If you’re a Republican legislator in Ohio, you might have thought the issue of legislative redistricting was settled after 54% of voters rejected Issue 1 on Nov. 5. However, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a fellow Republican who opposed Issue 1, has a new plan to convince lawmakers to put another redistricting proposal on the ballot. This time, the plan is modeled after Iowa’s method, which DeWine believes takes politics out of the process completely.
Iowa has been using a nonpartisan approach for over 40 years to draw state and congressional district maps. Under this system, the Ohio Legislative Services Commission (LSC), a nonpartisan body, would handle the map drawing.
The LSC would be prohibited from considering party affiliations or election results, ensuring that maps are compact and keep communities together. Public hearings would allow for community input, but the maps would still be reviewed and potentially rejected by the legislature, which could send the LSC back to the drawing board.
This system contrasts with the proposal of Issue 1, which would have created a citizens commission with no input from elected officials. DeWine argues that elected officials should have a say in drawing congressional districts since they are accountable to voters.
However, Catherine Turcer, executive director of Common Cause Ohio, counters that DeWine’s comparison between Iowa and Ohio is flawed. She points out that Iowa’s legislature has a history of bipartisan cooperation, while Ohio’s is deeply divided. With Republicans holding a veto-proof majority, Turcer argues that it’s unlikely the system would be fair or impartial in Ohio.
DeWine’s plan involves introducing a joint resolution in the Ohio General Assembly when it reconvenes in January, which would put the Iowa-inspired plan on the ballot for voters to decide. While DeWine isn’t in a hurry, he hopes to begin the discussion in 2024.
The current redistricting system in Ohio resulted from a year-long dispute in 2022 between the Republican-controlled Ohio Redistricting Commission and the Ohio Supreme Court. Despite DeWine’s repeated statements that he thought the system was flawed, he voted for the maps that the Ohio Supreme Court ultimately deemed unconstitutional. Turcer argues that DeWine was not a victim of the system, but part of the problem.
DeWine believes the Iowa model is a better alternative to the Citizens Not Politicians proposal, which he says favored one party over the other in every district. He also notes that most states involve elected officials in the redistricting process, with only California and Michigan completely excluding them.
If the legislature fails to act, DeWine said he might consider leading a petition initiative to get the issue on the ballot, though he acknowledges that such a process would require significant funding. He remains open to adjusting the Iowa plan to ensure it passes through the legislature, emphasizing the importance of finding a solution that works for everyone.