Ohio senator proposes expanding legislature, simplifying initiated statute process

By Nick Evans
Ohio Capital Journal

An Ohio senator is reintroducing two measures asking voters to make sweeping changes to the state legislature and the process for bringing proposals to the ballot. But unlike the last time lawmakers proposed tweaks for ballot measures, this latest idea sticks to initiated statutes. Also, unlike last time, outside observers think there are some pretty decent ideas there — even if they have some critiques.

The other resolution would make substantial increases to the number of lawmakers in both chambers of the General Assembly. State Sen. Louis Blessing, R-Colerain Township, contends that more seats means more responsive lawmakers and greater opportunities to run for people who aren’t already wealthy. But more important, he believes additional districts would push the chambers toward a partisan split that more closely mirrors the overall partisan make-up of the state.

Blessing’s initiated statute proposal reduces the signature threshold that organizers have to meet. Instead of collecting 3% of the most recent gubernatorial election turnout, and then collecting another 3% if lawmakers don’t act, Blessing scraps that second round of signature gathering. To put a measure on the ballot, organizers just need to clear 3% once, or 124,046 registered voters according to the latest gubernatorial results. Existing requirements that those signatures come from half of Ohio’s counties remain in place.

Additionally, for two years lawmakers would need a 60% supermajority to make any changes to a measure approved by voters.

“This actually, I think, will decrease constitutional amendments,” Blessing argued, “because it increases the protection for initiated statute for a certain period of time. So with this much lower signature threshold, I think reformers are more likely than not to say, you know what, let’s roll the dice with the initiated statute route.”

Still, he acknowledged with a 60% supermajority, the current General Assembly could at least theoretically overturn a measure without any Democratic votes.

“Maybe we change that to two-thirds or have something under there to require minority buy-in for this,” he explained, “but the idea would be that it’s going to foster some degree of bipartisanship if an initiated statute proposal is tried out and turns out to be really problematic right out of the gate.”

As for expanding the legislature, Blessing proposes moving to 51 senators and 153 representatives. Ohio currently has 33 state Senate seats and 99 House seats. He argued that if Ohioans want representation in office to roughly correspond with voters’ overall preferences, more seats will move Ohio in that direction.

Imagine a statewide race like governor or attorney general. To Blessing, that’s one extreme in partisan representation; with effectively one district for the entire state, a nominee can win office with 50% plus one vote, and then control 100% of that office’s decisions. That represents the biggest potential difference between the state’s partisan preferences and its representation.

At the other extreme, Blessing said, is direct democracy; in effect, every voter a district unto themselves. Although it would perfectly correspond with the state’s political wishes, it’s a tad unwieldy.

But moving the number of lawmakers closer to the direct democracy end of the spectrum, Blessing contends, would meaningfully improve how closely the state’s legislature aligns with the electorate.

“And if you want evidence that this actually works this way, look at the Senate,” he said.

“Currently, the Senate has been 70% Republican now for a decade and a half, for the most part,” he went on. “But the House, despite Republicans having the pencil, have never been able to get to 70% or beyond.”

That’s because House districts are roughly one-third the size of state senate districts, he insisted.

“Yes, you’re going to have more Republicans. You’re also going to have more Democrats,” he said of his proposal. “But is it likely that we’re going to see, you know, 70% Republicans in the Senate, and 64% Republicans in the House? I think the answer is no.”

How safe is that harbor?
When lawmakers proposed raising the threshold for constitutional amendments in 2023, their arguments were rooted in concerns about ongoing policy questions getting written into the state’s foundational legal framework.

Critics rejected the effort as a transparent bid to undermine a planned reproductive rights amendment and argued the proof was in lawmakers’ silence on initiated statutes. All those ballot measures are taking the constitutional amendment route, they argued, because amendments take about the same effort, and they can’t be immediately overturned by state lawmakers. Make it easier to propose laws on the ballot and then provide protections once they’re approved, and the problem will go away.

Blessing sees his proposal as an answer. Common Cause executive director Catherine Turcer thinks it’s a “conversation starter.”

Her biggest concern is its safe harbor protections. With Republican supermajorities in the Ohio House and Senate and lawmakers’ ongoing efforts to water down a marijuana legalization measure that passed in 2023, she’s skeptical the resolution’s protections would be sufficient.

“It reads as a safe harbor in the resolution, but it functionally isn’t,” she said.

Turcer said the idea of requiring some amount of minority party support might address the problem, and reducing the signature requirement to 3% struck her as truly significant.

“I actually do enough of these things to be like ok you know what? A grass roots organization — a truly grass roots organization, working with a bunch of other truly on the ground organizations could hit that mark.”

Mike Curtin, a former Columbus Dispatch managing editor and state lawmaker who served on the Constitutional Modernization Commission, sees a lot to like in Blessing’s proposal even if there’s room for improvements.

“You know there should be debate and discussion over what the optimum initiated statute process looks like,” Curtin said. “But what Blessing is proposing is a hell of a lot better than what we have now,” he said.

“So, if it’s choose one or the other,” he added, “the choice is clear.”

Cleveland State University Law School Dean Emeritus Steven Steinglass thinks “on balance, it’s a step in the right direction,” but it’s not there yet. He shares many of Turcer’s concerns about safe harbor provisions.

“Two years is too short, and the special vote to legislate within the safe harbor period, 60%, is too low, especially in a state that is heavily gerrymandered,” he said. “I think a 67% or two-thirds vote to override or to amend an initiated statute makes more sense.”

He also worries about the potential for “mischief” with the constitutional amendment.

“I would urge people to watch very carefully what is taking place to see whether the proponents are able to constrain themselves and stay with the statutory initiative, or whether they want to use this as a battering ram to attack the entire initiative process.”

Just that sort of trade off was recently floated in a Cleveland State Law Review article by Republican former state lawmaker Mark Wagoner.

Is bigger actually better?
Outside observers aren’t so sure about improving partisan representation through increasing the legislature.

“Gerrymanderers are going to gerrymander,” Turcer said with a chuckle, “and it doesn’t matter if the districts are big or small.”

She also noted the cost associated with renovating existing spaces or building new ones for 72 lawmakers’ offices and staff need to be clear at the front end.

That said, she thinks it’s an interesting idea with some potential benefits. Theoretically, smaller districts might be harder to successfully gerrymander. And she agreed it might open doors to office seekers who aren’t already wealthy and make lawmakers more responsive to constituents.

“This goes back to how do we keep the folks who we sent to the Statehouse focused on us? Those smaller districts could do that.”

Curtin lands in a similar place.

“In my view,” he said, “There’s nothing wrong with the size of the General Assembly, what’s wrong, of course, is extreme gerrymandering of the General Assembly.”

Ohio’s long dispute over how to draw political districts fairly caught the attention of several hobbyists, including Geoff Wise. His day job is research and development, but for fun, he runs analyses on redistricting proposals and has drafted a few maps of his own.

Wise knows better than most how demands like keeping communities whole and mirroring statewide preferences compete with another. He noted for Northeast Ohio in particular, limits on county splitting and the distribution of population are often very difficult to square.

Assuming districts were drawn to prioritize keeping communities together — and he’s quick to note Ohio’s maps aren’t there — making districts smaller would make them more proportional.

“You do get slightly more proportional the smaller those districts are. Now the analysis I’ve done shows that it’s a pretty small effect for the range of district sizes that he’s talking about.”

He added that even reducing districts to the size of precincts would benefit Republicans, because Democratic votes are more concentrated. And continuing in that vein, Wise explained there’s another tradeoff — as districts shrink, they get less competitive.

“As we get to smaller and smaller districts, I think you’ll represent people better but those maps aren’t going to be as competitive. You’re going to have more deep red and deep blue districts.”

“There’s really no magic bullet here,” he added.

Wise’s biggest concern, though, is contextual.

“I don’t think it’s going to make that much of a difference in the red-blue split,” he said. “And I think honestly it’s going to be viewed as a distraction, like instead of the state legislature working on fixing the fundamental problems in the current redistricting constitutional amendments, it’s saying let’s go off and work on this other thing that isn’t really that important.”

Reception
Blessing filed both proposals in the waning days of the last General Assembly, and neither really got a hearing. But he’s heard from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who’ve spoken favorably about the proposals. He’s hoping that now, there will more opportunity to talk over his ideas.

Ohio Capital Journal reached out to Senate President Rob McColley about Blessing’s ideas, and in a written statement his spokesman John Fortney sounded skeptical about adding new lawmakers.

“As is the case with taxpayer dollars,” he said, “throwing more of anything at an issue doesn’t automatically equal results, and often makes challenges more complex.”

And at least when it comes to expanding the legislature, Blessing could get a chilly reception in the Ohio House as well. Then-Senate President, and current House Speaker Matt Huffman threw cold water on the idea when it was first introduced, last November.

“I have not taken a look at it,” Huffman acknowledged to reporters, but added, “if the purpose of it is to address redistricting proportionality, you could add 5,000 more legislators and we’d still have the same fight. It’s the same set of issues — who’s making the decisions, what are the parameters, and how it’s made, but I don’t think increasing legislators will solve that problem.”

Across the aisle, Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio thinks Blessing might have the right diagnosis but that doesn’t necessarily mean she agrees with his prescription.

“Sen. Blessing’s resolutions address two fundamental issues facing Ohio,” she said in a written statement.

“While we will look into any proposals to make lawmakers more responsive to constituents, I continue to believe that the best way to do this is by creating fair district maps and ending gerrymandering in Ohio,” Antonio continued, reiterating her commitment to “making it easier for Ohioans to exercise their constitutional right to enact state law at the ballot box.”