|
REAPPORTIONMENT:
DOES IT HELP TO HAVE THE PEN?
In 2004, elections took place in all even-numbered Ohio Senate districts.
These were the first elections to occur following the 2001 reapportionment
process in these 16 reconfigured districts. As a result, we can now
measure the partisan changes that occurred in the General Assembly post-apportionment
and try to answer the question of whether or not the GOP actually benefited
from controlling the process and having drawn the lines.
Though many factors – the economy, the quality of the candidates,
the availability of financial and other resources, etc. – contribute
to the ultimate outcome in each individual district, the political makeup
of the districts is clearly significant, or the parties wouldn’t
be so focused on capturing a majority of the Apportionment Board.
The 2001 reapportionment was the fourth to occur since the current Article
XI of the Ohio Constitution, which prescribes the manner in which legislative
districts shall be drawn and created the Apportionment Board to draw
them, was adopted in 1967. In each of the previous three, the party
that had a majority on the Apportionment Board added to the number of
seats it held in the House in the subsequent election, but had mixed
results in increasing its numbers in the Senate.
OHIO HOUSE
On
the House side, the party that drew the lines saw an immediate increase
in its numbers in every post-reapportionment election. Though the average
increase was more than seven seats, it’s also clear that the fewer
seats the party controlled before reapportionment, the larger were that
party’s gains. So, the three seats the House GOP netted in 2002
was in line with historical precedent.
OHIO SENATE
With
only half the Senate up every two years, the full effect of reapportionment
on the Senate can only be measured after two election cycles. By then,
the existence of so many other variables makes drawing conclusions difficult.
However, only the post-1971 reapportionment results demonstrate any
significant change. In each of the other three decades, there was essentially
no impact.
The net pickup by the GOP of one Senate seat following the 2001 reapportionment
is the first time the party that drew the lines actually increased its
numbers since 1971 – and the redrawn districts no doubt were a
significant, perhaps the most significant, factor in this partisan shift.
The district that resulted in this shift was the 17th district, which
went Republican with the 2002 victory of Sen. John Carey (R-Wellston)
over then-incumbent Sen. Mike Shoemaker (D-Bourneville). The addition
of significant Republican-leaning territory like Clinton, Fayette, and
Highland Counties helped draw Sen. Carey into the race, and he drew
62 percent of the vote in these three counties.
RUMORS
PUT TO REST: GOV. TAFT APPOINTS BRADLEY, JOHNSON
In the last issue of The Political Edge (Nov. 23, 2004), we discussed
the speculation surrounding who Gov. Bob Taft might tap to become Ohio’s
next lieutenant governor, should he choose to appoint incumbent Lt.
Gov. Jeannette Bradley to the soon-to-be-vacant position of State Treasurer.
The rumor was that he might select U.S. Rep. Rob Portman to succeed
Bradley and then, at a later date, resign himself in order to join the
Bush administration in some capacity. Such a series of moves would result
in Rep. Portman ultimately becoming governor and, in the process, potentially
head-off a looming three-way battle royale for the GOP gubernatorial
nomination in 2006.
Earlier this month, Gov. Taft appeared to put an end to these rumors
by denying any interest whatsoever in working in Washington, D.C. and
stating that he fully intends to serve out the remaining two years of
his term. Then, yesterday, he ended them altogether. While he did tab
Lt. Gov. Bradley to succeed outgoing State Treasurer Joe Deters, he
then replaced her, not with Rep. Portman, but rather with Ohio Department
of Development Director Bruce Johnson.
While these maneuvers perhaps give Treasurer-to-be Bradley a leg up
on any potential GOP primary challengers, they mean the long-expected
battle between Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, Auditor Betty Montgomery,
and Attorney General Jim Petro is likely inevitable. The May 2, 2006
primary is now just 496 days away. Let the games begin!
NEW
VOTERS LEAVE COURT BALLOTS BLANK
The Ohio Chamber and the business community can and should take ample
pride in our 2004 get-out-the-vote efforts, which contributed to a surge
in overall voter turnout in the state, the successful election of all
three Ohio Supreme Court candidates endorsed by the Ohio Chamber of
Commerce Political Action Committee and, at least indirectly, the capture
of the state’s 20 electoral votes by Pres. George W. Bush.
However, the surge in turnout – there were in excess of 900,000
more votes cast in 2004 than in 2000 and almost 2.4 million more than
in 2002 – also reversed a favorable trend that had seen ballot
fall-off in Supreme Court races drop in three successive election cycles.
Ballot fall-off is a comparison between the number of votes cast in
a Supreme Court race compared with the number cast for whatever office,
be it president or governor, that is at the top of the ballot in a given
year.
It was with the publication of the first P.a.C.E. Business Evaluation
of the Ohio Supreme Court in 1995 that the Ohio Chamber began the process
of educating businesses about the impact the high court’s decisions
were having on our economic climate and the subsequent need to change
the composition of the court.
In the elections of 1996, ballot fall-off was almost 25 percent, i.e.
one-in-four voters that voted that year for president didn’t vote
in the races for Ohio Supreme Court. Following seven years of intense
effort and organization by the business community, that number dropped
to a low of just nine percent in 2002.
This year, ballot fall-off jumped back up to 23 percent. The chart below
shows ballot fall-off in Ohio Supreme Court elections dating back to
1980.
While
the 2004 elections may well have been an anomaly in terms of voter turnout,
it is clear that, despite the successes business-supported Ohio Supreme
Court candidates have had in the last two elections, the need to continue
to educate Ohioans about the role and importance of the court has not
diminished.
DEMOCRATS
SCORE BIG VICTORIES AT APPEALS COURT LEVEL
In our October 23, 2003 issue of The Political Edge, we examined how
Ohio’s courts of appeals serve as the “farm team” feeding
the Ohio Supreme Court. Of the 100 candidates who were on the General
Election ballot running for the Supreme Court between 1968 and 2004,
a total of 53 had appeals court experience.
Beyond the fact that they are prime breeding grounds for Ohio Supreme
Court candidates, the appeals courts are important to Ohio businesses.
They’re important because court of appeals judges issue rulings
that often set precedents the Supreme Court adopts in its opinions.
Ohio Courts of Appeals have appellate review jurisdiction of judgments
from common pleas, county, and municipal courts, as well as from the
Board of Tax Appeals. They also have original jurisdiction in select
cases.
Ohio has 12 district courts of appeals encompassing a total of 68 judges.
In 2004, there were elections for 26 of the 68 seats, and 16 of these
were uncontested. Though Republican judges won 16 of the 26, including
seven of the ten contested races, Democrats still managed to score a
net pickup of four seats. The GOP now controls 38 of the 68 seats, down
from 42 previously.
Democrats captured open seats formerly held by Republicans in the Sixth
District (which includes Lucas County and seven other counties in northwestern
Ohio) and in the Eighth District (Cuyahoga County). They also knocked
off two incumbents. In the Eighth District, Mary Eileen Kilbane defeated
Judge Michael J. Corrigan, who was seeking his second term. Kilbane
prevailed with 55 percent of the vote. In the Ninth District (which
includes Lorain, Medina, Summit, and Wayne Counties), Carla Moore ousted
appointed Judge Edna Boyle in a three-way race by capturing 47%. Boyle
was appointed earlier this year by Gov. Bob Taft to fill a vacancy.
Republicans now have majorities in seven of the 12 districts. Democrats
captured the majority on the five-member Sixth District Court of Appeals
with William Skow’s open seat victory. Moore’s victory in
the Ninth District means she will be the only Democrat on that five-member
court. Republicans still hold all of the seats in the Third, Fourth,
and Twelfth Districts.
|
