Redistricting in Ohio
Affirmative action • Ballot access • Charter schools • Energy • Environment • Fracking • Higher education • Nonprofit regulation • Public education • Public pensions • Redistricting • School choice • State budget and finances • Taxes • Voting
|Redistricting in Ohio|
|Current legislative control: |
|Congressional process: |
|State legislature process: |
|State Senate: 33|
|State House: 99|
|Redistricting in other states|
|Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming|
|Redistricting • State-by-state redistricting procedures • State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 Census|
- 1 Background
- 2 State process
- 3 District maps
- 4 Competitiveness
- 5 Race and ethnicity
- 6 Redistricting after the 2010 census
- 7 Redistricting ballot measures
- 8 Recent news
- 9 See also
- 10 External links
- 11 References
Redistricting is a fiercely-contested issue, primarily due to gerrymandering, the practice of drawing district lines to favor one political party, individual or constituency over another. Two areas of contention include the following:
- Competitiveness: Political parties or incumbents sometimes draw district lines for their benefit at the expense of proportionality and fair representation. Some argue that this practice contributes to the present lack of competitive elections. Uncompetitive elections can in turn discourage participation.
- Race and ethnicity: District lines sometimes minimize the influence of minority voters by disproportionately consolidating them within single districts or splitting them across several districts. These practices are examples of "packing" and "cracking," respectively.
- See also: Redistricting
Federal law stipulates that all districts, whether congressional or state legislative, must meet two primary criteria.
- Equal population: According to All About Redistricting, federal law "requires that each district have about the same population: each federal district within a state must have about the same number of people [and] each state district within a state must have about the same number of people." Specific standards for determining whether populations are sufficiently equal vary for congressional and state legislative districts. See below for further details.
- Race and ethnicity: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 states that district lines must not dilute the voting power of racial or ethnic minority groups. This provision "applies whether the denial is intentional, or an unintended end result. Courts essentially test whether the way that districts are drawn takes decisive political power away from a cohesive minority bloc otherwise at risk for discrimination."
In most states, the legislatures are primarily responsible for both congressional and state legislative redistricting. However, reformers argue that partisan legislators are incapable of establishing fair district lines because they have a vested interest in the outcome. Instead, reformers advocate using different redistricting processes, including independent commissions or electronic methods. Opponents of these reforms argue that alternative processes are less accountable to voters, subject to partisan abuse, and perhaps unconstitutional.
In addition to the federal criteria noted above, individual states may impose additional requirements on redistricting. Common state-level redistricting criteria are listed below. Typically, these requirements are quite flexible.
- Contiguity refers to the principle that all areas within a district should be "physically adjacent." A total of 49 states require that districts of at least one state legislative chamber be contiguous. A total of 23 states require that congressional districts meet contiguity requirements.
- Compactness refers to the general principle that "the distance between all parts of a district" ought to be minimized. The United States Supreme Court has "construed compactness to indicate that residents have some sort of cultural cohesion in common." A total of 37 states "require their legislative districts to be reasonably compact." A total of 18 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
- A community of interest is a "group of people in a geographical area, such as a specific region or neighborhood, who have common political, social or economic interests." A total of 24 states require that the maintenance of communities of interest be considered in the drawing of state legislative districts. A total of 13 states impose similar requirements for congressional districts.
- A total of 42 states require that state legislative district lines be drawn to account for political boundaries (e.g., the limits of counties, cities and towns). A total of 19 states require that similar considerations be made in the drawing of congressional districts.
According to Article 1, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections. Section 4 explicitly vests the authority to regulate congressional elections with the legislative branches of the states and the federal government and not with the executive or judicial branches.
|“||The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.||”|
—United States Constitution
Article 1, Section 2, of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows, or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable."
The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "any district with more or fewer people than the average (also know as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."
State legislative redistricting
The United States Constitution is silent on the issue of state legislative redistricting. In the mid-1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a series of rulings in an effort to clarify standards for state legislative redistricting. In Reynolds v. Sims, the court ruled that "the Equal Protection Clause [of the United States Constitution] demands no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens, of all places as well as of all races." According to All About Redistricting, "it has become accepted that a [redistricting] plan will be constitutionally suspect if the largest and smallest districts [within a state or jurisdiction] are more than 10 percent apart."
- See also: State-by-state redistricting procedures
In 37 states, legislatures are primarily responsible for drawing congressional district lines. Seven states have only one congressional district each, so congressional redistricting is not necessary. Four states employ independent commissions to draw the district maps. In two states, politician commissions draw congressional district lines.
State legislative district lines are primarily the province of the state legislatures themselves in 37 states. In seven states, politician commissions draw state legislative district lines. In the remaining six states, independent commissions draw the lines.
State legislative district lines are set by a politician commission. Established in 1967, this commission comprises the following five members:
- State auditor
- Secretary of state
- "One commissioner chosen by the speaker of the House in concert with his [or her] party's leader in the Senate"
- "One commissioner chosen by the House minority leader along with his [or her] party's leader in the Senate"
A six-member advisory commission is also involved in the congressional and state legislative redistricting processes. The majority leaders of the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio State Senate each appoint three members, "at least one of whom must be from a different party, and at least one of whom must not be a legislator."
State law requires that all state legislative districts be compact and contiguous. Further, districts should "preserve whole political units–counties, townships, municipalities, and wards, in that order–where feasible."
On November 3, 2015, voters in Ohio will vote on a constitutional amendment to create a bipartisan state legislative redistricting commission. This commission would comprise seven members: the governor, state auditor, secretary of state, one person appointed by the speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, one person appointed by the House leader of the largest political party of which the speaker is not a member, one person appointed by the President of the Ohio State Senate, and one person appointed by the Senate leader of the largest political party of which the president is not a member.
Under the proposed amendment, maps drawn by this commission would be valid for 10 years if at least two members of each major political party voted for them. If the maps were to be passed along strictly partisan lines, the maps would only be valid for four years.
Ohio comprises 16 congressional districts. The map to the right depicts Ohio's congressional district lines as drawn following the 2010 United States Census. The table below lists Ohio's current House representatives.
|Ohio delegation to the United States House of Representatives|
|Name||Party||Position||Assumed office||Term ends|
|Bill Johnson||District 6||2011||January 3, 2017|
|Bob Gibbs||District 7||2011||January 3, 2017|
|Robert E. Latta||District 5||2007||January 3, 2017|
|Brad Wenstrup||District 2||2013||January 3, 2017|
|David Joyce||District 14||2013||January 3, 2017|
|Jim Jordan||District 4||2007||January 3, 2017|
|James B. Renacci||District 16||2011||January 3, 2017|
|John A. Boehner||District 8||1991||January 3, 2017|
|Joyce Beatty||District 3||2013||January 3, 2017|
|Marcia L. Fudge||District 11||2009||January 3, 2017|
|Marcy Kaptur||District 9||1983||January 3, 2017|
|Michael R. Turner||District 10||2003||January 3, 2017|
|Patrick J. Tiberi||District 12||2000||January 3, 2017|
|Steve Chabot||District 1||2011||January 3, 2017|
|Steve Stivers||District 15||2011||January 3, 2017|
|Tim Ryan||District 13||2003||January 3, 2017|
State legislative maps
Ohio comprises 33 state Senate districts and 99 state House districts. Each Senate district comprises three House districts. State senators are elected every four years in partisan elections. State representatives are elected every two years in partisan elections. To access the state legislative district maps approved during the 2010 redistricting cycle, click here.
There are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between partisan gerrymandering and electoral competitiveness. Some critics contend that the dominant redistricting methods result in a lack of competitive elections. Jennifer Clark, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said, "The redistricting process has important consequences for voters. In some states, incumbent legislators work together to protect their own seats, which produces less competition in the political system. Voters may feel as though they do not have a meaningful alternative to the incumbent legislator. Legislators who lack competition in their districts have less incentive to adhere to their constituents’ opinions."
Some question the impact of redistricting on electoral competitiveness. In 2006, Emory University professors Alan Abramowitz, Brad Alexander and Matthew Gunning wrote, "[Some] studies have concluded that redistricting has a neutral or positive effect on competition. ... [It] is often the case that partisan redistricting has the effect of reducing the safety of incumbents, thereby making elections more competitive."
The individuals involved in redistricting must balance the desire for increased competitiveness with other principles that might conflict with that goal, such as compactness, contiguity, and maintaining communities of interest. For instance, it may at times be impossible to draw a competitive district that is both compact and preserves communities of interest.
In 2011, James Cottrill, a professor of political science at Santa Clara University, published a study of the effect of "non-legislative approaches" to redistricting on the competitiveness of congressional elections. Cottrill found that "particular types of [non-legislative approaches] encourage the appearance in congressional elections of experienced and well-financed challengers." Cottrill cautioned, however, that non-legislative approaches "contribute neither to decreased vote percentages when incumbents win elections nor to a greater probability of their defeat."
In 2014, Ballotpedia analyzed the margins of victory in all 435 contests for the United States House of Representatives. Ballotpedia found that the average margin of victory was 35.8 percent, compared to 31.8 percent in 2012. An election is deemed competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. A total of 318 elections (73 percent of all House elections) were won by margins of victory of 20 percent or more. Only 26 elections (6 percent of the total) were won by margins of victory of 5 percent or less. See the table below for further details.
Note: The data below are provided only for informational purposes. It should be noted that there are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between redistricting and competitiveness. A variety of factors at the local, state and federal levels can impact electoral competitiveness.
In Ohio, 15 elections for the United States House of Representatives were won by margins of victory of 20 percent or greater. The smallest margin of victory occurred in District 6, where Bill Johnson (R) won by 19.7 percent. The largest margin of victory occurred in District 7, where Bob Gibbs (R) ran unopposed and won with 100 percent of the vote. The average margin of victory in Ohio was 38.4 percent. See the table below for full details.
|Electoral margins of victory in 2014 United States House of Representatives elections, Ohio|
|District||Winner||Margin of victory||Total votes cast||Top opponent|
|District 1||Steve Chabot||26.4%||197,383||Fred Kundrata|
|District 2||Brad Wenstrup||31.9%||201,111||Marek Tyszkiewicz|
|District 3||Joyce Beatty||28.1%||143,261||John Adams|
|District 4||Jim Jordan||35.3%||186,072||Janet Garrett|
|District 5||Bob Latta||37.5%||202,300||Robert Fry|
|District 6||Bill Johnson||19.7%||190,652||Jennifer Garrison|
|District 7||Bob Gibbs||100%||143,959||Unopposed|
|District 8||John Boehner||39.8%||188,330||Tom Poetter|
|District 9||Marcy Kaptur||35.6%||160,715||Richard May|
|District 10||Mike Turner||33.6%||200,606||Robert Klepinger|
|District 11||Marcia Fudge||58.9%||172,566||Mark Zetzer|
|District 12||Patrick Tiberi||40.4%||221,081||David Tibbs|
|District 13||Tim Ryan||37%||175,549||Thomas Pekarek|
|District 14||David Joyce||30.2%||214,580||Michael Wager|
|District 15||Steve Stivers||32%||194,621||Richard Scott Wharton|
|District 16||Jim Renacci||27.5%||207,375||Pete Crossland|
In 2014, Ballotpedia conducted a study of competitive districts in 44 state legislative chambers between 2010 and 2012. Ballotpedia found that there were 61 fewer competitive general election contests in 2012 than in 2010. Of the 44 chambers studied, 25 experienced a net loss in the number of competitive elections. A total of 17 experienced a net increase. In total, 16.2 percent of the 3,842 legislative contests studied saw competitive general elections in 2010. In 2012, only 14.6 percent of the contests studied saw competitive general elections. An election was considered competitive if it was won by a margin of victory of 5 percent or less. An election was considered mildly competitive if it was won by a margin of victory between 5 and 10 percent. For more information regarding this report, including methodology, click here.
Note: These data are provided only for informational purposes. It should be noted that there are conflicting opinions regarding the correlation between redistricting and competitiveness. A variety of factors at the local, state and federal levels can impact electoral competitiveness.
There were seven competitive elections for the Ohio House of Representatives in 2012, compared to 14 in 2010. There were 10 mildly competitive state House races in 2012, compared to nine in 2010. This amounted to a net loss of six competitive elections.
|Party||As of May 2015|
|Party||As of May 2015|
Race and ethnicity
- See also: Majority-minority districts
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates that electoral district lines cannot be drawn in such a manner as to "improperly dilute minorities' voting power."
|“||No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.||”|
—Voting Rights Act of 1965
States and other political subdivisions may create majority-minority districts in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A majority-minority district is a district in which minority groups comprise a majority of the district's total population. As of 2013, Ohio was home to one congressional majority-minority district.
Proponents of majority-minority districts maintain that these districts are a necessary hindrance to the practice of "cracking." Cracking occurs when a constituency is divided between several districts in order to prevent it from achieving a majority in any one district. In addition, supporters argue that the drawing of majority-minority districts has resulted in an increased number of minority representatives in state legislatures and Congress.
Critics, meanwhile, contend that the establishment of majority-minority districts results in "packing." Packing occurs when a constituency or voting group is placed within a single district, thereby minimizing its influence in other districts. Because minority groups tend to vote Democratic, critics argue that majority-minority districts ultimately present an unfair advantage to Republicans by consolidating Democratic votes into a smaller number of districts.
The tables below provide demographic information for each of Ohio's congressional districts as of 2013. At that time, the population of the largest congressional district, District 15, totaled 730,666, and the population of the smallest, District 11, totaled 710,894, which represented a difference of 2.8 percent.
|Demographics of Ohio's congressional districts (as percentages)|
|Source: United States Census Bureau, "2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates," accessed April 8, 2015|
|Demographics of Ohio's congressional districts|
|Source: United States Census Bureau, "2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates," accessed April 8, 2015|
Redistricting after the 2010 census
Congressional redistricting, 2010
Following the 2010 United States Census, Ohio lost two congressional seats. At the time of redistricting, Republicans held the governorship and both chambers of the Ohio General Assembly. Michael Barone and Chuck McCutcheon, writing for The Almanac of American Politics, described the 2010 congressional redistricting cycle in Ohio as follows:
|“||[In] 2011, Republicans were victims of their own 2010 success. Faced with the loss of two seats overall, there were only five Democrats left to target: Marcy Kaptur in Toledo, Dennis Kucinich and Marcia Fudge in Cleveland, Betty Sutton near Akron, and Tim Ryan near Youngstown. All five seats were badly underpopulated, but Fudge’s black-majority district was sacrosanct, and eliminating any two others meant displacing thousands of Democratic voters in the northeast. Furthermore, for decades, Republicans had cracked the state capital of Columbus into multiple districts to shortchange Democrats. But Columbus was growing and attracting progressive-minded voters at such a rate that neither the Republican-held 12th nor 15th might hold until 2020.
So for three months in mid-2011, Republican legislative aides bunkered in a clandestine Columbus hotel room, and under the watchful guidance of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, hatched yet another innovative scheme. Republicans would pack Democrats into a new Columbus 3rd District, merge Kaptur and Kucinich in a skinny 9th District stretching 100 miles along Lake Erie, and throw Sutton into a nearby 16th District favoring freshman Republican Jim Renacci. They would also have to sacrifice by merging two of their own, Dayton area Republicans Mike Turner and Steve Austria. But the creation of a Columbus Democratic vote sink would produce a beneficial ripple effect, allowing Republicans to shore up other freshmen and keep a 12-4 advantage.
—The Almanac of American Politics
On September 21, 2011, the legislature approved this congressional map, which was signed into law on September 26, 2011. Opponents threatened to subject the map to a veto referendum. In Ohio, legislation that is not related to spending may be subjected to a veto referendum if it does not pass the legislature by a two-thirds vote. Democratic opponents of the maps commenced a petition drive to put the issue before voters in the next statewide election. This proved unnecessary, however, as a revised congressional map passed the state legislature on December 14, 2011 and was signed into law the next day. Barone and McCutcheon described that map and the following election as follows:
|“||On December 14, 2011, 21 Democrats caved and voted with Republicans for a revised map. The second draft catered to urban legislators by uniting more of Toledo and Dayton—changes that also benefited Kaptur and Turner in their pairings with neighboring incumbents. Kucinich appealed to his left-leaning national fundraising network and even flirted with running for reelection in Washington state, but ultimately ran against Kaptur in the March 2012 primary and was steamrolled by Kaptur’s loyal Toledo base. Austria, a low-key sophomore, retired. In November, Republicans got the 12-4 delegation they envisioned, and voters defeated by 63%-37% a ballot initiative to transfer future redistricting authority to an independent citizens’ commission.||”|
—The Almanac of American Politics
A constitutional amendment that would have established an independent congressional redistricting commission was defeated by voters on November 6, 2012.
State legislative redistricting, 2010
On September 28, 2011, the politician redistricting commission approved new state legislative district maps. Although these maps were subject to litigation, they were ultimately upheld.
Redistricting ballot measures
elections and campaigns
|Not on ballot|
Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in Ohio.
- Ohio Apportionment of the General Assembly, Amendment 1 (1889)
- Ohio Apportionment of the General Assembly, Amendment 1 (1893)
- Ohio Bipartisan Redistricting Commission Amendment (2015)
- Ohio Congressional District Apportionment, Referendum 1 (1915)
- Ohio County Representation, Amendment 2 (1903)
- Ohio Issue 2, Redistricting Commission (1981)
- Ohio Legislative Districts, Amendment 5 (October 1857)
- Ohio Legislative Redistricting, Amendment 3 (May 1965)
- Ohio Redistricting Amendment, Issue 2 (2012)
- Ohio Redistricting Amendment, Issue 4 (2005)
- Ohio Redistricting Proposal, Amendment 2 (May 1967)
- Ohio Single-Member Districts, Amendment 1 (1967)
- Ohio State Legislative Apportionment, Amendment 2 (1921)
This section displays the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms "Redistricting Ohio."
- Some of the stories below may not be relevant to this page due to the nature of Google's news search engine.
- Redistricting in Ohio after the 2010 census
- State-by-state redistricting procedures
- Majority-minority districts
- State legislative and congressional redistricting after the 2010 census
- Margin of victory in state legislative elections before and after the 2010 census
- Margin of victory analysis for the 2014 congressional elections
- All About Redistricting
- National Conference of State Legislatures, "Redistricting Process"
- FairVote, "Redistricting"
- The Redistricting Game
- All About Redistricting, "Why does it matter?" accessed April 8, 2015
- Indy Week, "Cracked, stacked and packed: Initial redistricting maps met with skepticism and dismay," June 29, 2011
- The Atlantic, "How the Voting Rights Act Hurts Democrats and Minorities," June 17, 2013
- Redrawing the Lines, "The Role of Section 2 - Majority Minority Districts," accessed April 6, 2015
- All About Redistricting, "Where are the lines drawn?" accessed April 9, 2015
- FairVote, "Redistricting Glossary," accessed April 9, 2015
- The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, "Election Regulations," accessed April 13, 2015
- Brookings, "Redistricting and the United States Constitution," March 22, 2011
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- Brennan Center for Justice, "A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting," accessed March 25, 2015
- The Constitution of the United States of America, "Article 1, Section 2," accessed March 25, 2015
- All About Redistricting, "Who draws the lines?" accessed March 25, 2015
- All About Redistricting, "Ohio," accessed May 8, 2015
- Ohio Secretary of State, "House Joint Resolution Number 12," accessed April 21, 2015
- Ohio Legislative Service Commission HJR 12 Final Analysis ," accessed April 21, 2015
- Ohio Secretary of State, "District Maps," accessed May 8, 2015
- The Daily Cougar, "Redistricting will affect November election," October 16, 2012
- The Journal of Politics, "Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections," February 2006
- Polity, "The Effects of Non-Legislative Approaches to Redistricting on Competition in Congressional Elections," October 3, 2011
- Yale Law School, The Avalon Project, "Voting Rights Act of 1965; August 6, 1965," accessed April 6, 2015
- United States Census Bureau, "2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates," accessed April 8, 2015
- Barone, M. & McCutcheon, C. (2013). The almanac of American politics 2014 : the senators, the representatives and the governors : their records and election results, their states and districts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.