Ohio Redistricting Commission
Tuesday, September 14, 2021 – Columbus
Testimony of OEA President Scott DiMauro
Co-Chairs Cupp and Sykes and distinguished members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission:
My name is Scott DiMauro. I am a high school social studies teacher from Worthington. It is also my honor to serve as the President of the Ohio Education Association. On behalf of OEA and our 120,000 members, thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I’d like to address the maps adopted by the Commission for consideration and the process thus far.
When I testified in Dayton last month, I had a spirit of cautious optimism. I said that through this redistricting process Ohio has a chance to serve as example to the country. You could put partisanship aside and listen to the will of the people. By working together and compromise you could rise to the occasion and produce fair, representative districts.
I don’t have that same sense of optimism today. Last Thursday, you adopted the maps under consideration on a party-line vote. They were unveiled earlier that day, produced by legislative staffers of the majority party. There was no bipartisan engagement. The maps heavily favor the party in power. It was as if 71% of Ohio voters hadn’t supported a change in the Constitution. It was business as usual. This is wholly unacceptable.
The voters of Ohio have given you an assignment. The Constitutional amendment calls for the statewide proportion of districts favoring each political party correspond closely with the statewide preferences of the voters. It also requires that the plan comply with federal law, such as the Voting Rights Act. These provisions of the Constitution are not “aspirational.” They are not optional. They are not for extra credit. They are fundamental to the change that we voted for. This feels like a bait and switch.
As others have noted, the citizen-produced maps that won the Fair Districts mapping competition outperformed the maps being considered on key metrics of limiting the number of splits of political subdivisions, compactness, competitiveness, and minority representation. They merit the consideration of this Commission. I particularly appreciate that Pranav Padmanabhan’s proposal attempted to keep school districts intact as a way of prioritizing keeping communities of interest within legislative districts.
When voters approved Issue 1 in 2015, one of the committee co-chairs said, “Obviously there’s a lot of skepticism about government, but if you work these issues through and get everybody involved, you can solve some of these issues.” That bright-eyed optimist was none other than current Commission member Senator Matt Huffman. At Thursday’s hearing several members of the Commission stated they wanted a 10-year bipartisan agreement. They were willing to put in the work to make it happen.
As I stated when I last testified, anything less than a bipartisan agreement and a ten-year map would be a failure of leadership. The voters of Ohio voted for change. We want an end to partisan gerrymandering and business as usual. We demand fair maps. As you know, time is running out.
Thank you for your time and attention
Click here to download the submitted testimony as a pdf document
Ohio Redistricting Commission
Tuesday, August 24, 2021 – Dayton
Testimony of OEA President Scott DiMauro
Co-Chairs Cupp and Sykes and distinguished members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission:
My name is Scott DiMauro. I am a high school social studies teacher from Worthington. It is also my honor to serve as the President of the Ohio Education Association. On behalf of OEA and our 120,000 members, thank you for the opportunity to address you today.
The work done by this Commission will have a large impact and a lasting effect. Since the last maps were drawn, Ohioans have twice voted to reform our redistricting process—for both Congressional and state legislative districts. OEA was an early supporter of both measures.
Among the legislative policies and resolutions adopted by our members is a continuing theme of democracy. OEA believes that voters should have access to the polls, and that citizen participation should be encouraged. It’s what we teach our students and it’s central to our character as a nation.
Partisan gerrymandering subverts our democracy. It’s designed to devalue the voice of the voters—to rig the game. Drawing districts to favor one party over another is wrong. It leads to less competition and a less responsive government. It leads to more polarization and less cooperation among our elected officials.
OEA is committed to fair maps because we know a more inclusive democracy means better decisions for students, educators and communities. As educators, we serve students from all backgrounds. Lawmakers who are responsive to the voters are essential in meeting student needs.
We’ve seen the impact on school funding. Since 1981, Ohio Department of Education data show that the more competitive balance in the legislature, less of the cost of education has been shouldered by local property taxpayers. Greater disparities in the balance of power in the legislature have correlated with a greater funding burden being placed on the backs of local property taxpayers.
The strong support of voters on the redistricting issue is clear. It resulted in a change to the state constitution. This body is a product of that change. Now it’s up to this body to live up to the letter and the spirit of the law. We need a transparent process that results in fair districts.
Through this redistricting process Ohio has a chance to serve as an example to the country about how to do this. I call on you to put partisanship aside and listen to the will of the people. Through working together and compromise you can rise to the occasion and produce fair, representative districts.
The delay in census data has made your work harder and timelines tighter. However, this cannot be used as an excuse. What the voters of Ohio have every right to expect and demand is a bipartisan agreement that results in 10-year legislative districts. Anything less would be a failure of leadership.
Thank you for your time and attention. I’m happy to answer questions at this time.
Click here to download the submitted testimony as a pdf document
Ohio Redistricting Commission
Wednesday, August 25, 2021 – Zanesville
Testimony of OEA Vice-President Jeff Wensing
Co-Chairs Cupp and Sykes and distinguished members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission:
My name is Jeff Wensing. I’m a high school math teacher from Parma and it’s also my privilege to serve as the Vice President of the Ohio Education Association. On behalf of our 120,000 members, thank you for the opportunity to testify about the important task of creating new legislative districts for the General Assembly.
There is a well-known saying that all politics is local. I’ve experienced this from dealing with issues as a teacher and union leader in my local school district. We would try to address problems through organizing, work on behalf of endorsed candidates for school board, and work with the community to pass levies. Were we always successful? No. But there was a sense of community and common interest. Even when we lost, we felt our voice had been heard.
For the past few years, I’ve served as Vice President of OEA. As I talk to members around the state, they don’t always feel heard or respected by their legislators. Admittedly, comparing a single school district to a House or Senate district is not an apples-to-apples comparison. The size of the districts dictates that they include several districts and can span several counties. However, we often see that communities are needlessly split among several different legislative districts. Or areas may be carved out of one district to be a sliver in another. When this happens the voice of the community and its citizens is diluted.
I’ve spoken with members who feel like their communities are an afterthought or an inconvenience when talking to their legislator. I’ve also spoken to those who never receive any response at all. Obviously, there are great legislators on both sides of the aisle. Those who will listen to and respect the concerns of their constituents even when they disagree. However, officials can be less than responsive if they’re in a district drawn expressly so they don’t have to worry about a competitive election.
Citizens feel frustrated about a government that is less responsive to their needs than it should be. That was a driving force behind the push for and passage of redistricting reform. Manipulating districts through partisan gerrymandering is fundamentally undemocratic. The voters have demanded that our leaders do better. And it starts with you and the work of this Commission.
I urge you to live up to the spirit of redistricting reform as passed by the voters of Ohio. Districts should be drawn that keep communities of interest together. They should be compact and make sense—they should pass the “eye test.” Most importantly, partisan advantage should be put aside. This Commission needs to work together in a bipartisan fashion to deliver fair districts. That’s what we voted for and have every right to expect from our leaders.
Thank you for your time and your service to Ohio’s citizens. I’m happy to answer questions you may have.
Click here to download the submitted testimony as a pdf document
