Majority can end gerrymandering

   The political game of gerrymandering is almost as old as our great nation. It goes back to Elbridge Gerry, while he was governor of Massachusetts in 1812.

   "Gerrymandering" was a word derived from "Gerry" and a snaky salamander, and used to describe an election district formed not of common sense, but of unfair political advantage.

   Ohio voters have long endured a disservice by our elected officials when it comes to the political art of gerrymandering. The Ohio Senate is attempting to change this. But this attempt, by the Republican-controlled Senate may be considered by some observers as much politics as gerrymandering itself. Republicans could have ended gerrymandering in Ohio a decade ago, prior to the 2000 census. They controlled the General Assembly, the governor's office and the Supreme Court.

   Instead of doing the right thing then and drawing Ohio's legislative and congressional districts in a fair manner, based on population and a reasonable comprehension of geography, the Republican Party majority played politics. (Which explains Highland County's inclusion in the Third Congressional District) and former Congressman Ted Strickland's Ohio River Houseboat District.

   I recall sitting in the Ohio Republican Party headquarters a decade ago and committing the cardinal sin of asking why Highland County was in the Third District. "We created a district for Dayton Mayor Mike Turner," was the response. Everyone chuckled. (Well, almost everyone.)

   Never mind that Highland County, which was in the old Sixth Congressional District prior to the 2000 census, had less in common in the new Third District than it had in either the Second District or Sixth.

   This was all about a strategic stacking of the votes for a pre-determined candidate. This isn't meant to disparage the candidate, but to reveal the
political thought process.

     On Sept. 25, the Ohio Senate approved Senate Joint Resolution 5, a proposed constitutional amendment sponsored by State Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering, that would change Ohio's apportionment and redistricting system.

    As Sen. John Carey recently wrote, "SJR 5 would establish a seven-member commission, including the governor, the secretary of state, the auditor of state, the Senate president, the speaker of the House, the minority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the House, which would be responsible for drawing legislative and congressional districts. Importantly, to minimize partisanship and bring more balance and fairness to the process, a five-vote supermajority would be required for any redistricting plan to pass and two of the votes would have to come from the minority party on the board."

   The plan does, indeed, have its merits. It also reminds me of a similar plan introduced by the Democratic minority 10 years ago. Why is it that it's always the minority party that wants to reform gerrymandering tactics? I think we all know the answer to that one.

   The only possible chance for real redistricting reform is for the majority party to step up and do the right thing. I'd entertained false hope that the GOP would do this 10 years ago. The Democrats now have their chance. Will they rise to the challenge or play politics as usual?

   One more thing. A week or two ago, three Highland County Press columnists, Bill Horne, Gary Lewis and the Old Ridgerunner were discussing redistricting.

   We all agreed that it can be done fairly and easily by any first-year college math student ­ or a computer software program. Start at the northwest corner of the state and move down and over, using variables of population and distance, and divide the state into fair and balanced legislative districts.

   It can be done. But only if the majority party has the guts to do it.

***

   Having attended my share of school board, city council and county commission meetings for the past two decades, it's always interesting to see how the elected officials handle adversity. Some do it pretty well; others do not.

   Last Wednesday, two of Highland County's three commissioners faced the unenviable challenge of being asked for additional funds for the county's Children Services department. (This request, by the way, came on the heels of the commission seeking additional across-the-board funding cuts from other departments.)

   With four representatives from the agency seated across from commissioners Gary Heaton and Shane Wilkin, and given the agency's dire need for money to pay its foster parents until the new levy money is realized, the scene could easily have become quite adversarial.

   That it did not is a testament to not only Commissioners Heaton and Wilkin, but also to Children Services Executive Director Wendy Jacobs, and board members Arlene Cole, Chris Lewis and Darrell Tissot.

   While approximately an hour of discussion did not provide the commission's commitment to more dollars (dollars it doesn't have at the moment), at no point did either side become overly disagreeable or disrespectful. It was, frankly, a good exchange of dialogue on a very important and delicate issue: How to provide for the well-being of the county's foster children.

   Granted, taxpayers did come through with the passage of the Children Services levy. However, between now and the end of this year, the agency will struggle to pay its foster parents.

   If you are able to assist the agency in any way as it tries to cope through the rest of 2009, please call 393-3111.