Thread by @KatyAShanahan

Hello from the Ohio Statehouse waiting for the (now) 4:30pm commission hearing to start and watching the tech folks figure out how to use Zoom for virtual testimony and dying a little inside thinking about how we should’ve had this all along 😭😵‍💫😭

How well timed - just realized I released this statement ONE YEAR AGO in conjunction with testifying on Rep. @brigidekelly’s HB55, which would’ve allowed for virtual testimony for all legislative hearings to #KeepDemocracyOpen and safe for all of us 😵‍💫🥴😵‍💫🥴

And *another* statement from me ONE YEAR AGO when we were already calling on legislators and Commissioners to immediately begin prep for our mapping process despite a census delay bc that would be necessary to get #FairMaps

😭😵‍💫😭😵‍💫😭😵‍💫😭

We've got DeWine, Faber, Sykes, Russo, and Huffman in the room at this point.

Waiting on Cupp and LaRose (the latter of whom I saw by the garage earlier, so I'm sure he'll be close behind)

Cupp's here - we've got 6 of 7 commissioners, so hopefully will start soon 😵‍💫

Hearing has come to order with all commissioners in person.

As a reminder for what we're looking for in map proposals are fair state legislative maps must reflect how we vote and the partisan makeup of our state meaning:

✅At least 45 D House seats

✅At least 15 D Senate seats

Cupp wants to make some additions to the minutes from the last meeting incl:

- Huffman's request for mappers to propose mult Franklin Co options

-Cupp's request for mappers to show maps to comm'ners at least 90 mins before hearings & giving mappers guidance after seeing them

Cupp's amendments to the minutes have been accepted.

Hearing now turns to the mappers for an update on their progress (from the looks of things, they've finished the House districts and nearly finished the Senate maps)

Mappers finished first pass of maps around 1am this morning and then came back to dig into details of those, compare versions, and to get started on finalizing Senate districts (which are made up of 3 whole House seats, hence them being drawn second)

Mappers have some questions and options to present to Comm'n today.

Cupp asking for printed copies of the draft maps because he can't follow along on the screens.

Will add that having printed maps also isn't entirely helpful to understand the impact of the new lines but 🤷‍♀️

Comm'n now standing at ease to (I think) get copies of the printed draft maps to the Comm'ners so they can follow along with the presentation on screens (where mappers can zoom in much more effectively on certain areas of the maps)

Perhaps a good reminder that the GOP has only ever shared PDF versions of their maps when they proposed them (sometimes just minutes/hours before adoption), which isn't an accessible way to understand their impact.

I find it more helpful to be able to zoom in on a screen but 🤷‍♀️

Particularly when you're talking about House seats in our most populous counties, I'd actually wager that it's impossible to even discern where lines are if you're just printing a whole statewide map.

But! People learn in different ways, so paper copies are coming soon.

It's perhaps also worth noting that the GOP almost never gave their Dem colleagues printed maps (and sometimes not even shape files - data behind the maps) 90 minutes before final votes took place.

Quick the shift to see GOP now demanding this from others 🤔

For example: our very first set of state legislative maps that were adopted were introduced at 10:45pm and then were voted on at 12:03am early the next morning.

No public viewing of those maps in anything other than PDFs and it was the Dems who even loaded them into Dave's 🥴

Anyway - while I'm absolutely here for presenting info in multiple diff ways to meet folks where they are, this also seems like a low-key stall tactic from the GOP at 4:50pm on a Saturday when (and this is my hazarding a guess) NO ONE WANTS TO BE HERE still fighting for #FairMaps

FWIW - here's how the current Ohio state House map looks as posted on the SOS site.

Can you - folks in Franklin, Cuyahoga, and Hamilton counties especially - understand how those districts impact your communities at a local or even street level?

Oopsie poopsie!

Sounds like the mappers DID, in fact, send their maps to Comm'ners on time - the staff just didn't print them out. Perhaps Cupp and Huffman need to have a chat with their staffers? 🤔

https://twitter.com/susantebben/status/1507822468756561921

For example, this is Faber’s Chief of Staff (who also LOL is the New Albany Mayor) holding printed out maps lolololol

Another staffer(?) said these might not be the most recent ones, but…they’re literally printed maps so obviously there’s a bit of a mix up 😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫

For the folks who love to talk about conflicts of interest, let's perhaps save for another day the fact that the state Auditor's Audit Division is in charge of auditing cities (like New Albany), so that the Mayor of NA is the state Auditor's chief of staff seems...dicey!!

And now Comm'n is back in order and the mappers will now give some updates on their progress.

Both have completed House maps with 45D seats & they're now working back & forth through mapping to compare where there are diffs or "decision points" about (eg) crossing county lines

McDonald says he's adopted Johnson's Lucas Co approach and vice versa for Hamilton Co to detail how they're working together to a) draw proportionally representational maps (per constitution requirement) and b) ensure competitive seats are split representatively btwn Rs/Ds

Mappers haven't gotten into more granular details on the Senate side - Johnson is still drawing his, McDonald hasn't done a huge deep dive to understand where there might be challenges on his own Senate map.

Quick break to welcome First Lady DeWine to the hearing room.

Sykes: How long will it take for you all to get to combined final maps for recommendation?

Johnson: Immediate next step is running second map through Senate to ensure no compliance issues. Should have one map later tonight.

Questions for Franklin:

Take spill over districts to Union County (where Dublin's second half is) or to Madison/Pickaway Counties.

My vote is Union (generally speaking), but would be nice for public to see map proposals in an accessible way, too, so we could weigh in!

Huffman detailing his suggestions for NE Ohio to comply with constitutional line drawing requirements and while, I guess, it's helpful...it's also important to remember his proposed maps have been struck down 3 times as being unconstitutional so...

"The Court made clear and I got scolded a little bit for protecting incumbents" - Huffman

lollll he got called tf out by the Court - by name - for clearly not understanding the meaning of the constitutional provisions, which BTW do not provide incumbent protections at all.

Huffman is now lecturing us about Senators elected in staggered terms whose terms end AFTER redistricting is over. Those Senators get to keep their *district numbers* they were elected under.

The Court made clear, however, that that doesn't mean they get incumbent protection.

By that I mean while they can't be drawn out of a seat (bc they get to serve out their terms), that's not a justification to gerrymander to ensure their seats are safe or more packed D/R for partisan gerrymandering purposes.

Maps should be tailored to the people, not politicians

What Huffman is suggesting the mappers do is quite literally what the Ohio Supreme Court JUST TOLD HIM WAS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL or how the provisions work under the reform Huffman himself helped author.

Cannot possibly capture the absolute rage I feel listening to him say this!

What Huffman is *now* discussing is literally number of the districts. Like debating which type of post it note to use when labeling dishes on a shelf. That's where we are at this point 😵‍💫

"It should be our goal, even though it's not the law" to protect incumbents. NOPE!

Mappers specifically DID NOT consider where incumbents live, which is actually IMPORTANT because our maps shouldn't be drawn to tailor to politicians; they should be drawn to represent THE PEOPLE.

Suggesting mappers now consider incumbents is exactly what Ct said was a no go!

Russo: It's too early to make these suggestions bc mappers just told us they're not even done drawing their maps. Also makes clear that considering incumbents as Huffman suggests would preserve the exact gerrymandering we're trying to get away from moving forward.

Say that!

Faber: I object to Russo entirely! Just bc we're trying to un-gerrymander the maps, Rs should still be protected.

I'm paraphrasing obviously, but this is the Rs' argument: we still want as many seats as possible despite what the constitution or Court says!

TO BE CLEAR it is an absolutely necessity that our new maps have FEWER Republicans because our current maps give them more seats than they win in votes.

In the Sen, Rs have 75% of the seats despite winning just 54% of the vote. To adopt #FairMaps means there HAVE to be fewer Rs

It is absolutely asinine to suggest that to un-rig our maps we should fuck over Ds just as much as we fuck over Rs bc otherwise that's mean! What new maps necessitate are seat numbers that reflect how OH votes.

THAT INHERENTLY MEANS DRAWING FEWER R SEATS!

Not that hard, folks!

In its last order striking down the 3rd maps, the Court LITERALLY said that drawing maps to favor incumbents was not constitutional nor what the law requires.

Know what is required? #FairMaps that reflect how we vote (which means fewer Rs - sorry!)

https://twitter.com/susantebben/status/1507832060593020939

Oh interesting, Huffman now chatting about how folks should be able to run for the offices they filed to run under - which was BEFORE our latest maps were adopted lol.

He's mad that Rs could get drawn out, but didn't care about drawing D candidates out of their seats in 3rd maps

Thank you, Sen @DrVernonSykes
for reminding us who really should be centered in these convos - the people.

Incumbents aren't due their seats. They EARN them through our votes under #FairMaps.

https://twitter.com/susantebben/status/1507833182158307332

Cupp now also saying it's important for mappers to avoid drawing incumbents together, so let me AGAIN say that to unrig our maps in Ohio INHERENTLY REQUIRES fewer Rs have seats.

That is, some of them HAVE to be drawn together. If Rs can't accept this, they should find other jobs

Sykes offered this convo to continue with a mediator. Russo agrees and adds that mappers should continue drawing their drafts so they can finish without this unnecessary hold up.

Huffman: Eh, how far down their track should they go if they're gonna change it later? 😑

Russo: Mappers can keep drawing maps and if we've got an agreement about adjustments that need to be made (like incumbent things) are secondary.

Sykes: Calls mediator up to podium, asks if they can work this out now or recess to debate more.

Mediator: We could do it right now or perhaps recess is better to resolve other issues that might pop up that are similar in nature, perhaps it makes sense to gather all sticking points and can move along meeting to chat about other issues at the end.

Back to Huffman for one more issue: Clarifying whether maps have been drawn on the individual mapper's computers and that there isn't a combined map that's been drawn.

Mappers reiterate that that's the case. Mappers also don't have that 3rd computer. 🥴🥴🥴🥴

McDonald: 2 areas of map that we haven't resolved significant issues and 1 minor issue

Minor issue: Within Franklin Co, similar looking districts but differ on border of Cbus that are just outside of competitiveness (52%+), so q is abt whether to make lines less compact

Russo: most map rules are about plan as a whole (not individ districts), so what's the overall impact?

McDonald: To try to bulletproof map from the Ct, should make these changes. Johnson disagrees, so need Comm'n weigh in.

Johnson: Even before change, the district is outside competitive range, so issue is about compactness.

Cupp: This is why we should see if any incumbents live there! (Uh...no. We shouldn't draw maps to tailor to incumbents!)

Faber here with a reminder that Comm'n is who's supposed to draw the maps, so really who cares about these independent mappers the Ct told y'all to hire to try to guide you in how to draw better maps that are actually constitutional.

ALSO will add THIS IS WHY PUBLIC INPUT IS KEY

Russo: Compactness rule is on equal level as no partisan gerrymandering rule per Constitution (Ct has backed that up 3 times!), but Faber has point about considering community impacts from line drawing (like is a school district cut in half).

Again! Public input! So key!

Huffman suggests the Comm'n didn't realize there was a proportionality rule and that's new to them per 3 Court orders and HONESTLY DID YOU READ THE CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE YOU HELPED WRITE?!?!

My god.

What the Court clarified in their last 2 opinions is that the Rs can't just give Dems 19 House/7 Sen seats that are toss ups and give Rs nothing but safe seats and call that #FairMaps

Johnson: clarify 50-52% is competitive?

Sykes: Comm'n hasn't resolved that yet

(fwiw 48-52%)

52.7 - 53.1

That's the difference we're talking about about the partisanship of ONE district somewhere in Franklin County but no one - not even Comm'ners - know what district we're talking about

🥴

McDonald: As general principal, when faced with districts to comply w Ct order when looking at symmetry issues (how many toss ups does each party looks at) do we just look at 48-52% competitiveness range?

Sykes: Going to add to mediation list.

Johnson: To get to symmetry, we are busting through compactness.

That's a problem bc constitution requires BOTH #FairMaps and also compact districts.

LaRose: Let's define competitiveness!

Me: 48-52%

LaRose now mischaracterizing court order:

Court order made clear that part of not favoring one party over the other includes ensuring you're not just stacking one party (Ds) with delegations half of which are toss ups that Rs could easily win.

That's not obscure, it's the law!

Faber: All the maps have more D competitive seats than R competitive seats. Plus, it looks like to get to 54-46 proportionality, you're gerrymandering FOR Dems. Again talks abt political geography.

ALL OF THIS IS BUNK. BS. MALARKEY. WRONG. 🤯

Our political geography does not justify gerrymandering.

Mappers haven't said anything about how many toss ups they have or which party has how many of them.

You can draw proportional maps that aren't gerrymandered.

McDonald: We've got other issues

1. We gave your staff maps and are working as hard as we can, but down to pt where in 48-52% range we've got agreement on maps with 3 D toss ups, 1 R toss ups (all 50-52%). Can we create 2 additional seats in that range to get to Ct's order?

On this point, my own opinion that that level of discrepancy (3D toss ups, 1 R toss up) is a VAST improvement on maps Rs passed with ZERO toss ups for them and 26 toss ups for Dems.

Now talking about Dayton area districts - McDonald paired Montgomery and Greene counties (with R toss up), Johnson paired Montgomery and Preble (with solid R seat)

FWIW - Montgomery-Greene makes more sense to me and could preserve Dayton/Springfield connection for Sen

Huffman: Doesn't seem aprop to opine on one district without context of entire map.

Sykes: You're making same point as Russo made earlier (lol women, familiar with that experience?) - let mappers finish and then we can come back to these issues.

McDonald: To consolidate the maps, we need issue resolution.

Sykes: We need time to talk this all out.

Comm'n now recessing for 1 hour to figure out where to take spill over of Montgomery Co (take to Preble/Darke or to Greene Counties)

😭😭😭

Faber: No recess. Court order was about 19-0 on toss ups (19D, 0R), but if you're talking about just 3D, 1R seats...we need to see whole map to understand overall impact.

I think I...agree...with this sentiment lol

Faber: Also, what is our plan? Are we trying to give public 24 hours before we vote on map? If so, we need to get a move on at this point. If we're going to have meaningful public comment, not sure how that's possible.

What's frustrating about Faber's suggestions here is that THIS IS WHY WE ASKED Y'ALL TO GET TO WORK 12 MONTHS AGO TO ENSURE YOU HAD TIME TO DO THIS WITH ADEQUATE PUBLIC INPUT MY GOD

DeWine: We need full maps.

Russo: Let them finish the maps so we can understand the combined proposal to use as our jumping off point for suggestions.

(FWIW, mappers could just draw a combined map and show different options for certain parts of the state...)

LaRose: If we don't want to talk about specific district, but could we at least come to general agreement on competitiveness as 48-52% and try to hit parity with D/R toss up seats and also 54-46% seat count.

This is a wild twist for me, but I agree w LaRose on this point!

Cupp: Why do competitive districts matter?

BC THAT IS WHAT IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VOTERS, BOB!

There are purple parts of our state and there should be purple districts to reflect that point. #FairMaps mean not just giving Ds all those toss up seats bc you hate democracy. 🤯

If I could yell this from the audience without getting kicked out, I'd repeat TPs that we have used for 13 months:

45D House, 15D Sen and AMONG THOSE competitive seats where representative to reflect swing parts of our state.

It really is not that GD hard this far into process

Just gonna repeat this bc, while I'm usually not one to agree w LaRose, he's right here. Cupp et al are making this WAY more complicated than it needs to be.

Agree on general parameters per Constitution, Ct order and GET OFF TO WORK!

https://twitter.com/KatyAShanahan/status/1507845803779321856

LaRose again correctly underscoring Court's latest order:

You can't stack just one party with all the toss ups, so draw maps that hit proportionality to match how we vote and then make sure Ds/Rs split toss up seats where representative of who lives there.

NOT. THAT. HARD.

Now talking about NE Ohio and (I think) Geauga and Cuyahoga County

Sykes: We'll let you keep working and then will have insight after either one or two combined maps.

Cupp: Want constant updates so we have most recent versions to consider

Mappers: We've been sharing w staff

Russo: One suggestion is to post this on the Comm'n website (YES PLEASE!) for public transparency.

Here for this suggestion, Rep @Russo4Ohio!

The people need to understand how our communities are impacted by these maps!

Sounds like Comm'n is about to recess/adjourn, so Faber trying to figure out timing for hearing and whether it'll be in person or virtual.

Faber: "We've shown virtual can work so well." *cue absolute internal rage at never allowing this for public*

Comm'n in recess until (maybe) 4pm tomorrow or whenever they decide to come back into order.

Mappers will keep mapping.

And I'm gonna go home and collapse.

Thanks for tuning in and fighting for #FairMaps!