The Libertarian Party of Ohio’s Executive Committee voted this week to join a coalition in support of a proposed constitutional amendment which would change how the state’s political districts are currently drawn.
In a statement on Tuesday, the Libertarian Party of Ohio announced that its Executive Committee unanimously voted to join Yes on 1, a coalition in support of a proposed constitutional amendment to establish a 15-member Citizens Redistricting Commission. If passed by voters, Issue 1 would eliminate the current bipartisan Ohio Redistricting Commission, which is comprised of seven members, including the state’s governor, state auditor, and secretary of state. The current Ohio Redistricting Commission does not account for input from third parties or independents.
Much like the current system, the proposed Citizens Redistricting Commission would be responsible for adopting state legislative and congressional redistricting plans. However, it would include five Democrats, five Republicans, and five individuals who are either independents or members of other political parties.
“Libertarians all across the country oppose the two-party system because it tends to lead to one-party rule,” said LPO Communications Director Travis Irvine. “From gerrymandering to limiting ballot access, politicians in either party always rule in favor of themselves when it comes to protecting their political power.”
While the state party’s executive committee acknowledges that the amendment “isn’t perfect,” they believe its goals are preferable to how Ohio currently handles redistricting. The party also praised the amendment for its transparency, direct citizen involvement, and the role it would give independent voters in the redistricting process, calling these the amendment’s “best libertarian features.”
Additionally, while the current list of coalition supporters does not include any other political parties, Independent Political Report has identified that at least one state Green Party affiliate, the Hamilton County Green Party, has also called on its members to back the proposed amendment.
“One could argue that the primary reason they changed the system nationally and stopped at the interesting and very strange number of 435 is that they did not want to have to to build a new capital again. There was no room to add people to the house chamber.”
I am familiar wit this argument. Actually, there IS room to place more seats, if the current seats are removed, and replaced with more newer ones.
But, if even that isn’t enough, the gallery over the coat room can be removed, and the coat room replaced with more seating, OR a section of the gallery can be restricted to House overflow seating. (If you watch the televised sessions, you will notice that the chamber is less than half full most of the time.}
If there is to be a so-called “independent” redistricting commission in any state, the method of proportioning its membership should be based on voter registration. That would
1. Motivate parties to register people, and
2. Determine the number of independent, or “other minor party” membership to be on any such commission.
You have to look at the main driving force behind the size of legislative bodies: economics.
One could argue that the primary reason they changed the system nationally and stopped at the interesting and very strange number of 435 is that they did not want to have to to build a new capital again. There was no room to add people to the house chamber.
You think I’m joking, but I’m quite serious.
Or we could just blame Hoover.
Another thing that should be considered is that Ohio’s House of Representatives is too small per the cube root rule. Given that Ohio currently has a population of 11,800,000, there should be at least 228 members in the Ohio House of Rep, but there are only 99.
Whether done by the legislature, or so-called “independent commissions” legislative redistricting is too open-ended, Some parameters need to be written into the constitution
For instance, some lower unit of government must be the foundation of the districts, as states are for the US House. In Ohio, given that there are 88 counties, these should be the basis of reapportionment, and no county should be divided. There are 99 seats in the Ohio House, so each county that has at least 1/99 of the state’s population gets 1 seat, and any county with any additional 99th of population gets that many more seats. Smaller counties would be combined, but each county could have a veto over any district of which it doesn’t want to be a part. This might result in creating discontinuous districts, but is that bad if it the counties are happier in the districts which they prefer?
This is sad. This ultimately leads to more left wingers elected and thus more government. There’s also the fact these people get taxpayer money and in Michigan, cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars because they broke federal law and lost a lawsuit.
So sad the LP supports big government. Certainly not libertarian minded.
“While the state party’s executive committee acknowledges that the amendment ‘isn’t perfect,'”
Looking at the actual ballot-approved phrasing, that is a wild understatement.
—
“The party also praised the amendment for its […] direct citizen involvement”
> “The proposed amendment would […] eliminate the longstanding ability of Ohio citizens to hold their representatives accountable for establishing fair state legislative and congressional districts.”
> “The proposed amendment would […] Prevent a commission member from being removed, except by a vote of their fellow commission members, even for incapacity, willful neglect of duty or gross misconduct.
> “The proposed amendment would […] Prohibit any citizen from filing a lawsuit challenging a redistricting plan in any court”
> “The proposed amendment would […] Limit the right of Ohio citizens to freely express their opinions to members of the commission or to commission staff regarding the redistricting process or proposed redistricting plans”
TL;DR: The amendment does everything it can to prevent citizen involvement of any kind.
—
“The party also praised the amendment for […] the role it would give independent voters in the redistricting process”
> “The proposed amendment would […] Establish a new taxpayer-funded commission of appointees required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor either of the two largest political parties in the state of Ohio, according to a formula based on partisan outcomes as the dominant factor, so that […] preserving communities of interest will be secondary to the formula that is based on partisan political outcomes.”
> “The proposed amendment would […] Require that a majority of the partisan commission members belong to the state’s two largest political parties.”
> “The proposed amendment would […] Create the following process for appointing commission members: Four PARTISAN appointees on the Ohio Ballot Board will choose a panel of 4 PARTISAN retired judges (2 AFFILIATED WITH THE FIRST MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY and 2 AFFILIATED WITH THE SECOND MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY). […] the Ballot Board legislative appointees AFFILIATED WITH THE SAME MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY would select 8 applicants and present those to the Ballot Board legislative appointees AFFILIATED WITH THE OTHER MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY, who would then select 2 persons from the 8 for appointment to the panel […] The panel will choose those 6 individuals by initially creating a pool of 90 individuals (30 FROM THE FIRST MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY, 30 FROM THE SECOND MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY, and 30 from neither the first nor second major political parties). […] The panel will then narrow the pool of 90 individuals down to 45 (15 FROM THE FIRST MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY; 15 FROM THE SECOND MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY; and 15 from neither the first nor second major political parties). Randomly, by draw, the 4 PARTISAN retired judges will then blindly select 6 names out of the pool of 45 to be members of the commission (2 FROM THE FIRST MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY; 2 FROM THE SECOND MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY; and 2 from neither the first nor second major political parties). The 6 randomly drawn individuals will then […] select the final 9 individuals to serve with them on the commission, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH SHALL BE FROM THE FIRST AND THE SECOND MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES (3 FROM THE FIRST MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY, 3 FROM THE SECOND MAJOR POLITICAL PARTY, and 3 from neither the first nor second major political parties). ”
TL;DR: The amendment does everything it can to limit the redistricting process to unelected uniparty officials.
—
“The party also praised the amendment for its transparency”
> “The proposed amendment would […] Require […] If a majority cannot be obtained, the plan with the highest number of points in the ranked-choice process is eliminated […] If the ranked-choice process ends in a tie for the highest point total, the tie shall be broken through a random process.
—
“The party also praised the amendment […] calling these the amendment’s ‘best libertarian features.'”
> “The proposed amendment would […] Impose new taxpayer-funded costs on the State of Ohio to […] an UNLIMITED amount for legal expenses incurred by the commission”
—
So, I have to wonder: How long has the LPO been sockpuppet of the uniparty, run by an executive committee of opportunistic statists fishing for quangos?