Ohio Lawmakers Strike Unexpected Bipartisan Deal on New 15-District Congressional Map

Ohio’s Rare Bipartisan Victory: A Compromise Map Sets the Stage for Elections

In a highly unusual display of political cooperation on one of the nation’s most contentious issues—congressional redistricting—Ohio’s General Assembly reached a unanimous, bipartisan agreement in January 2022 to approve a new map for the state’s U.S. House districts. The deal, struck just before a critical deadline, resolved weeks of deadlock and intense legal pressure following the rejection of previous, heavily gerrymandered proposals.

This new map, which reduced the state’s representation from 16 to 15 districts following the 2020 Census, was designed to give the Republican Party a clear, though not overwhelming, advantage. Experts projected the map would likely yield a 10-5 partisan split in favor of the GOP.

For readers seeking to understand the dynamics of Ohio politics and the national fight over gerrymandering, this compromise is significant. It demonstrates the power of state constitutional reforms and judicial oversight in forcing political parties to negotiate, even if the resulting map still favors the majority party.

The Anatomy of the Unexpected Deal

Ohio’s redistricting process was fraught with conflict, characterized by legal challenges and repeated failures by the Ohio Redistricting Commission to produce a constitutional map. The ultimate breakthrough came when Republican leaders, facing the prospect of the Ohio Supreme Court imposing its own map, negotiated directly with Democratic leaders.

Key Features of the Approved Map:

• Total Districts: Reduced from 16 to 15 due to population shifts identified in the 2020 Census.
• Expected Split: Projected to be 10 Republican seats and 5 Democratic seats.
• Vote: The map was approved unanimously by the General Assembly, a requirement that typically signals a 10-year map under Ohio’s constitutional rules, though the context of the compromise suggested it was a necessary stopgap to avoid court intervention.
• Duration: The map was intended to govern the state’s congressional elections for the subsequent cycles, replacing the previous map that had resulted in a 12-4 Republican advantage (out of 16 seats).

This 10-5 split represented a significant concession by the GOP, whose earlier proposals had aimed for a far more aggressive 13-2 or 12-3 advantage, which would have maximized their political power far beyond their statewide vote share.

The Pressure of Constitutional Reform and Judicial Review

Ohio has been a central battleground in the national fight against partisan gerrymandering. In 2018, Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment designed to curb the practice. This amendment established specific criteria for drawing congressional maps, emphasizing compactness and requiring that maps not unduly favor or disfavor one political party or its incumbents.

Crucially, the amendment mandated that if the General Assembly failed to pass a map with at least 60% support (including at least half of the minority party members), the map would only be valid for four years, instead of the standard ten. This provision was designed to force genuine bipartisan compromise.

Why Compromise Was Necessary

Prior to this deal, the Ohio Supreme Court—led by a Republican majority that included Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor—had repeatedly rejected maps drawn by the Republican-dominated Redistricting Commission, ruling they violated the state constitution’s anti-gerrymandering provisions. This judicial pressure created an existential crisis for the legislature, which faced the possibility of having no map ready for the upcoming primary elections.

“This map is a compromise,” stated Republican House Speaker Bob Cupp at the time of the vote, acknowledging the political necessity of the deal. “It is a map that is constitutional, and it is a map that will stand.”

Democratic leaders, while still viewing the 10-5 split as disproportionate to the state’s political makeup, accepted the deal as the best possible outcome under the circumstances, viewing it as a victory for the constitutional reforms.

Implications and Future Legal Challenges

The passage of the 10-5 map marked a temporary end to the immediate crisis, allowing election officials to proceed with the primary schedule. However, the map’s long-term fate remained uncertain, as voting rights and Democratic groups immediately signaled their intent to challenge the map in court.

The Partisan Fairness Test

While the 10-5 map was less extreme than previous proposals, critics argued it still failed the test of partisan fairness. Ohio’s statewide elections often show a closer split, typically around 55% Republican to 45% Democratic. A 10-5 map gives Republicans 66% of the seats, significantly exceeding their average statewide vote share.

Voting Rights Advocates argued that while the compromise avoided the most egregious gerrymandering seen in earlier drafts, it did not fully comply with the spirit of the 2018 constitutional amendments, which aimed for maps that reflected the state’s political balance more closely.

The key argument centered on the definition of “unduly favoring” a party. Advocates contended that a map should ideally produce a split closer to 9-6 or even 8-7, reflecting the state’s competitive nature.

Key Takeaways: Understanding the Ohio Redistricting Saga

The Ohio congressional map compromise is a crucial case study in how judicial oversight can influence political outcomes, even in highly partisan environments. It highlights the tension between political self-interest and constitutional mandates.

• Rare Bipartisanship: The unanimous vote was highly unusual for a redistricting bill, demonstrating the intense pressure lawmakers faced to meet the deadline and avoid judicial intervention.
• Reduced GOP Advantage: The final 10-5 map represented a retreat from the extreme 12-3 and 13-2 gerrymanders previously sought by Republicans.
• Constitutional Impact: The process validated the effectiveness of Ohio’s 2018 anti-gerrymandering amendment, which empowered the state Supreme Court to reject unconstitutional maps.
• Ongoing Conflict: Despite the legislative agreement, the map faced immediate legal scrutiny, ensuring that the fight over fair representation in Ohio would continue in the courts.

Conclusion

Ohio’s successful, albeit contentious, passage of a new 15-district congressional map in early 2022 provided a temporary resolution to a major political crisis. By agreeing to a 10-5 split, lawmakers prioritized having a functional map over maximizing partisan gain, a decision driven primarily by the looming threat of judicial intervention. While the map still favored the GOP, it set a precedent that future redistricting efforts must adhere more closely to the constitutional requirements for fairness and compactness, demonstrating that even in highly polarized states, compromise can be forced when the rule of law is rigorously applied.