How The Election Will Change Ohio's City Planning and Voting
Addressing the future of Ohio's political landscape with the failure of Issue 1
After conservatives gerrymandered the ballot itself to be confusing to voters on purpose, Ohio's Issue 1 failed to pass in the election this past week, and there will be lasting ramifications to Ohio’s democracy in the future. Let’s talk about it.
This proposed constitutional amendment, known as the "Citizens Not Politicians Amendment," aimed to reform how Ohio's legislative and congressional districts are drawn by replacing the current system—which allows politicians to control redistricting—with a 15-member Citizens Redistricting Commission. The commission would have included equal representation from Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, with a goal of reducing partisan gerrymandering and increasing transparency in the redistricting process. Supporters argued that Issue 1 would promote fairer representation and prevent elected officials from creating districts that unfairly benefit one party. However, opponents, including prominent Republicans and business organizations, contended that the measure would be costly and potentially lead to instability in Ohio’s political landscape. Some saw it as a "Democratic takeover" of the redistricting process, which certainly influenced constituents against the amendment.
The state will continue using its current redistricting system, which allows elected officials—largely the state legislature and redistricting commission controlled by the majority party—to draw voting district boundaries. This outcome preserves the power of politicians to influence district lines, a process that has faced criticism for partisan gerrymandering and lack of transparency. Since Ohio is one of the most gerrymandered states, this decision means that the current, highly partisan district maps will likely remain in place for now, reinforcing entrenched party power in certain areas.
Future of Planning
The failure of Ohio’s Issue 1 to establish a nonpartisan redistricting commission will indirectly affect city planning by reinforcing political divides that influence resource allocation, funding priorities, and regional development strategies. When legislative and congressional districts are heavily gerrymandered, the political priorities of elected officials often reflect the interests of their party or base rather than the broader needs of diverse urban, suburban, and rural communities. For Ohio, this could mean that city planning decisions—such as those related to housing, transportation, infrastructure, and environmental concerns—are increasingly shaped by partisan priorities, potentially leaving some regions or communities underserved.
Gerrymandered districts can also affect the distribution of state funds for local projects. With partisan lines determining which areas receive attention, some cities or regions may struggle to secure funding for essential projects if they are represented by officials with different political agendas. This can lead to uneven development, where some districts see accelerated growth and infrastructure investment, while others lag. For instance, urban areas may prioritize public transit and affordable housing, while rural or suburban areas may have different priorities like road expansion or agriculture-related funding. When district lines are manipulated to favor one party, these needs can be overshadowed by partisan goals, rather than by balanced development that meets the needs of all communities.
The broader implications of gerrymandering also include reduced inter-district cooperation, as representatives of highly polarized districts may feel less inclined to collaborate across party lines. This lack of collaboration will impede coordinated city planning efforts, especially for large-scale projects like regional transit systems, environmental protections, or statewide economic initiatives that require bipartisan support. In the long term, Ohio’s city planning may struggle to address critical, interconnected issues like climate resilience, equitable housing, and modern infrastructure if districts are drawn to maintain partisan control rather than foster representative, cooperative governance.
The failure of Issue 1 in Ohio highlights the impact of partisan redistricting on various levels of governance. By maintaining gerrymandered districts, Ohio risks fostering a political landscape that prioritizes party objectives over balanced development and representative urban planning. If unaddressed, this could result in cities and regions with underfunded and uneven infrastructure, reduced inter-district collaboration, and a city planning process that is more influenced by political agendas than by the comprehensive needs of Ohio’s diverse communities.
Ohio’s Democracy in Danger
For Ohio's future elections, this could mean continued challenges in achieving fair representation, as critics argue that the existing system favors incumbents and reduces electoral competitiveness. This may lead to fewer contested races, particularly in districts designed to secure one party's dominance. Advocates for reform may keep pushing for redistricting changes, whether through new ballot initiatives or legal challenges, especially as Ohio's Supreme Court has previously ruled against certain district maps that were deemed overly partisan. The debate around redistricting reform is likely to persist in Ohio, with voters and advocacy groups potentially working toward another opportunity to push for independent redistricting measures in future elections.
The failure of Issue 1 in Ohio has significant implications for the future of democracy in the state, as it perpetuates a system where elected officials control the redistricting process, often resulting in heavily gerrymandered districts. This entrenched system can damage democratic representation in several ways.
Gerrymandered districts are designed to favor one party, often creating "safe seats" where incumbents face little to no competition. This setup can disincentivize competitive races, which are crucial for a vibrant democracy, as they hold politicians accountable to their constituents. Without real electoral competition, representatives may feel less pressure to respond to their communities' needs and interests. When politicians control redistricting, they manipulate district boundaries to dilute the voting power of certain groups, more often than not along partisan or racial lines. This undermines the principle of "one person, one vote," which is central to fair representation in a democratic system. Ohio’s current districts, ruled unconstitutional multiple times for favoring one party, reveal how gerrymandering can skew representation, making it difficult for the state legislature to reflect the actual political preferences of Ohio's population. The perception that elected officials can essentially choose their voters by designing favorable districts erodes public trust. When constituents feel that the electoral system is "rigged" to favor incumbents or a particular party, they may become disengaged, seeing little point in voting. A disengaged electorate weakens democracy because it reduces civic participation, making it easier for special interests to dominate political decisions and policymaking. Gerrymandered districts often lead to increased political polarization. Representatives from "safe" districts have less incentive to compromise, as they are more likely to cater to the extremes of their party rather than the broader population. This reduces the likelihood of bipartisan cooperation, making it difficult to address critical state issues that require cross-party collaboration. Over time, this polarization will create gridlock, preventing effective governance and stifling policy innovation.
By allowing politicians to retain control over redistricting, Ohio's current system undermines the democratic ideals of fair representation, accountability, and trust. Without reform, the state may continue to see low voter engagement, increased political polarization, and a government that is less responsive to the will of its people—outcomes that collectively weaken democracy in Ohio.
Failed Issues Nationwide
Failed redistricting reforms have become common across the United States, as recent efforts in states like North Carolina, Washington, and Illinois illustrate. In North Carolina, an independent commission initially helped create a fairer map, only to see it dismantled by the state’s new conservative Supreme Court majority. The revised map favors Republicans heavily, likely giving them a substantial majority despite the state's nearly even political split, highlighting the power of single-party control to override independent or judicially created maps. This shift means that, moving forward, redistricting reform faces challenges in states where single-party dominance allows manipulation of district boundaries for political gain.
Washington State also provides an example where efforts to balance representation fell short. Despite attempts to address the Latin community’s needs in Yakima Valley, a compromise map was created that split this community across districts, leading to a federal lawsuit. The case, which was ultimately dismissed, highlighted the limitations of independent commissions when partisan interests resist equitable redistricting.
These examples suggest that achieving fair representation through redistricting reform remains difficult, as political interests frequently resist change. For Ohio, this means that without reforms, political gerrymandering will likely continue to undermine democratic representation, creating a less responsive political environment.
What’s Next?
To combat partisan redistricting and gerrymandering and achieve fairer representation, several approaches have shown promise. Here are some strategies I implore our readers to be mindful and aware about in the future.
Independent redistricting commissions, despite failing here in Ohio, have been successful before. As adopted in states like California and Michigan, remove politicians from the map-drawing process and create boundaries through an independent, bipartisan or multi-partisan group. Although not without challenges, these commissions have been effective in reducing partisan bias in redistricting. Citizens must push for these reforms through ballot initiatives or pressure on their legislatures.
Challenging the courts has increasingly become a battleground for redistricting reform, with lawsuits focusing on extreme gerrymandering practices as violations of the state or federal constitution. North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Maryland have all seen success through court interventions. Residents in states with egregious gerrymanders can support or bring forward litigation to challenge unfair maps, although this often depends on the political makeup of the courts.
Legislation like the Freedom to Vote Act includes provisions against extreme partisan gerrymandering and proposes standards for fair maps nationwide. Supporting federal reform could establish uniform rules across all states, preventing gerrymandering from becoming a means to solidify power indefinitely. Pushing for this type of national policy change would help create a baseline standard for fair representation.
Gerrymandering often discourages voter turnout by making elections feel less competitive. By educating voters about the impact of gerrymandering and encouraging turnout even in “safe” districts, citizens can push back against the effects of manipulated maps. Higher voter turnout and active engagement can sometimes overcome the advantages created by gerrymandered districts.
Grassroots activism, public protests, and social campaigns have effectively pressured some states to reconsider or modify their gerrymandered maps. Increased awareness and media coverage of gerrymandering can also create political costs for those who support unfair maps, encouraging leaders to adopt more democratic redistricting methods.
If the practice of partisan redistricting, or gerrymandering, continues to shape the political landscape, the future of representative democracy in the United States may face significant challenges. Gerrymandering entrenches single-party power by drawing district lines that minimize electoral competition, making it difficult for incumbents to be unseated. This can lead to a political environment where elected officials are less responsive to the needs of their constituents and more beholden to party extremes. As politicians focus on satisfying their base rather than the broader electorate, legislative polarization deepens, making it harder to find common ground on pressing issues, from healthcare and climate policy to education reform.
In addition, gerrymandering reduces voter engagement, as many citizens feel that their votes do not count. When district lines predetermine election outcomes, voters in non-competitive districts may be less motivated to participate, leading to lower turnout and decreased political engagement. Over time, this erosion of voter trust can weaken the democratic fabric of the country, as fewer people feel represented by their government. Persistent gerrymandering also reduces the effectiveness of grassroots movements and advocacy groups, as these groups may struggle to build influence in safe districts dominated by one party.
To combat these outcomes, reform efforts focus on independent redistricting commissions, legal challenges, federal standards, and public awareness campaigns. These efforts aim to restore fairness in the electoral process by promoting competitive districts that encourage politicians to respond to their constituents rather than party leaders. For Ohio and other states with recent redistricting battles, such reforms would ensure that district maps reflect the diversity of voters' preferences, rather than artificially engineered majorities that undermine the democratic process.
Without redistricting reform, the future of democracy risks becoming increasingly polarized and unrepresentative, as gerrymandering solidifies partisan control and reduces voter engagement. To ensure fair representation, efforts to remove political influence from map-drawing processes are essential, allowing democracy to more accurately reflect the will of the people.
In the meantime, let us know what you think about the situation, and read more about the issue not passing here.