I have the good fortune to start my week of guest blogging for Rick on the night of a significant redistricting development in my state, where election law wonders never cease.  The Cleveland Plain Dealer has this report and the Columbus Dispatch this one on the proposed constitutional amendment (Sub HJR 12), which passed by an 80-4 vote (with three Republicans and one Democrat voting no).  The text of the resolution is here.  It would make major changes to Ohio’s process for drawing state legislative districts.

The proposal would slightly modify the bipartisan commission that exists for drawing state legislative districts, adding two members.  The seven-member commission would consist of the Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, and two appointees from each major party’s leadership in the state legislature (rather just one appointee from each party’s legislative leadership).  Four votes including two from minority party commissioners, would be required to enact a plan that would remain in place for ten years.  If there’s a stalemate, a plan could be adopted on a simple majority vote without support from minority party members — but that plan would remain in place for only four years before lines would be redrawn.  Given that another election for statewide offices will by that time have taken place, it’s possible that the other major party would control the redistricting commission by then.  This adds an element of uncertainty that, at least in theory, would give both parties’ commissioners an incentive to draw lines reasonably in the first place.

The proposed state constitutional amendment would also modify the geographic criteria that exist under current law, requiring the preservation of whole counties, municipalities, and townships, as well as compact and contiguous districts.  In addition, it includes the following language on representational fairness for parties:

The Ohio redistricting commission shall attempt to draw a general assembly district plan that meets both of the following standards:

(A) No district plan shall be drawn primarily to favor or disfavor a political party.

(B) The statewide proportion of districts whose voters, based on recent statewide state and federal election results, favor each political party shall correspond closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio.

Exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to plans would remain with the Ohio Supreme Court.  If a plan “significantly violates” certain specified requirements, including the geographic criteria, “in a manner that materially affects the ability of the plan to contain districts whose voters favor political parties in an overall proportion that corresponds closely to the statewide political party preferences of the voters of Ohio,” the commission must be ordered to draw a new plan.

It remains to be seen whether the state senate, which has been considering its own quite different redistricting reform proposal, will go along with the state house resolution.  If it does, the proposal would then have to be approved by voters before it could become part of the state constitution.

Secretary of State Jon Husted, who has advocated redistricting reform, has issued this statement. While saying that the state house’s proposal offers “new hope,” Husted thinks that there’s one respect in which it “must be amended to build the necessary public trust in this proposal.”  In particular, Husted expresses concerned that the proposal would allow a plan to take effect without any votes from state officeholders — the four state legislative appointees (two from each major party) could enact a plan on their own.  But he notes that this problem could easily be fixed.

This is far from a done deal, but the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the state house is the most encouraging sign in years for Ohioans who want redistricting reform.