From Unity to Conflict: How Ohio's Redistricting Promises Fell Apart

Ohio’s Redistricting Process: A Shift from Bipartisanship to Partisan Control

In May 2018, Ohio voters approved a new process for redrawing congressional districts. This decision was hailed by both Republican and Democratic sponsors as a step toward ending gerrymandering and ensuring bipartisan cooperation. The proposal was seen as a victory for fair representation, with the Democratic sponsor, then-state Sen. Vernon Sykes of Akron, stating that partisan motives would no longer determine the shape of district lines.

However, seven years later, the promise of bipartisan collaboration has largely faded. Instead, Republicans are preparing to pass new maps that could secure them 12 or even 13 of Ohio’s 15 U.S. House seats in the upcoming election cycle. This shift marks a significant departure from the expectations set by the original redistricting amendment.

How the Redistricting Process Works

Under the 2018 constitutional amendment, the Ohio General Assembly is required to pass new congressional district lines by the end of September. This requires at least 60% support in both the House and Senate, as well as half of the minority party (Democrats) to approve. If this deadline is missed, the Ohio Redistricting Commission — composed of five Republicans and two Democrats — will have until October 30 to propose a bipartisan plan. If they fail, Republicans can proceed unilaterally by November 30.

The state constitution outlines specific rules for any redistricting plan, including compactness, contiguity, and population equality. However, if the process extends into November, the requirements become more lenient, allowing lawmakers to focus on "attempting" to draw compact districts without strict adherence to fairness.

Why the Promise Has Not Been Fulfilled

Despite the initial optimism, the current process has not delivered on its promises. In 2021, the GOP-passed maps were implemented without any Democratic support, following an overturned Supreme Court ruling that deemed them unconstitutional. Now, Republicans are expected to push through another map that could significantly boost their chances in the next election.

Experts and activists involved in the 2018 reform suggest that the amendment may have contained loopholes that allowed Republicans to maintain control over the process. Some argue that the reform was a “Trojan horse,” designed to appear fair but ultimately enabling gerrymandering.

Political Polarization and Pressure

Since 2018, political polarization has increased, making compromise less appealing to both parties. Current Ohio lawmakers face pressure from their respective parties to avoid concessions, especially in a state where few legislative districts are competitive. This dynamic has made it difficult for either party to engage in meaningful collaboration.

President Donald Trump has also encouraged GOP lawmakers to aggressively gerrymander districts to strengthen their majority in 2026. Meanwhile, some blue states are looking to create more Democratic-leaning seats. This national trend adds to the pressure on Ohio lawmakers to prioritize partisan gains over bipartisan solutions.

The Role of Power and Incentives

Political science professors note that the current system gives the party in power significant influence over redistricting. With the penalty for passing a one-party map being only four years instead of 10, some Republicans may see this as an incentive to redraw maps more frequently.

Tom Sutton, professor emeritus of political science at Baldwin Wallace University, argues that the original expectation of bipartisan cooperation was naive, particularly in today’s polarized environment. He suggests that both parties would act similarly if they held power, as maintaining and expanding their majority becomes a priority.

Conclusion

While there is still a possibility of a bipartisan agreement, the current political climate makes such an outcome unlikely. The dynamics of power and the incentives within the redistricting process continue to favor the party in control. As Ohio moves forward, the question remains whether the system can be reformed to ensure fair representation or if partisan interests will continue to dominate the process.