Columbus Dispatch...
Reconsider
Threat of referendum on redistricting ought to lead to compromise  
October 20, 2011 

A ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court leaves legislators with little practical choice: They must find a way to agree on a reasonable set of congressional-district boundaries or they’ll leave the state in a political limbo, with congressional representation in doubt. 

Doing so will require the will to compromise and put the public interest ahead of politics. 

The court ruled Friday that House Bill 319, the newly passed law to implement the district map drawn by majority Republicans, is subject to voter referendum. This means that, if opponents of the map succeed in gathering enough ballot-petition signatures by the late December deadline, the law — and the map — are up in the air until November 2012, the earliest a statewide referendum vote could be held. 

Meanwhile, candidates for the March 2012 primary election have a filing deadline of Dec. 7. 

Candidates can’t simply file according to the existing district boundaries, because Ohio’s declining share of total U.S. population means it must lose two of its 18 congressional seats. Two of the current districts won’t exist after 2012. 

Although much about this mess is confusing, one thing now should be clear: Even though the Ohio Constitution holds that appropriations laws take effect immediately, and thus aren’t subject to referendum, lawmakers can’t make their legislation “referendum-proof” simply by attaching a spending measure to it. The high court already made that statement in 2009, when opponents challenged then-Gov. Ted Strickland’s plan to legalize slot machines at horse-racing tracks. 

The slot-machine language had been tucked into the state budget bill, which the Strickland camp maintained protected it from referendum. The court said otherwise, holding that permanent changes in state law always are subject to referendum, even if the spending sections of bills go into effect immediately. 

In the case of the district-map law, Republicans included an appropriation of $2.75 million to help county boards of elections implement the new districts. 

Last week’s 7-0 ruling, by a bench dominated six to one by Republicans, should put any further such attempts to rest. The ruling also should counteract the allegation by some that the court majority bases its decisions on partisan interest. 

Having precipitated this problem by producing a map representing the most egregious example of gerrymandering in Ohio political memory, Republicans bear primary responsibility for producing something better. Holding commanding majorities in both legislative houses gives them effective control over the process. But they have an obligation to Ohioans to establish districts that are geographically compact and that preserve communities of interest. 

Democrats, too, bear a responsibility — to play a constructive minority role and help search for compromise, rather than try to score political points with endless denunciations of the Republican side. 

Read this and other articles at the Columbus Dispatch