In 2009 the Ohio Secretary of State's office under Jennifer Brunner helped to host a public competition to draw fair, nonpartisan congressional legislative districts for the State of Ohio. The results were remarkable.
There was no cost to entering the competition, and competitors were offered free training and software. To qualify, plans had to have roughly equal population in each district, all election districts had to be contiguous (single units), and there had to be one district where African-Americans constitute a majority of the voters in accordance with the Voting Rights Act. Plans that qualified were evaluated on the basis the four following criteria:
Compactness. Sometimes referred to as the “look” of a district, compactness assures that bizarrely-shaped legislative districts are minimized. This measure helps promote fair representation within a district.
Communities of Interest. Counties, municipalities, and other government boundaries give Ohioans a sense of place and shared interests. This measure seeks to minimize counties divided between districts, while opening a dialogue about the role of municipal, township and other community divisions given the rapid growth of suburban and exurban communities in Ohio.
Competitiveness. Our democracy thrives when the marketplace of ideas is truly competitive, especially on Election Day. This measure seeks to maximize the number of legislative districts that could be won by either party, providing Ohioans with a stronger voice in choosing their representatives.
Representational Fairness. The counterbalance for competitiveness is assuring that a final redistricting plan does not unfairly bias one party over another. This measure seeks to minimize this outcome by comparing the partisan bias of legislative districts to the real world voting history of Ohioans.
Eleven plans were submitted that met the required criteria, and three of those eleven were selected as winners. Each of these plans is fair and nonpartisan and is vastly superior to the current plan. In comparison to the current plan, the winning plans are more evenly divided between Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning districts, have more districts that are competitive, are far less likely to divide counties, and simply look more logical; the shapes of the districts are much more compact than under the current plan. Here are the details about the winning plans and the current plan, with links to the map for each plan:
Plan 1 (USER PLAN 32) Tim Clarke, Avon, Ohio.
- An even split of likely district representation with 9 leaning Republican and 9 leaning Democratic.
- 10 of 18 Congressional Districts rated as competitive for either political party.
- 7 county fragments, providing a high level of community preservation.
- Appropriately compact districts, providing districts that “look” fair.
Plan 2 (USER PLAN 5B) Stuart Wright, Columbus, Ohio.
- An even split of likely district representation with 9 leaning Republican and 9 leaning Democratic.
- 11 of 18 Congressional Districts rated as competitive for either political party.
- 20 county fragments, providing a moderate level of community preservation.
- Appropriately compact districts, providing districts that “look” fair.
Plan 3 (USER PLAN 80) Mike Fortner, Current State Representative (Dist. 95 – R), former mayor of West Chicago, also an Associate Professor of Physics at Northern Illinois University, West Chicago, Illinois.
- A moderate split of likely district representation with 10 leaning Republican and 8 leaning Democratic.
- 12 of 18 Congressional Districts rated as competitive for either political party.
- 8 county fragments, providing a high level of community preservation.
- Appropriately compact districts, providing districts that “look” fair.
- A partisan split of likely district representation with 13 leaning Republican and 5 leaning Democratic.
- 7 of 18 Congressional Districts rated as competitive for either political party.
- 44 county fragments, providing a low level of community preservation.
- Highly uncompact districts, creating districts that do not “look” fair.
Here are links to:
1. The statement from the Secretary of State's office "Ohio Redistricting Competition Partners Announce Competition Winners"
2. A pdf file containing images of the three winning plans and the current plan;
3. A pdf file containing information about other plans that were submitted in the competition.
It is entirely possible to draw legislative districts that are fair, nonpartisan, competitive, and compact. This is critical to protect our democracy. Neither Republicans nor Democrats should be able to create redistricting maps that favor their political party or that protect incumbency. The voters should choose their representatives; the representatives should not choose their voters.
Wilson Huhn teaches Constitutional Law at The University of Akron School of Law. Previous posts on this subject have described what political gerrymandering is ; summarized the decisions of the United States Supreme Court on the subject; described the Iowa plan; and described the Ohio House and Senate proposals to end political gerrymandering.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
RE:"It is entirely possible to draw legislative districts that are fair, nonpartisan, competitive, and compact."
Possible….yes, probable….not a chance. The problem with the above statement is that fair, nonpartisan, and competitive are not acceptable terms for political parties. Why would any politician give an opponent a fair chance of winning a race? That would be like asking them to campaign on issues alone and not sling mud at each other on election eve. If logical redistricting is ever to take place, it will have to be done outside the realm of political influence…but what legislature is going to allow that to happen?