this section, if the commission adopts a final general assembly district plan in accordance with division (A)(3) of this section by a simple majority vote of the commission, and not by the vote required to adopt a plan under division (B)(3) of Section 1 of this article, the plan shall take effect upon filing with the secretary of state and shall remain effective until two general elections for the house of representatives have occurred under the plan.
(b) If the commission adopts a final general assembly district plan in accordance with division (A)(3) of this section by a simple majority vote of the commission, and not by the vote required to adopt a plan under division (B) of Section 1 of this article, and that plan is adopted to replace a plan that ceased to be effective under division (C)(1)(a) of this section before a year ending in the numeral one, the plan adopted under this division shall take effect upon filing with the secretary of state and shall remain effective until a year ending in the numeral one, except as provided in Section 9 of this article.
(2) A final general assembly district plan adopted under division (C)(1)(a) or (b) of this section shall include a statement explaining what the commission determined to be the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio and the manner in which the statewide proportion of districts in the plan whose voters, based on statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years, favor each political party corresponds closely to those preferences, as described in division (B) of Section 6 of this article. At the time the plan is adopted, a member of the commission who does not vote in favor of the plan may submit a declaration of the member's opinion concerning the statement included with the plan.
(D) After a general assembly district plan adopted under division (C)(1)(a) of this section ceases to be effective, and not earlier than the first day of July of the year following the year in which the plan ceased to be effective, the commission shall be reconstituted as provided in Section 1 of this article, convene, and adopt a new general assembly district plan in accordance with this article, to be used until the next time for redistricting under this article. The commission shall draw the new general assembly district plan using the same population and county, municipal corporation, and township boundary data as were used to draw the previous plan adopted under division (C) of this section.
Section 9. (A) The supreme court of Ohio shall have exclusive, original jurisdiction in all cases arising under this article.
(B) In the event that any section of this constitution relating to redistricting, any general assembly district plan made by the Ohio redistricting commission, or any district is determined to be invalid by an unappealed final order of a court of competent jurisdiction then, notwithstanding any other provisions of this constitution, the commission shall be reconstituted as provided in Section 1 of this article, convene, and ascertain and determine a general assembly district plan in conformity with such provisions of this constitution as are then valid, including establishing terms of office and election of members of the general assembly from districts designated in the plan, to be used until the next time for redistricting under this article in conformity with such provisions of this constitution as are then valid.
(C) Notwithstanding any provision of this constitution or any law regarding the residence of senators and representatives, a general assembly district plan made pursuant to this section shall allow thirty days for persons to change residence in order to be eligible for election.
(D)(1) No court shall order, in any circumstance, the implementation or enforcement of any general assembly district plan that has not been approved by the commission in the manner prescribed by this article.
(2) No court shall order the commission to adopt a particular general assembly district plan or to draw a particular district.
(3) If the supreme court of Ohio determines that a general assembly district plan adopted by the commission does not comply with the requirements of Section 2, 3, 4, 5, or 7 of this article, the available remedies shall be as follows:
(a) If the court finds that the plan contains one or more isolated violations of those requirements, the court shall order the commission to amend the plan to correct the violation.
(b) If the court finds that it is necessary to amend not fewer than six house of representatives districts to correct violations of those requirements, to amend not fewer than two senate districts to correct violations of those requirements, or both, the court shall declare the plan invalid and shall order the commission to adopt a new general assembly district plan in accordance with this article.
(c) If, in considering a plan adopted under division (C) of Section 8 of this article, the court determines that both of the following are true, the court shall order the commission to adopt a new general assembly district plan in accordance with this article:
(i) The plan significantly violates those requirements in a manner that materially affects the ability of the plan to contain districts whose voters favor political parties in an overall proportion that corresponds closely to the statewide political party preferences of the voters of Ohio, as described in division (B) of Section 6 of this article.
(ii) The statewide proportion of districts in the plan whose voters, based on statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years, favor each political party does not correspond closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio.
Section 10. The various provisions of this article are intended to be severable, and the invalidity of one or more of such provisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND REPEAL
If adopted by a majority of the electors voting on this proposal, new Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Article XI take effect January 1, 2021, and Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Ohio are repealed from that effective date.
Please send questions and comments to the Webmaster.
© 2015 Legislative Information Systems | Disclaimer

A Brief Summary of HJR 12

Ohio Legislative Service Commission

Synopsis of Senate Committee Amendments*

Emily E. Wendel 

Sub. H.J.R. 12
130th General Assembly (As Reported by S. Rules)
Ohio Redistricting Commission

Eliminates a provision specifying that no appointed member of the Ohio Redistricting Commission may be a current member of Congress. 

Requires the Commission, instead of "the members," to set a schedule at the first Commission meeting for the adoption of procedural rules for the operation of the Commission.

Provides that if the Commission is unable to agree, by the required bipartisan vote, on the manner in which funds should be expended, each co-chairperson of the Commission has the authority to expend half of the funds that have been appropriated to the Commission.

Requires the Commission, when it files a General Assembly district plan with the Secretary of State, to do so promptly.

Specifies that four weeks after the adoption of a General Assembly district plan, the Commission must be automatically dissolved, instead of requiring the co- chairpersons of the Commission to jointly dissolve it not more than six weeks after the plan is adopted.
Method of selecting a district plan   .... read more.....  here

AZ Redistricting Faces Supreme Court Challenge

Nina Totenberg reports: Supreme Court To Weigh Power Of Redistricting Commissions