Reply #23: Partly because

[Ms. Toad]

It was not the broad concept of bipartisan redistricting that was being voted on, it was the entire detailed structure. Even the summary of the amendment took two full ballot pages on the old punch card machines. If voters were motivated enough to read the actual amendment, the amendment was five single spaced 8.5x11 pages of mind numbing details. http://www.reformohionow.org/downloads/ron_amendments.pdf (Start reading on page 9 and continue to partway through page 14.)

So - some folks (like me) who support the principle voted against it based on the details.

First, it is virtually impossible to write an amendment of that length correctly the first time. The best laid plans of mice and men often need tweaking during the process of implementation. Quite a few Ohio voters are discovering that even a two sentence amendment (marriage discrimination law) can be so poorly drafted that it has very severe unintended (at least from the average voter's perspective) consequences. That amendment was quickly latched onto by batterers who are not married to their victims as a way to escape the consequences of their actions. Fixing errors that are discovered during implementation requires amending the constitution.

Aside from my theoretical concern that it was unlikely such a complicated amendment was drafted perfectly the first time, based on a relatively quick reading I could easily see a number of unintended consequences. Here are a couple that caught my attention:

* The further entrenchment of two party dominance. Potential redistricting plans are evaluated on the basis of creating competitive districts. Competitiveness of districts is based solely on the top two parties on a state level. All third party votes are completely ignored. If there is potential district that favors a third party (say 32% Republican, 40% Green, 28% Democratic), the potential district is classified as 53% Republican and 47% Democratic for purposes of determining competitiveness - even though it is clearly Green (not an eligible party based on statewide votes) or left-leaning (combining the Green and Democratic votes). Green votes (or any third party votes) are tossed for purposes of determining competitiveness until their party becomes one of the top two parties in the state - and then one of the previous top two parties is tossed.

* The possibility that the Board would be required to be unbalanced. The parties of of the judges, for purpose of choosing which judges make the appointments to the redistricting committee, are determined at the time of his/her nomination for judge. For purposes of making the appointment, the judge MUST appoint someone of his/her own party affiliation. No mention of when the judge's party affiliation for purposes of selecting committee members is determined, and the tense in that portion of the amendment is present tense. What happens if a judge is nominated by the Democratic party, changes parties before s/he makes the appointments to the committee so his or her present affiliation is different that the affiliation at nomination? At best, it is unclear whether the judge must make appointments to the party of his/her former affiliation (which would maintain bipartisanship - but might make for an interesting selection process since there was probably some reason for the change and his/her selections may no longer be in the best interests of his/her former party). At worst, the judge must make appointments based on his/her current affiliation (requiring an unbalanced board). But - no one ever changes parties after being elected, right? (...Jeffords).

That's just a couple of the potential glitches I noted on a first read through, without going back and doing a detailed analysis.

Great concept, but very flawed execution, so I voted against it. Were it a statute I would have supported it - the details belong in a statute. If a statute it is flawed, or there are unintended consequences it is easy to fix. A short amendment embodying the principle of bipartisan redistricting based on competitiveness of districts (preferably not limited to two parties) would also have had my complete support.