Since The Plain Dealer isn’t offering both sides of the issue, I took the suggestion in a recent guest column and read the full 16 pages of the proposed amendment to end “gerrymandering.” The amendment changes the districting rules that a new, nonpartisan committee must follow to create a statewide district map that results in each major political party having an advantage in the number of districts proportionate (within 3%!) to its share in recent statewide voting.
Because Democratic voters tend to be heavily concentrated in Ohio’s urban areas (e.g., four of five Cleveland voters who declared a party affiliation registered as Democrats), it is not possible to achieve the 3% objective without carving up cities and counties.
So, the amendment then requires establishing “communities of interest” without regard to existing city or county boundaries. But isn’t that exactly what “gerrymandering” is – creating districts that ignore existing boundaries to achieve a result that favors one political party, or overcomes one party’s inherent disadvantage? Too bad The Plain Dealer hasn’t summarized the proposed amendment like I just did. Instead, the paper has published columns criticizing the proposed ballot language as misleading for calling this new process what it actually is.
Mark Manthey,
Hinckley
