By Jennifer Rubin
Columnist |
Today at 10:00 a.m. EST
On the eve of a showdown in the U.S. Senate on voting rights reform, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the new maps for the state’s House of Representatives and Senate districts. It’s a victory for democracy.
Opinions to start the day, in your inbox. Sign up.
The court ruled that the maps violated a voter-enacted state constitutional requirement for redistricting to roughly match voters’ partisan preferences. A trio of cases brought by a long list of voting rights groups and individual plaintiffs alleged that the commission had taken direction from Republican lawmakers and disregarded the constitutional requirement — to the detriment of Democrats and minority voters.
The court rejected Republicans’ argument that the citizens’ referendum passed with 71 percent of the vote was “aspirational” and therefore could be ignored. Take a moment and think about the arrogance of politicians rolling their eyes at a supermajority of voters and attempting to carry on with business as normal.
The Columbus Dispatch reports, “Advocates of redistricting reform hailed the decision as a resounding victory for Ohio voters who overwhelmingly approved changes to the state constitution to limit partisan line-drawing in 2015.”
Marc E. Elias, a voting rights lawyer who represented plaintiffs in one of the three lawsuits, told me: “The Ohio Supreme Court took an important step in rejecting the cynical partisanship that was behind the Republicans’ gerrymandered state legislative map. Our fight for fair maps and voting rights continues in Ohio and around the country.”
While U.S. House seats are not directly affected by this decision, Elias has another suit pending on that plan, as well. According to voting rights advocates, the rules for redistricting House seats are different from state lines, but nevertheless the referendum’s fairness rule applies, and the Ohio Supreme Court has shown it is willing to take partisan gerrymandering standards seriously.
The Brennan Center for Justice, which represented plaintiffs in another one of the cases, also praised the decision. “The General Assembly maps entrenched a GOP supermajority and flouted clear partisan fairness requirements in the Ohio constitution — abuses that especially impacted Ohio’s Black, Muslim and immigrant communities,” said Alicia Bannon, the Brennan Center’s judiciary program director, in a written statement. “The commission is now tasked with drawing replacement maps. We will be watching to ensure that all Ohioans get the fair representation they are due.”
The decisive concurring opinion by Republican Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, who joined the court’s three Democrats, slammed the redistricting commission for ignoring the express letter of the constitutional change voters had demanded. She observed that further changes might be warranted. “Having now seen firsthand that the current Ohio Redistricting Commission — comprised of statewide elected officials and partisan legislators — is seemingly unwilling to put aside partisan concerns as directed by the people’s vote,” she wrote, “Ohioans may opt to pursue further constitutional amendment to replace the current commission with a truly independent, nonpartisan commission that more effectively distances the redistricting process from partisan politics.”
O’Connor lauded the work of independent commissions: “While not free from their own vulnerabilities, independent redistricting commissions have become ‘the premier institutional solution to the problem of partisan gerrymandering’ because they increase the degree of separation between map-drawers and partisan politics.”
Indeed, the track record so far is positive. By referendum or legislation, many states have turned to independent commissions with positive results. The Virginia map for the state’s U.S. House seats received widespread praise for fairness. In Michigan, a citizen-led redistricting commission produced state legislative and U.S. House maps that also reduced partisan gerrymandering. The Detroit Free Press reported: “The maps adopted by the commission would still favor Republican candidates though nowhere near to the same extent as the current maps, according to measures of partisan fairness used by the commission. One measure for the congressional and state Senate map used by [the] commission indicates the new maps would favor Democrats.”
Lawmakers, political operatives and voters should take note. Nonpartisan redistricting is popular. Voting groups and national Democrats who want to eliminate partisan line-drawing would be wise to make this a campaign issue, as it can help make “democracy” issues less abstract for voters. In this instance, it means politicians have to pay attention to voters and cannot handpick them. That’s a powerful, populist message. Who’s in charge here — voters or politicians?
While Senate Republicans have stymied voting reform, the Ohio case is a reminder that the battle continues in the states, where courts, independent commissions and voters themselves are still carrying on the fight to create fair districts that force politicians to be more responsive. Michael Waldman, head of the Brennan Center, told me, “As federal courts close doors to gerrymandering claims and increasingly to voting rights, there is fertile ground in state constitutions.” (Since state law will be at issue, state supreme courts — not the U.S. Supreme Court packed with partisan right-wingers — will decide these cases.) Federal anti-gerrymandering legislation that would mandate independent commissions in every state is preferable, but major voting reforms in the states (the “laboratories of democracy”) are a promising alternative. That’s where voting advocates must carry on the fight.
Columnist |
Today at 10:00 a.m. EST
On the eve of a showdown in the U.S. Senate on voting rights reform, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the new maps for the state’s House of Representatives and Senate districts. It’s a victory for democracy.
Opinions to start the day, in your inbox. Sign up.
The court ruled that the maps violated a voter-enacted state constitutional requirement for redistricting to roughly match voters’ partisan preferences. A trio of cases brought by a long list of voting rights groups and individual plaintiffs alleged that the commission had taken direction from Republican lawmakers and disregarded the constitutional requirement — to the detriment of Democrats and minority voters.
The court rejected Republicans’ argument that the citizens’ referendum passed with 71 percent of the vote was “aspirational” and therefore could be ignored. Take a moment and think about the arrogance of politicians rolling their eyes at a supermajority of voters and attempting to carry on with business as normal.
The Columbus Dispatch reports, “Advocates of redistricting reform hailed the decision as a resounding victory for Ohio voters who overwhelmingly approved changes to the state constitution to limit partisan line-drawing in 2015.”
Marc E. Elias, a voting rights lawyer who represented plaintiffs in one of the three lawsuits, told me: “The Ohio Supreme Court took an important step in rejecting the cynical partisanship that was behind the Republicans’ gerrymandered state legislative map. Our fight for fair maps and voting rights continues in Ohio and around the country.”
While U.S. House seats are not directly affected by this decision, Elias has another suit pending on that plan, as well. According to voting rights advocates, the rules for redistricting House seats are different from state lines, but nevertheless the referendum’s fairness rule applies, and the Ohio Supreme Court has shown it is willing to take partisan gerrymandering standards seriously.
The Brennan Center for Justice, which represented plaintiffs in another one of the cases, also praised the decision. “The General Assembly maps entrenched a GOP supermajority and flouted clear partisan fairness requirements in the Ohio constitution — abuses that especially impacted Ohio’s Black, Muslim and immigrant communities,” said Alicia Bannon, the Brennan Center’s judiciary program director, in a written statement. “The commission is now tasked with drawing replacement maps. We will be watching to ensure that all Ohioans get the fair representation they are due.”
The decisive concurring opinion by Republican Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, who joined the court’s three Democrats, slammed the redistricting commission for ignoring the express letter of the constitutional change voters had demanded. She observed that further changes might be warranted. “Having now seen firsthand that the current Ohio Redistricting Commission — comprised of statewide elected officials and partisan legislators — is seemingly unwilling to put aside partisan concerns as directed by the people’s vote,” she wrote, “Ohioans may opt to pursue further constitutional amendment to replace the current commission with a truly independent, nonpartisan commission that more effectively distances the redistricting process from partisan politics.”
O’Connor lauded the work of independent commissions: “While not free from their own vulnerabilities, independent redistricting commissions have become ‘the premier institutional solution to the problem of partisan gerrymandering’ because they increase the degree of separation between map-drawers and partisan politics.”
Indeed, the track record so far is positive. By referendum or legislation, many states have turned to independent commissions with positive results. The Virginia map for the state’s U.S. House seats received widespread praise for fairness. In Michigan, a citizen-led redistricting commission produced state legislative and U.S. House maps that also reduced partisan gerrymandering. The Detroit Free Press reported: “The maps adopted by the commission would still favor Republican candidates though nowhere near to the same extent as the current maps, according to measures of partisan fairness used by the commission. One measure for the congressional and state Senate map used by [the] commission indicates the new maps would favor Democrats.”
Lawmakers, political operatives and voters should take note. Nonpartisan redistricting is popular. Voting groups and national Democrats who want to eliminate partisan line-drawing would be wise to make this a campaign issue, as it can help make “democracy” issues less abstract for voters. In this instance, it means politicians have to pay attention to voters and cannot handpick them. That’s a powerful, populist message. Who’s in charge here — voters or politicians?
While Senate Republicans have stymied voting reform, the Ohio case is a reminder that the battle continues in the states, where courts, independent commissions and voters themselves are still carrying on the fight to create fair districts that force politicians to be more responsive. Michael Waldman, head of the Brennan Center, told me, “As federal courts close doors to gerrymandering claims and increasingly to voting rights, there is fertile ground in state constitutions.” (Since state law will be at issue, state supreme courts — not the U.S. Supreme Court packed with partisan right-wingers — will decide these cases.) Federal anti-gerrymandering legislation that would mandate independent commissions in every state is preferable, but major voting reforms in the states (the “laboratories of democracy”) are a promising alternative. That’s where voting advocates must carry on the fight.
