Ohioans have been leading the way for many years. More presidents were born in Ohio than any other state. Ohio is also the birthplace of aviators and astronauts. And we all know that Cleveland rocks!
 
Ohio has the opportunity to lead the way again and improve democracy by mandating partisan fairness in the drawing of congressional districts.
 
Only 11 states explicitly prohibit partisan gerrymandering or have some protection against drawing districts for political advantage.
 
The Bipartisan Congressional Redistricting Reform Amendment would extend Ohio’s prohibition, which currently applies only to General Assembly districts, to congressional redistricting. The measure’s explicit ban on partisan gerrymandering is a huge step in the right direction, but another section of the proposal takes an even more novel approach. This initiative would make Ohio the first state in the country to directly address one of the most common types of congressional gerrymanders: those in which districts are drawn to give a party far more seats than its vote totals should allow.
 
Following the last census, many state legislatures drew congressional districts designed to give one party this unfair advantage. In 2012, the first election post-redistricting, Republicans won 51 percent of all votes cast for Ohio’s U.S. House of Representatives candidates while Democrats won 47 percent. Despite this somewhat even vote split, Republicans won 12 of 16 congressional races, a whopping 75 percent of districts. A similar pattern in favor of Democrats can be seen in states such as Illinois and Maryland, where Democrats drew districts.
 
The Bipartisan Congressional Redistrict Reform ballot initiative would address this discrepancy directly with the following provision:
 
“The Ohio redistricting commission shall maximize representational fairness by adopting a plan whose statewide proportion of districts most closely corresponds to the partisan preferences of the voters of Ohio as measured by the statewide proportion of votes in state and federal partisan statewide general election results during the previous ten years.”
 
This provision would ensure that, for example, if Party A has won about half of the state’s total  votes in elections for statewide offices (examples: governor, senator, and attorney general) over the last 10 years, the Ohio redistricting commission would choose the plan that would give Party A the opportunity to win about half of congressional seats. This would discourage the manipulation of elections through the slicing and dicing of communities to rig districts in a way that is not representative of the politics of the state.
 
No state in the U.S. currently targets partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts with such pinpoint accuracy. In addition to the ballot initiative’s other protections against one-party dominance of redistricting, this unique partisan fairness measure will help Ohioans lead the way in the nationwide fight to end gerrymandering.
 
There are many ways to help slay the gerrymander. An essential step is collecting signatures and helping to get the word out about the need for fair districts and fair elections.  Together, Ohioans can lead the way!
 
Common Cause’s Redistricting Activist Handbook 

Fair Districts for Fair Elections? Not in My Backyard!
         
By a Concerned Citizen from Cleveland


It is a beautiful Saturday afternoon along the lake in Congressional District 4, so I have decided to take a walk through my neighborhood to make the most of the day. 
​
​​I make it to the end of the block, and look across the road, only to have my entire day ruined. Just across one of the major roads within my small town is District 9.

I could vomit. Savages if I have ever seen them. How is it possible that our little suburbia harbors such monsters without at least caging them off first?​

​I see right through them. The snakes along the lake from District 9 masquerade as though they are no different than the others in our town, they send their kids to school with us, and they even have the audacity to shop in the same retail stores.

​Make no mistake, I am all for equality and fair representation, but our representation should be more equal and fair than theirs. 

It seems that there has been a push for “fair districts” for “fair elections”, and it makes me quiver. Me, share a district with those guys? I do not think so. Not in my backyard.

Rather than sit here and continue to bash those lepers down the lane to show why we don’t need a fair district where I live, allow me to give some insight as to why nobody needs districting reform.

Ohio Congressional Districts are Art! – By an Artist from Akron

When is the last time you peeked at our Congressional districts? I have the district map right in front of me, and it is simply beautiful. What some uncultured swine might now realize, is that this is some incredible abstract art that Picasso himself probably drew before his premature death. Among the many things you might find in this map, you will see a duck, a Rorschach blot, a caterpillar wearing a hat, and some strong emotions you probably weren’t aware you had. 

Art should be preserved, and destroying this will cause Mr. Picasso to roll over in his grave. Have some respect for those passed! 

Representatives Can Stay Far Away –
By a Distance Voter from Defiance

My Congressman lives about 3 hours, or 150 miles away
from my hometown. Do you know what makes this so great?

He is far, far away. Politicians are ALWAYS grimy, and
corrupt individuals, and you need to do everything you can
to avoid them. So, what if my representative has little
to no firsthand knowledge and exposure to life in the north
where I come from?

It’s not like Congress does much and at least when your representative screws up you can wipe your hands clean. They’re basically from Neverland so how can I blame them for their indiscretions.

This is NOT the American Way –  By Sons of the Gerrymanderer

There seems to be a lot of emphasis on fair districts promoting fair elections. Our founding fathers knew better than to promote fair elections! Back when America was great, do you know who could vote? Men, specifically men who owned property.

All this talk of “the founding fathers believed in equality” is fake news. We didn’t have problems before women were voting, or minorities, or poor people (GAG!). It was simpler times when this country was founded, and the further we stray from the way things should be, the further we stray from God’s light.

Somebody’s Feelings Might Get Hurt – By a Nice Neighbor from Napoleon

I care about people, I really do. One major concern I have is that somebody might have their feelings hurt if we make the districts fair.

Many of Ohio’s districts are considered “safe districts” which effectively means that you know who is going to win beforehand based on the way the districts are divided down party lines. Knowing who is going to win beforehand saves our elected officials the pain and embarrassment they may face if there is a close election and they lose.

With the typical 70-30 splits we see now, it is an easier pill to swallow when you lose. It just wasn’t your election to take. However, if these elections get too close and too competitive, candidates may start feeling like they could have done more, or spent more time reaching out to voters, and that is what cost them the election.

Furthermore, the winner is going to be stressed from having to work to get the vote! The incumbents don’t work when they are down in Washington, who are we to tell them they must work when they get home to relax during their four days off a week (and frequent vacations)? This is nonsense. It is an indirect form of bullying if you ask me.

A final note from the editor and concerned citizen: 

Any rational individual who has read this will understand and agree that attempting to reform congressional districting is just wrong. Rather than fighting Gerrymandering, we must unite and fight against the “Gerryslandering”, and against the remarkable work that has been done by our current rulers-- I mean-- elected officials. 

Plus eight counties have already hit the 5% threshold 

Today, Fair Congressional Districts for Ohio and the Fair Districts = Fair Elections Coalition announced that in the past month redistricting reformers from all over Ohio collected more than 100,000 signatures. 

“The Fair Congressional Districts for Ohio ballot committee now has more than 100,000 signatures in hand,” said Carrie Davis, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio.  “This is a testament to the hard work of volunteers who are committed to fair elections and improving representational democracy. Voters know they deserve fair districts and fair elections, and many of our volunteers report that voters are thanking them for collecting signatures to stop gerrymandering.”

During this first phase of the campaign, volunteers collected signatures from voters in all 88 counties.

“This shows incredible momentum,” said Catherine Turcer of Common Cause Ohio. “We want to thank all the activists for their hard work. More than 2,000 volunteers from all over Ohio collected signatures. Working together, we can put this on the ballot next year and give Ohio voters the opportunity to end gerrymandering.”

Ohioans have been leading the way on the fight to end gerrymandering. In 2015, Ohio voters overwhelmingly supported state legislative redistricting reform.  Issue 1 of 2015 passed by more than 71% of the vote and won in all 88 counties. Unfortunately, the state legislature has not acted on pleas to finish the job by putting congressional redistricting reform before the voters. 

To place the Bipartisan Congressional Redistricting Reform Amendment on the ballot, the coalition of redistricting reformers will need to collect at least ten percent (10%) of the total vote cast for the office of governor at the last gubernatorial election (305,591 valid signatures).

Ohio also has a distribution requirement for the signatures. Petitioners must submit signatures equal to five percent of the county’s total number of gubernatorial votes cast in the last election from 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties.  For example, if in 2014, 6,100 votes were cast for gubernatorial candidates, the campaign would be required to collect 305 signatures.

“Thanks to the amazing work of our Fair Districts volunteers, even though we’re only one month into collecting petition signatures, we already have several counties that have hit the five percent threshold,”  added Turcer. “We’re hoping a little friendly competition will add several more counties to the ‘5% Club’ next month.”

The counties that reached the five percent threshold: Adams, Athens, Delaware, Franklin, Greene, Hamilton, Licking and Mercer. 

To reach 10% statewide (305,591 valid signatures), it will be necessary to collect more signatures than just those required to meet the county threshold for ballot placement.

“The Fair Districts volunteer effort truly is remarkable,” concluded Davis. “Most citizen initiatives only have five to twenty percent of their signatures from volunteers and have to use paid canvassers to collect the rest. The fact that we have over 100,000 signatures from 88 counties in only one month, collected exclusively by volunteers, is a strong demonstration of how hungry Ohioans are for putting an end to gerrymandering in our state.”

Anyone interested in reading more about the Fair Congressional Districts for Ohio campaign or signing up to help is encouraged to visit www.fairdistrictsohio.org.

Didn't see your favorite photograph from this effort?  Please email it to ohiofairdistricts@gmail.com.

By Jessica C. Dickinson, J.D.
      Common Cause Ohio
 
Gerrymandering hasn’t been declared unconstitutional because it’s hard to fix a problem if you can’t define it, just ask the United States Supreme Court. 

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court is ready to revisit this problem. The court agreed to review a Wisconsin appeals case, Gill v. Whitford. A lower court ruled that the state’s Republican-drawn map is unconstitutional  due to partisan gerrymandering.

The Supreme Court has never declared drawing legislative district lines to benefit one political party or gerrymandering  unconstitutional. 

​The Court missed an opportunity to fix that in 2004 with Vieth v. Jubelirer. The more conservative justices held that “no standard was available to resolve gerrymandering questions.”    

Justice Kennedy disagreed and acknowledged that gerrymanders can, he explained, “burden representational rights” by “penalizing citizens” because of their “association with a political party” or their “expression of political views.” The liberal justices identified gerrymandering as problematic but each used a different definition or way to quantify gerrymandering.

What is gerrymandering?
 
Every 10 years, after the census, congressional and state legislative lines are redrawn to address changes in the population. But all too often, redistricting is used to manipulate boundaries and stack the deck in favor of a particular political party or incumbent candidate.
 
Gerrymandering leads to uncompetitive general elections. The partisan make-up of Ohio’s Congressional districts perfectly predicted the political party of the winner in every single race in 2012, 2014, and 2016.

Gerrymandering is such an unfair advantage that it is like playing cards with someone who cheats. The “game” is rigged but in this case, the marginalized party and the voters can’t just walk away. So, what do we do? We can do like Wisconsin citizens and activists in Ohio and take a stand for fairer rules. 

Getting to the Supreme Court

Bill Whitford, a former law professor and self-described “political junkie,” met regularly with a group of friends at the Watts Tea room. This group of lawyers, political scientists, and professors had been involved in previous efforts to stop gerrymandering in Wisconsin. As they began to discuss taking another crack at a challenge, they invited him to join their group as a researcher. 

The attorneys from the group had filed a lawsuit and through the discovery process, they were able to gain access to previously unseen documents such as:

• The secrecy agreement entitled “Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Related to Reapportionment.” signed by 17 Republican State Senators before being allowed to discuss the map-drawing plan.
• Proof that the attorneys hired by Republicans to assist them were paid $431,000 in State taxpayer funds for their work on the plan.

Armed with this evidence and research evaluating and defining gerrymandering by University of Chicago Law School professor, Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Public Policy Institute of California research fellow, Eric McGhee, the group felt confident that they could prove that the redistricting map drawing process was conceived with “partisan intent.”

Procedurally Speaking

First Amendment
Bill Whitford and his friends (the plaintiffs) argued that the 2011 redistricting plan, the Wisconsin state legislative map, created an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander unduly favoring Republicans.

Specifically, Whitford argues that the GOP-controlled legislature enacted a redistricting plan that systematically dilutes the voting strength of Democratic voters statewide in violation of the First Amendment’s right to free association. A Wisconsin district court agreed and determined that the First Amendment’s right to free association was violated because it minimized Democrats’ voting power.

Fourteenth Amendment
The Whitford team also argued that the 2011 map violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Under the Equal Protection Clause, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as other people in similar conditions and circumstances. The Wisconsin Court determined that the map violated this clause because a state should not redraw district lines in a way that treats voters from one party differently than voters from another party.

The District Court’s decision was then appealed. A three-judge federal panel upheld the decision and ordered the Wisconsin legislature to redraw the state assembly map by November 1, 2017. This ruling has been put on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision.

Using Math to Define Gerrymandering
​
Gerrymandering is hard to define objectively and the Supreme Court hasn’t been able to establish a standard definition but math can help. The Wisconsin District Court applied what’s called the “Efficiency Gap.” 

This concept, developed by Nicholas Stephanopoulos and Eric McGhee, focuses on how much district lines “pack” and “crack” the marginalized party’s voters for partisan advantage.

Wasted votes sounds harsher than it is. In a nutshell, the winner of an election only needs half of the votes plus one more in a two-way race. A wasted vote is one that does not help to elect a candidate or were unnecessary to get elected.

In bringing the case to the Supreme Court, Bill Whitford and many others hope that it can decide what standard to evaluate the claim of partisan gerrymandering.

The Efficiency Gap model is one way to analyze the gerrymandering problem. Ohio’s redistricting model also uses some math to pushback on gerrymandering. In 2015, voters overwhelmingly supported state legislative redistricting reform which includes the goal of representational fairness.

To meet the goal of representational fairness, the statewide percentage of districts that lean towards each other of the two major parties shall closely correspond to the partisan preferences of the voters of Ohio. This statewide preference is measured by determining the partisan preferences in statewide and federal general elections over the previous ten years.

​Representational fairness is also used in the Fair Districts=Fair Elections’ congressional redistricting reform proposal.

What’s in it for Ohio
​
"The fact is we don't have competitive districts in the state of Ohio,'' said Daniel P. Tokaji, a professor of election law at The Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law. 

The state legislature could address congressional redistricting reform by putting it on the ballot but they aren’t. Ohio activists are now collecting signatures and driving redistricting reform at the congressional level. 

How the Court rules on Wisconsin’s challenge has the potential to help states such as Ohio make the mapmaking process as fair and unbiased as possible.
​
Does this mean Ohioans who want fairer rules and fairer elections should stop their reform efforts just because this case might fall their way? No. 

​When it comes to taking on the behemoth that is government, you can never plug too many holes and court cases can take years to resolve so you need have good rules for redistricting in place.
 
Next Step

It has been over a decade since the Supreme Court has agreed to review a partisan redistricting case and the seriousness of this issue is indicative of them doing so. The Court’s ruling, which is likely to come next year, has the potential to impact redistricting efforts for decades to come.
​
In the meantime, Professor Whitford will continue hoping that the courts “begin to get into the area of setting limits” so that gerrymandering can be a thing of the past.

By Carrie Davis, League of Women Voters of Ohio

Many of us have been eagerly watching an important gerrymandering case out of Wisconsin, Gill v. Whitford.

Yesterday - On Monday, June 29 - the US Supreme Court announced that they would hear Gill during the new term beginning in October 2017.

What the Wisconsin gerrymandering case is all about:
This is an exciting case to watch for redistricting reformers. While the US Supreme Court has said that it’s possible for excessive partisan gerrymandering (drawing districts to strongly favor a political party) to cross the line and be unconstitutional, the high court has never set a legal standard defining where that line might be. That’s where Gill v. Whitford comes in.

The Campaign Legal Center, who brought the case, proposes a numeric formula for measuring political gerrymandering. They call it “the efficiency gap.”

According to this paper by the Brennan Center, “the efficiency gap counts the number of votes each party wastes in an election to determine whether either party enjoyed a systematic advantage in turning votes into seats. Any vote cast for a losing candidate is considered wasted, as are all the votes cast for a winning candidate in excess of the number needed to win.”

In other words, if a state is heavily gerrymandered to create “safe seats” that one party will win by a landslide, those “wasted votes” will have a higher efficiency gap score – and, according to the Gill plaintiffs, rise to the level of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

What this means for Ohio:
Ohio suffers from the same problem of having districts drawn to create safe seats that all but guarantee which party will win.

LWV Ohio’s 2015 report “Predictable Results II” documents how Ohio’s state and federal legislative districts overwhelmingly create predictable safe seats. (The forthcoming third edition of LWVO’s Predictable Results report, which incorporates 2016 election results, is being finalized and will be available soon.)

If the US Supreme Court decides to accept the Gill case’s invitation to establish a legal standard for what constitutes an excessive partisan gerrymander that unconstitutionally encroaches on voters’ rights to choose who represents them, that would prohibit any such future extreme partisan gerrymanders and could open the door to challenging existing maps in other states that also cross the line.

While Gill is an important case, it does not impact plans to pursue the Fair Congressional Districts for Ohio ballot proposal. Here’s why:
While Gill has the potential to strike a critical blow to partisan gerrymandering, that only impacts one part of needed reform to the redistricting process.

It does not address other aspects of gerrymandering that our ballot issue does:

• Who draws the map - The Fair Districts proposal requires maps to be drawn by a bipartisan commission and votes from both parties are required to approve a map.
• Not splitting communities – The Fair Districts proposal keeps communities whole by minimizing the ability to split up counties, municipalities and townships.
• Compactness – Ohio currently has Congressional districts that include a narrow line along Lake Erie (district 9), a multi-hour drive from Portsmouth almost to Youngstown (district 6), and numerous other oddly-shaped districts. The Fair Districts plan requires districts to be compact.
• Representational fairness – This means that the proportion of districts winnable by a party should mirror the proportion of votes that party receives. As opposed to our current map where one party has 75% of the seats and the other has 25% of the seats, even though statewide Ohio vote totals per party have been in the 50-50 to 60-40 range.
• Transparent process – The Fair Districts proposal will require the entire redistricting process to be transparent and accountable, so the public can see if the rules are truly being followed.

The bottom line:  Gill v. Whitford is an incredibly important case, and we sincerely hope the Court takes this opportunity to draw a line to prohibit extreme partisan gerrymandering. However, true redistricting reformers know more is needed. We need to the strengthen the whole process, and that is just what the Fair Congressional Districts for Ohio proposal will do.

So keep passing those petitions and collecting signatures! With any luck, the Court will strike a blow against gerrymandering next term and Ohio voters will do the same when they vote yes on our ballot issue!

Blog post by the Stone Snowfake
Orginally posted on the blog, The Snowflake Chronicles: The Adventures of an Imperfect Activist 

I did it! I collected signatures and I lived to tell! In this previous post, I described the Fair Congressional Districts for Ohio pre-petition plans. Well, they're here now. And I spent yesterday morning in front of my local library asking people to sign as they hustled by with kids and books tucked under their arms.

I'm not a shy person and I don't scare easily, but I don't mind telling you that I was really nervous. I hate asking people for things in real life. Even people I know well. (One of my least favorite parts of arts administration is seeking donors. Eesh.) And now I would be standing out there explaining a seriously complex issue to people who'd rather do something else. Anything else.

But now, here I was. Not only was I collecting signatures, but I had helped organize my Indivisible subgroup to do the same. I am now the proud owner of several earth-shaking spreadsheets detailing petition books, volunteer contact info, and daily assignments at local libraries. (Remember how I said ages ago that I didn't want to be a leader? Who am I? How did this happen?)

So, being an accidental leader of enthusiastic volunteers, I sorta had to go collect signatures. To me, this seemed like a bit of a sales job. And a bit theatre. So, I thought about my audience (I'm in a rural area) and I dressed the part... I donned my American flag rugby, my League of Women's Voters of Ohio pin (non-partisan and trusted) and packed my little kit.

A big thank you to all of the activists collecting signatures!  Together, we can improve representational democracy. 

By Carrie Davis, League of Women Voters of Ohio

Attention Fair Districts volunteers! Now that petitions are in the field around Ohio, we wanted to share a few reminders about critical rules for keeping your petitions legal:

• Make sure you pick up the petition instruction sheet when you pick up your petitions. It includes important Do’s and Do-Not’s. You can also review a webinar of the petition training online here and check out the FAQ sheet.
• Only registered voters can sign and must use the name and address that appears on their voter registration. If someone is not registered or they moved, they can submit a new or updated voter registration online or using a paper form.  If you register someone on paper, you will need to turn in the registration form to the Board of Elections within 10 days.  Registration online can be completed on a smartphone at myohiovote.com. Once someone completes a voter registration, they can sign your petition.
• Only use the pre-printed, bound petitions that you pick-up from designated locations. Do not print your own.
• Do not remove the staples or otherwise take apart your petition booklets. That can render them invalid.
• You can only have signatures from one county per booklet. If a petition booklet has signatures from multiple counties, they won’t count. It’s a good idea to carry extra blank booklets so you have them available for voters from other counties (each county gets its own booklet). 
• You cannot sign your own petition. That is because as a circulator you are witnessing each signature, and legally you cannot witness your own signature. Sign a friend’s instead.
• You cannot share petitions. Each circulator must have their own petition booklet.
• You must observe every signature. Do not leave petition booklets out for people to sign while you are not present.
• Before you turn in your petition booklet, remember to complete the statement of circulator on the back page.

​Looking for a petition pick-up location near you? Check our current listings and call ahead to confirm there are enough available, especially if you need a large quantity for an event. We are looking to expand our list of pick up locations, so if you are interested in serving as a pick up/drop off location, please let us know by completing this form.

Need a little bit more? Check out the online Petition Training on Demand. This training reviews the do's and don'ts of signature gathering. Sign up here to register and view the training at your convenience.

If you ever have questions, reach out to us - we’re here to help! 

Thank you for helping make Fair Congressional Districts for Ohio a reality!