COLUMBUS – If you thought the drama over redistricting came to an end on Tuesday, get ready for the sequel.
In July, when he called for defeat of Issue 1, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said firmly that if voters rejected Issue 1, lawmakers should take on the issue after the new General Assembly session convenes in January. He recommended they consider asking voters to adopt a system like Iowa’s that seeks to keep politics out of the redistricting process.
And if lawmakers won’t act, he threatened to gather the signatures and take a constitutional amendment directly to voters.
“If the legislature does not do this, I will do everything that I can to get it on the ballot by initiative,” DeWine said then. “That’s the backup plan.”
On Thursday, DeWine said he’s still committed to changing the system.
“My opinion hasn’t changed,” DeWine said. “I think that Ohio would be very well served by doing what Iowa has done now for four decades, and that is focus on, if you redraw the maps every 10 years, focus on making them compact, making sure that political subdivisions, villages, cities, counties, are not split up unnecessarily. But also paying no attention to politics.”
Changing the current system for redistricting would require amending Ohio’s constitution. Issue 1 sought to do that, replacing the politician-led Ohio Redistricting commission with a new Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission. The new process would have barred participation from politicians.
Ohio voters rejected that amendment on Tuesday 46% to 54%, according to initial tallies from the Ohio secretary of state.
State lawmakers can put their own constitutional amendment proposal on the ballot via a joint resolution of the two chambers. A citizen-initiated amendment requires gathering more than 400,000 valid signatures, as the backers of Issue 1 did.
In July, DeWine spoke with a sense of urgency, sounding as if he wanted the legislature to move quickly. Indeed, if the goal were to establish a new system before the next legislative elections in 2026, quick action would be required.
Had Issue 1 been approved, it would have triggered action almost immediately to allow the new commission to be seated by May. New maps, to be used for 2026 state legislative and congressional elections, would have been required by September.
The next regular redistricting cycle, though, would not occur until after the 2030 census.
A spokeswoman for Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens declined comment on Thursday, saying the speaker would wait for DeWine to take the lead on the issue first.
Senate President Matt Huffman, who will be a member of the Ohio House next session and is vying for the speakership, could not be reached for comment, but said this week in a pod cast that he’s open to constitutional changes.
“I think there are things that need to change in the U.S. Constitution, certainly in the Ohio Constitution and if we can make these processes for both Congressional and General Assembly better then I’m all for it,” Huffman said.
State Sen. Rob McColley, a Northwest Ohio Republican who is expected to be elected Ohio Senate president next year, acknowledged Thursday there could be discussions on redistricting next year, but didn’t address whether the Iowa plan that DeWine has praised has support.
“I do think there will probably be discussions about whether we can improve on our existing process, and that may very well involve discussions around who sits on the commission,” he said.
In July, DeWine was adamant in his opposition to Issue 1. While saying something needed to be done to address gerrymandering, the ballot issue was the wrong answer.
The requirements that new maps achieve a level of proportionality, with a balance of Republican- and Democratic-leaning districts similar to statewide voting patterns, would force political gerrymandering and the breakup of communities, he argued. That was a central message of the campaign against Issue 1.
Such a requirement, he said, “obliterates all other good government objectives.”
He recommended the Iowa model, one in use for four decades, be a guide for Ohio because it bars consideration of political data and only focuses on demographics.
It seeks to produce compact districts that keep communities together. It cannot consider party affiliations or election results. It focuses on census data, DeWine said. The maps are drawn by Iowa’s counterpart to Ohio’s Legislative Services Commission, a nonpartisan research arm for the General Assembly.
While the Legislative Service Commission is nonpartisan, it is not out of control of state lawmakers for whom it would be drawing districts.
Ohio could tinker with that system, if so desired. The important thing, though, is that the legislature would be able to properly evaluate any proposal before putting it on the ballot and before voters, DeWine said Thursday.
“One of the things that I talked about when I opposed Issue 1 is that this should go through a legislative process,” DeWine said. “There should be public hearings. People should be able to come in and talk about how we should do that. So, this is what I’m encouraging the legislature to do.”
In July, DeWine stated clearly that he believed doing nothing was not an option – that it was time to end the political fighting over redistricting and settle on a process the public could view with confidence.
“After we defeat this inherently flawed proposal, I will work with the General Assembly to introduce a resolution in the next session,” DeWine said.
“I will ask them to pass a version of the Iowa ballot language that’s been in effect for this system for about 40 years now,” DeWine said then. “I think it’s time to put an end to all this.”
And he was firm then about his intention.
“I will lead as much as I can, and I will do everything that I can to get the legislature … to pass this, get it on the ballot and move forward,” DeWine said.
A refusal to act, DeWine said then, would trigger an effort to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot via initiative petition – just as supports of Issue 1 did.
On Thursday, while not as forceful, DeWine reiterated he thinks the new General Assembly needs to take action once it convenes.
“I put my two cents in. I said what I think is the best way to do it,” DeWine said.
“I don’t think we should be doing something overnight and rush, but I do think the process should start,” DeWine said. “I think we need to, you know, take a deep breath and look to see how we can remove this from politics and do something that the people will have you know a lot of confidence in.”
Reporters Jeremy Pelzer and Laura Hancock contributed to this story.