by Matt Barr

Reform Ohio -- not

Michael Meckler has the only post mortem you need on the Reform Ohio Now amendments, rejected by more than 2/3 of voters yesterday. Meckler especially has insightful analysis into the defeat of Issue 4, a good idea supported by this blog the fate of which was a lot like other good ideas supported by this blog:

A set of rules that could only have been devised by political science Ph.D.'s, the RON amendments were too complicated, too cumbersome and did not inspire much confidence that any real reform would come about had they passed. This was especially true with regard to redistricting (Issue 4), considered the heart of the RON amendments. Voters instinctively regard compactness as the primary indicator of the fair drawing of representative districts. Those who live together in the same general area should not be separated into long, narrow strips when choosing legislators, regardless of whether those strips create an even balance between Republicans and Democrats. Having a representative from one's own local region trumps other factors in whether voters view their districts as fair.

But see the map Reform Ohio Now advocates were slinging around, at the Meckler link above.

How can a congressional district stretching from Youngstown to Columbus be reckoned as "fair"? In politics, perception is often reality, and if it looks like a gerrymander, it is a gerrymander. Ohio voters may well be upset over the way legislative and congressional districts are drawn, but the RON districts looked even worse.

I agreed Monday (link above):

[Districts] should conform to geographical and existing political boundaries as best as possible, irrespective of how people have voted in the past -- but [Issue 4's plan is] far superior to the incumbent protection racket redistricting is now.

Of course, now we're going to be pulled in two different directions, and I don't like where we're headed either way. Mickey Kaus (no permalink):

You might say it's time to take the fight to the courts--and there are valid constitutional arguments to be made, along Baker v. Carr lines, against partisan or pro-incumbent gerrymanders. But isn't it kind of difficult to argue that the courts need to intervene to make democracy fair after the voters, in a perfectly fair, non-gerrymandered state-wide election, have rejected the idea? This doesn't seem like a case of minority rights, where the majority's opinion shouldn't count. The vast majority of California voters are denied the chance to cast an effective ballot because they live in manipulated districts where the incumbent can't lose. They don't seem to care! Who are judges to tell them they should?

(Emphasis in original.) Difficult? It's -- "we know what the voters say they want, but they're [misinformed or not smart enough to know what they really want or acting contrary to evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society]" -- the basis of most high-profile litigation! Redistricting is either headed to court, where it emphatically doesn't belong, or, on the other side, it's going to be conclusively declared dead, as though 70 percent of voters endorsed the fairness and intuitiveness of existing districts yesterday. They didn't.

A bunch of poly-sci majors decided to try and change the whole state in one fell swoop in an off year instead of addressing real problems. Gerrymandering is a real problem. The Secretary of State being in charge of elections isn't (though it's probably a great fundraising issue among the MoveOn crowd). Issue 3 campaign finance "reform" would have created new, intractable problems. These people should get incestuous teaching fellowships at the Kennedy School of Government and quit foisting their bright ideas on my state.

This would be a great time to revisit the status of gerrymandering at the Supreme Court, and I'll have something on that this week. It's an interesting tactical issue and something seating the Chief Justice and Judge Alito could impact. One Justice voted for gerrymandering in preparation for voting against it! Three guesses who, but you'll only need two, at most. One, if I tell you it wasn't Ms. Justice O'Connor.

Browse books from Amazon.com:
Reform+Ohio Ohio gerrymandering redistricting