July 12, 1977

State Gerrymander Ignores Morality

STATEMENT OF LINDSEY WILLIAMS

Before The

OHIO SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

June 29, 1977

Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to discuss the issues involved in the present proposal to reapportion Ohio Congressional Districts.

The practice of drawing voting districts for political advantage of the party in power is as old as the nation.  However, abuse of the privilege has always been resented by the electorate.  Governor Gerry of Massachusetts was defeated for re-election in 1812 because of a grotesque carving up of districts, and his name has become synonymous with political arrogance.

Published letters and statements by citizens of my county rank the present proposal with the original Gerrymander as an example of political mischief.

The sponsors have openly admitted that the only purpose of redrawing Congressional districts at this time is - and I quote - "to elect more Democrats."

I submit that this is super-Gerrymandering inasmuch as it would be accomplished by disrupting known districts just four years ahead of another constitutionally required reapportionment, and by challenging the court's concept of equal rights.

Article I of the U. S. Constitution clearly intends that Congressional districts should be reapportioned every ten years by authorizing a census for that purpose.  Any tampering with Congressional districts without an accurate census immediately preceding violates the spirit of the U. S.  Constitution and the civil rights of citizens who are not assured of equal representation.

As the committee is well aware, the 1968 redistricting was ordered and supervised by the court.  The 1972 redistricting, following release of the 1970 census figures, was a bipartisan effort of a Republican legislature and a Democratic governor with viable veto power.  The guidelines used were those previously set down by the court, and both parties agree the present districts are the fairest ever drawn.

None of the safeguards of the existing districting are incorporated in the plan now under consideration.  Leaders of the present veto-proof legislature have drawn up this new apportionment in the secret confines of the well known smoke filled room.

Chief sponsor of the new plan excuses the obvious partisanship on the basis the other party has redrawn Congressional boundaries in the past.  Undoubtedly so, but not in 1968, nor in 1972, nor in post-Watergate.

The citizenry has grown to expect a higher order of political morality.  Assertions that "the other guys did it too" are no longer accepted by the electorate as justification for continuing political manipulations.  Both parties today are accountable to new, higher standards of conduct.

Thus, I urge this committee to reject the redistricting plan as unworthy of the recently enacted code of legislative ethics.

A more fitting expression of the Senate's determination to operate within this new framework would be a resolution initiating a nationwide drive to amend the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm decennial, post-census apportionment without interim guesstimating, gerrymandering, and political tinkering.

Further, I suggest the citizenry would be best served by establishment of a bipartisan board to administer the required ten-year redistricting.

It is difficult enough at ten-year intervals for voters within an area of common interest to learn the capabilities of their Congressman and of potential congressmen.  Juggling boundaries more often only weakens the bond of mutual understanding between citizen and representative.

The purpose of law should be to serve people, not politicians.

VOTE ON BILL

Yes: Charles Butts, Kenneth Cox, Tony Hall, Robert O'Shaughnessy, John Mahoney, Marigene Valiquette (chief sponsor).

No: Stanley Aronoff, Sam Speck, Thomas VanMeter.

Author: Lindsey Williams