2

© 2006 Wi ley Per iodicals , Inc .Publ ished onl ine in Wi ley InterScience (www.interscience.wi ley.com)Nat ional Civ ic Review • DOI : 10.1002/ncr.132 • Summer 2006

Ballot measures to end partisan gerrymandering failed in Ohioand California in 2005. In California, it was Democrats whonixed a proposal, backed by Republican Gov. ArnoldSchwarzenegger, for a panel of retired judges to assumeresponsibility for redistricting. In Ohio, Republicans took thelead in efforts to shoot down a measure creating a nonparti-san commission to draw district lines for state assembly seats.

“We view this as the beginning, not the end, of a nationalcampaign to reform the way we draw legislative and congres-sional districts,” said Jon Goldin-Dubois, a vice president ofCommon Cause, which supported both proposals. “It’s timethat we take the job of drawing Congressional and legislativedistricts out of the hands of self-interested incumbent politi-cians and put it in the hands of those who can draw lineswithout partisan bias.”

The Ohio proposal would have allowed groups or individuals tosubmit redistricting maps to the appointed commission. Thevarious proposals would have been scored for competitivenessby a computer, and the commission would then choose from thetop three maps. “It was a very interesting system that wouldhave taken a lot of human intervention and political motivationout of the process in a very clever way,” commented MarkSchmitt, a fellow of the New America Foundation, in an inter-view shortly before the November 2005 election.

The measure was one of four proposals put forth by a coali-tion called Reform Ohio Now. The group emerged in theDecember 2004 election after the state legislature amendeda campaign finance law to increase the contribution limits onstate races. Other ballot issues would have allowed Ohioansto vote early by mail, limited annual contributions tostatewide candidates to $2,000 and $1,000 for legislativecandidates, and created a nonpartisan commission to overseeelection administration. Despite lingering concern over elec-tion irregularities in the 2004 presidential race in Ohio and agrowing corruption scandal known as “Coingate,” all four ofthe proposals lost by large margins.

In California, the measure to reform redistricting for Congressand the state assembly may have fallen victim to GovernorSchwarzenegger’s declining popularity; all the other initiativessupported by the governor failed at the polls. Another problem

may have been that the measure called for a mid-decennialredistricting, which some Democrats who support nonpartisanredistricting in theory rejected as a partisan ploy.

Explanations for the zero-for-four record in Ohio vary. A groupcalled Ohio First mounted a well-funded campaign against thefour proposals. Some observers have noted the length andcomplexity of the ballot language and the difficulty of reach-ing a statewide audience in Ohio. “Ohio is a very difficultplace to get your message out,” said Peg Rosenfield, an OhioLeague of Women Voters volunteer expert on elections. “Wehave eight major media markets here in Ohio—eight!”

It was the second time that Ohio reformers tried to pass aredistricting reform proposal. The first was in 1981, when theLeague of Women Voters managed to get a proposal on theballot. “At that time it was Republicans who really pushed it,”says Rosenfield, “and Democrats who stopped it because theycontrolled the apportionment board then.”

Asked about the failure of the measure, Rosenfield said pro-ponents might have made a mistake in putting the issue onthe November 2005 ballot. “You have to start earlier to edu-cate people,” she says.

Goldin-Dubois agreed that the abbreviated time frame for thereform campaign might have undercut support for the Ohioproposal. “It was a very short campaign, about five months,”he said. “Getting the voters the information they need on anissue is a challenge under any circumstances.” This is espe-cially true, he noted, when it comes to nonpartisan redistrict-ing, an issue that voters tend to be less familiar with thanreforms such as campaign finance laws or ethics rules.

But Goldin-Dubois thinks the measures may have helped thecause of nonpartisan redistricting despite their failure at thepolls. In both states, opponents argued that the existing pro-posals were flawed but promised to revisit the question ofredistricting reform after the election. “Seven months agothere was little if any talk about moving a conversation onredistricting reform forward,” he said.

Michael McGrathEditor

Note from the Editor