In a sudden pivot that would help keep state lawmakers in charge of creating new U.S. House districts in Ohio, state Sen. Frank LaRose has introduced a constitutional amendment that could compete with a reform plan being crafted by the League of Women Voters and other good-government groups. The Hudson Republican wants to keep the legislature in charge, but require it to act with either two-thirds majorities or the approval of more than half of the Democrats and Republicans in each chamber. He sees fair, competitive districts as the result.
LaRose’s amendment would leave a bipartisan commission he once strongly supported in a backup position, acting if the legislature fails to meet an Aug. 1 deadline. The seven-member commission, made up of statewide officeholders and legislators, was approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2015 to draw state legislative boundaries. The next opportunity to fix Ohio’s badly gerrymandered legislative and congressional districts will come in 2021, after the next census.
The new amendment must clear both houses of the legislature by August to appear on the November ballot, a long shot given the stubborn resistance of Republican legislative leaders, in charge of both the Ohio House and Senate. They have balked at giving up any of their power to draw U.S. House districts, three-fourths of which are held by members of their own party.
The LaRose proposal is, at best, misguided. At worst, it appears politically motivated, LaRose a likely candidate for secretary of state next year. He introduced his amendment the same day state Rep. Dorothy Pelanda, a Marysville Republican, announced her candidacy for the same office.
What the good-government groups have in mind is far preferable to LaRose’s cumbersome approach. An umbrella group called Fair Districts=Fair Elections would put the same commission approved by voters to create legislative districts in charge of U.S. House districts. To approve new congressional lines, the commission would need at least two votes from the minority party, assuring a bipartisan approach.
Under the LaRose approach, bipartisanship is not assured. Republicans hold the necessary supermajorities in both houses of the legislature to approve new U.S. House districts if the LaRose amendment was in effect. More, LaRose would allow the commission to create U.S. House districts lasting for four years with just a simple majority, similar to unfortunate language in place for legislative districts.
The other major flaw in the LaRose amendment is that it would leave counties such as Summit (now part of four U.S. House districts) vulnerable to similar gerrymanders, while the Fair Districts plan, expected to be in final form in the next few weeks, is likely to contain protections against a county being split more than once.
To get its amendment on the ballot, Fair Districts must submit petitions in July for the fall ballot. Given the weaknesses of the LaRose plan, and the lack of interest by Republican legislative leaders in fixing how U.S. House districts are drawn, the group has good reason to press ahead and start collecting signatures.