Schwarzenegger backs Ohio's Issue 4 reform initiatives

Toledo Blade ^ | 10/21/05 | JIM TANKERSLEY

[J-Bro_in_Ohio]

Schwarzenegger backs Ohio's Issue 4 reform initiatives

A spokesman confirmed yesterday that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger supports Ohio's Issue 4, which would transfer the power to draw political boundaries from politicians to an independent commission if voters approve it Nov. 8.

Opponents of Issue 4 have accused Reform Ohio Now of pushing the measure - and three others on the fall ballot - to benefit Democrats politically. Democrats have called Proposition 77 in California a power-grab for Republicans.

[J-Bro_in_Ohio]

Isn't it pretty obvious from this that whomever has the power to redistrict (gerrymander) is not going to want reform, and the minority party is going to be in favor reguardless of what party it is. To gerrymander is to create a monopoly, and no monopoly is going to just crumble at request. It's obviously in the CURRENT best interests for the republican base to oppose Issue-4 in Ohio, just the same as it is for them to support Prop-77 in Ca. This is not a sure power-grab for democrats. It will only equal the playing field. If the tables should turn on the republicans, the dems will gerrymander the hell out of the districts. Republicans have MANY well known politicians throughout Ohio, and with gerrymander any can easily be taken out. We saw in the previous 2 Presidential elections that the state is divided fairly evenly. Gerrymandering in the dems favor will NOT be hard. That's why, as crazy as it sounds, I really think base republicans are better off voting for balance and conserving the politicians they have in power. If you read the actual amendments you'll see that in no way is this definitly going to hurt republicans. To be conservative, is to oppose change that endangers the good things we have. I think passing these measures will keep conservative values safer in the long run by assuring conservative seats on an equal playing field. Look at Iowa's system for example. They have a very similiar redistricting method (proposed by democrats) and they have the majority in all state and federal areas.

[Admin Moderator]

Please do not alter the published headlines of articles and also include full attribution. Thanks.

[Lunkhead_01]

There is no such thing as an independent commission if you think an independent commission means it is independent of politics. An independent commission is only independent of the state legislature, the state executive branch, and the voters. And an independent commission to redraw political boundaries may violate Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, ..." Taking elected representatives out of the drawing of voting districts clearly creates an entity which clearly interferes with, if not destroys, a republican form of government. But then I don't suppose a nation-wide socialist from Austria via California would give a damn about the U.S. Constitution.

[Faith]

With all due respect, I think the Governor needs to focus on his own state and leave Ohio politics to us Buckeyes.

[J-Bro_in_Ohio]

Obviously not independent as and "independent" minded person, but yes there are moderate. However, I agree that none of those will likely make on this bipartisan board. It specifically says that our state judges from each political party will choose the first two being different. Then they will select two, and the last must be approved by all.
It does NOT completely remove elected officials either.
The amendment as read from the link on their website (www.protectyourvote.com) states in Section-2-B-10: “No member of the commission may be removed during his or her term except for failure to meet the eligibility qualifications, gross misconduct, or inability to discharge the duties of office, and no removal of a member is effective unless it be directed by the governor with the concurrence of three-quarters of the senate.”
They have some power.
It's not illeagle, or Iowa & AZ wouldn't have already done it.

[strategofr]

"There is no such thing as an independent commission if you think an independent commission means it is independent of politics."

True. That is why I propose that redistricting be done via a computer program. Just a simple program, open source, to divide a state into geographically logical sections with equal population in each section. The program to be approved by the voters. With a Constitutional ammendment if necessary. These people are stealing away our democracy.

[hinckley buzzard]

So who are the members of this commission, and who picks them?

[J-Bro_in_Ohio]

That is a good idea worthy of looking into.
Actually real recently I was listening to a former Congressional candidate (Ben Knoop, 4th dist. vs. Oxley) talk about these reform issues, and he made the claim that he's seen software similiar to what you're describing, which is already used. However, It's not being used how you described. It's being used to gerrymander, and seeing how he was a democrat he's probably praying for the chance to use it so he can win a seat. It's hard to tell how credible his claims were and what his intensions of making them were. If you know what I mean.

[strategofr]

"It's being used to gerrymander,"

Yes, this is real.

The other would work, though.

The code would be published and discussed.

The hard part would be the political fight, not the code. Politicians hate this idea with a passion.

[J-Bro_in_Ohio]

According to the actual amendment:
Two judges are selected from the state district courts of appeals, one affiliated with republicans, one affiliated with democrats, and both having the most senority within their respective parties. They each nominate the first 2 members.
Those 2 members select the remaining 3 members: "one or all three of whom shall not be affiliated with any political party and no two of whom shall be affiliated with the same political party."
That makes it 2 republicans, 2 Democrats, and they have to pick a tie breaker whose "supposed" to be an independent.
The independent seems to be like a trying to find the right supreme court nominee. It still sounds like it will help take away some corruption (gerrymandering).
Nothing is going to be perfect. (See Section2-B-1 of admendment for full detail)

[J-Bro_in_Ohio]

Ahh, I didn't realize you ment the program would take into account the actual rules of keeping towns & townships together and only dividing areas so much (to keep them together).
Ya, when you put it that way, it does seem very possible.
I guess I was thinking of how they use it now (supposedly) to gerrymander, and just pick the areas they want, which isn't what you were saying.
There is something in the propsal that says any one who registers to submit a proposal can, and I think they have to consider it, so if there was a computer program that could follow the rules, it would be pretty damn hard to beat, giving it a hands down victory. I'd have to read that part of the admendment again though, so don't quote me on it.
It would be interesting to find out if Iowa uses something like this for their redistricting. I referenced it earlier, but it really does look much more "politically correct" if you look into it.

[Eepsy]

If Ohio republicans lose despite gerrymandering, I fail to see how gerrymandering will prevent dems from ever losing should they come into power.

I prefer giving the people of Ohio the decision as to who sets political districts, as opposed to an "independant" commission with powers rooted in a bill that, for all intents and purposes, has mainly been proposed and supported by out of state organizations.

[strategofr]

"There is something in the propsal that says any one who registers to submit a proposal can, and I think they have to consider it, so if there was a computer program that could follow the rules, it would be pretty damn hard to beat, giving it a hands down victory."

That would be great!

[Lunkhead_01]

It's not illeagle, or Iowa & AZ wouldn't have already done it.

Must be the avian flu. Assuming you just can't spell and that you meant "illegal" not "illeagle", I must conclude you do not understand our federalist system. State legislatures and the electorates of the states regularly approve measures that are unconstitutional. Just because a legislature or the electorate can pass a law does not mean the law they passed will pass constitutional muster. Until such laws are challenged -- and they cannot be challenged until the go into effect -- the federal courts cannot rule on the constitutionality of the law.

[Lunkhead_01]

Golly, doesn't anyone on FR have a freakin' spell checker?

And who will write the computer program?

[ElPatriota]

is the toledoblade.com... a homosexual newspaper? I know the "blade" is, so I suppose this is the 'Toledo edition'?if so, Yeachhh!

[strategofr]

"Golly, doesn't anyone on FR have a freakin' spell checker?"

Sorry.

[J-Bro_in_Ohio]

Yes, the toledo blade is a homosexual newspaper.
I frequently go to get my mail in the morning and find it tangled up with other toledoblades of the same sex!
It's frightening how the gay gene has enfected our media!
What we should have on our ballot is another amendment to prevent these papers from ever marrying, to protect the sanctity of marriage!

Also to answer someone else's reply, no I do not use spell check.

[J-Bro_in_Ohio]

I never said they will never lose if they get the power to gerrymander. They had it before and lost it.

I also never said it was an independent commission, actually if you read above I copied the text from the amendment describing how the "elected" politicans can remove a board member if they are out of line. So by no means are they independent.

Ohio First hasn't even named who their financial backers are (rumored to be out of state also), so how could anyone point fingers over that. Most, if not all of our politicians (on both sides) are funded by out of state organizations, so it's hard to give that any weight in my opinion.

Not to mention that regardless of who financed it, it still had enough Ohioan signatures to get it on the ballot. I don't know about you, but I sure can't afford to help put any measures on the ballot.

I'm not disregarding you point of view though, there's nothing wrong with winner take all. It's been gained and lost to opposing parties many times.
It only takes one party to win the Governer & sec. of state, and they can pretty much gerrymander all they want in the current system.

[Ohioan]

Ohio's internal political structure is none of California's business. It is not the business of the California Governor. Not the business of the people of Austria. Not the business of the Hollywood community or culture.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site