Reply #21: Ed: HJR 13: Did Ohio Miss a Rare Opportunity? [View All]

HJR 13: Did Ohio Miss a Rare Opportunity?

By: Damien Kitte, Moritz College of Law Class of 2008
(Part of a new series summarizing and analyzing election law developments, edited by Terri Enns, Senior Fellow)

On Thursday, May 25, 2006, House Joint Resolution 13 failed in the Ohio House of Representatives, and consequently Ohio may have missed a rare opportunity to lead the nation in redistricting reform. The vote on the House floor featured some strategic parliamentary maneuvers by the Republicans which ultimately forced the Democrats to vote against their own redistricting proposal. As a result, the Speaker of the House, Rep. Jon Husted (R-Kettering) said that the Democratic opposition to redistricting was based on politics. <1> Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Cincinnati), who drafted the proposal that the Democrats ultimately voted against, dismissed the Republican maneuver as "no more than a stunt." <2> Regardless of whether or not the move was a stunt, the chances that the November 2006 ballot will feature a redistricting proposal are very bleak, and many feel that redistricting reform will be off the table for years to come.

By the end of the day Thursday, the House Democrats rejected not only HJR 13, as expected, but also their own proposal from March 2005. <3> Because it would amend the state constitution, HJR 13 needed a supermajority of sixty votes to pass, but it failed by a vote of 53 for and 42 against. <4> Among those who voted against the measure were Republican Representatives Charles Blasdel (R-East Liverpool), Jim Carmichael (R-Wooster), Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati), Speaker Husted, and the sponsor of HJR 13, Kevin DeWine (R-Fairborn). <5> Because he voted on the prevailing side, Rep. Blasdel was able to move to have the vote on HJR 13 reconsidered. <6> This motion, supported by all five Republicans who voted against the measure, succeeded on a 58 to 37 vote. <7> After a motion to adjourn by Rep. Skindell (D-Lakewood) failed, Rep. DeWine amended HJR 13. <8> The amended version of HJR 13 mirrored a proposal introduced by Rep. Driehaus (D-Cincinnati) in March 2005, <9> but it too fell short of the required supermajority, by a vote of 58 for and 37 against. <10> After the vote, Speaker Husted voiced his disappointment and stated that the Republicans "tried to exhaust every excuse that had been given not to vote for this." <11> Rep. Driehaus, in addition to referring to the Republican maneuver as a "stunt," stated that both plans had shortcomings and the most important reason to vote against his proposal was that there had not yet been any public input on it. <12>

HJR 13 would have established a seven member commission, comprised of four members appointed by the legislative leaders of both parties and three "neutral" members, to redraw the legislative district map and U.S. Congressional districts after each decennial U.S. census beginning in 2011, using criteria such as compactness, existing political boundaries, and competitiveness. <13> Rep. Driehaus's proposal from 2005, like HJR 13, established a commission to draw legislative districts. In contrast, however, the Democratic proposal would have created a five member commission featuring four members of the public appointed by the legislative leaders of both parties and a fifth member elected by the first four appointees. <14> This commission would determine the legislative districts of the Ohio General Assembly and the districts for the U.S. Congressional Representatives from Ohio. <15>

Ohioans recently rejected a redistricting proposal. Issue 4, a ballot initiative from November 2005 that would have created a five member commission to redraw legislative districts effective in 2007, with "competitiveness" being "a primary criterion," was soundly defeated with 70 per cent of voters opposing the measure. <16> The general consensus is that voters rejected Issue 4 because it was confusing. Prior to the November 2005 election, Issue 4 was described as "based on a seemingly complicated formula that tends to be laid out in esoteric terms." <17> After Issue 4 and several other election reform issues failed in November 2005, The Columbus Dispatch stated "oth sides agreed that the issues' complexity caused widespread confusion among voters." <18> Not everyone, however, attributed the defeat to voter confusion. Former Issue 4 supporter and HJR 13 opponent House Minority Leader Joyce Beatty (D-Columbus) seemed to interpret Issue 4's defeat as a statement by Ohio voters that they are not interested in redistricting. Referring to HJR 13, she stated, "I'm just focusing on the fact that this is something Ohioans don't want, and we're rushing it." <19>

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/reform/060530.php