On Sunday, September 29, at their regular meeting, the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Ohio (LPO) endorsed Ohio Issue 1, the proposal to reform the process of redistricting legislative seats that has also been endorsed by almost everyone in the state except the ruling Republican clique. The redistricting process in Ohio has always been in the hands of those with the most interest in perverting it: the political class, especially those politicians of whichever party happens to control the state legislature and the top state executive offices at the moment.
Issue 1 will turn the creation of legislative and Congressional district maps over to a select committee of 15 citizens, five of which cannot be affiliated with the two legacy parties. The committee will be chosen with the help of retired judges, and cannot include active lobbyists, political consultants, or current or former elected officials. It also puts in place safeguards against crafting districts to favor any present or prospective candidates and mandates consideration of geographical integrity, such as keeping towns and neighborhoods together as much as possible.
The present redistricting system operates under an amendment passed by Ohio voters in May, 2018. The Libertarian Party of Ohio recommended a NO vote on that amendment at the time, predicting correctly that the system would empower the legacy political parties, most especially that of the party that controls the legislature and the top executive offices. Redistricting in Ohio presently bounces back and forth between the legislature and a seven-member committee of elected officials. The current committee includes five Republicans and just the minimum two Democrats required by the law. As a result, map after map created by the system has been challenged in court, and those maps have been found unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court seven times.
One of the most egregious features of the current system is that it completely shuts out of the process anyone not a part of the political elites. This includes, of course, voices representing challenger political parties, including the LPO. While Issue 1 doesn’t guarantee insurgent voices a seat at the table, it at least gives us a fighting chance.
In the political process, nothing is ever certain. Will Issue 1 fix the problems with Ohio’s redistricting process that go back over eight decades? Time will tell. But unlike the 2018 measure that the LPO opposed, this year’s Issue 1 is not loaded with time bombs and booby traps. It’s possible that it won’t be a whole lot better than what we’ve got. We will have to see how it operates in practice to be sure. But one thing is certain: it can’t possibly be worse.
The GOP’s opposition critiques Issue 1 for taking the process out of the hands of those chosen by election to represent the people. They’re right – and that’s just the point. Under the present rules, the politicians choose their voters, by creating electoral districts that favor their partisan interests. With Issue 1, Ohio voters will have a chance to restore a system in which they have a fair chance to choose their representatives. That’s the way it should be.
JOHN FOCKLER
It is hard to imagine a more unlibertarian ballot issue.
Consider it section by section:
1) Eliminate constitutional safeguards put in place by a super-majority. And take away the ability for voters to hold representatives accountable.
2) Redistrict according to party majority, thereby entrenching the two major party’s majority in those districts further. And naturally do this at the tax payer’s expense.
3) Ensure those doing it belong to the two major parties.
4) Make it as hard as possible to remove commissioners, reserving that power for other commissioners.
5) Preventatively strip citizens of their right to take it to court.
6) Ensure the commission is dominated by the two major parties.
7) If a majority cannot be obtained, make sure the most popular/least unpopular of the suggestions is removed from further consideration.
8) “Limit the right of Ohio citizens to freely express their opinions…” Are you reading this? “…and forbid[ding] communication with the commission members”.
9) –
10) Make sure that the tax payer is on the hook for UNLIMITED legal expenses.
Never in my life would I have thought, I would see Libertarians endorsing an issue that contained sections 5, 8 or 10.
Are you trying to tell me that after reading those, you still somehow thought this was a good idea?!
And you say that “almost everyone in the state except the ruling Republican clique” endorses this?
In the unlikely event that this is true, as a libertarian I have to say, thank goodness for this “ruling Republican clique” saving us from ourselves.
Perhaps paradoxically the most libertarian solution would be to turn Ohio into an oligarchy of this “ruling Republican clique”, because at least they seem to have their heads screwed on the right way around…
Did you read the actual amendment? I suspect not because if you did you wouldn’t be making such silly claims. At best what you say are half truths, at worst blatant lies and frankly so silly not worth spelling out where you are wrong.
Couldn’t have put it better. The citizens need to hold the representatives accountable, and that’s the problem; the solution advanced with Issue 1 fixes that by getting the lazy citizens off the hook. Please vote NO on this terrible solution!
The legislature refuses to listen to the Ohio Supreme Court on this and other issues. Why would you begin to think we can get THEM to fix this?
Ultimately 15 people, drawn from a hat to make 5 GOP, 5 DNC, and 5 IND/3rd party, from a much larger pool of applicants with requirements to: not have been in elected public office, not to have held a position in a political party, and more, for the previous 6 years…
Much better than what we had before, what we have now, and whatever the super majority GOP legislature will likely come up with for 2026.
Notice the only group saying NO is the GOP. Why do you think that is? Maybe because this could lose them the super majority in the Ohio Legislature by logically making districts? Such the horror.
Yes on 1.