The Ohio Statehouse. (Photo by Jodi Jacobson / Getty Images.)

Two members from Michigan’s independent citizens redistricting commission stand on opposite sides of the campaign for the Issue 1 ballot initiative that would establish a similar commission in Ohio by removing politicians from the process of drawing districts.

The commission created by the state up north has come up a number of times since Ohio’s Issue 1 redistricting reform began its march toward the November general election ballot. Michigan’s commission is made up of 13 citizens, as opposed to the Ohio proposal that would bring a panel of 15 Ohioans to the table to draw Statehouse and congressional district maps.

Most of the time when the Michigan commission has been brought up in Ohio, it’s been by opponents to Issue 1, including Ohio Senate President Matt Huffman and Auditor Keith Faber, both of whom were on the Ohio Redistricting Commission, the state’s current source for district maps.

Other members of the current redistricting commission include the governor, the secretary of state, two Republican lawmakers, and two Democratic lawmakers.

In 2021 and 2022, Republican partisans on the commission produced five Ohio Statehouse maps and two U.S. Congressional district maps that were struck down as unconstitutionally gerrymandered by a bipartisan majority on the Ohio Supreme Court. In 2023, the commission unanimously passed maps with bipartisan support, although Democrats said they only supported them because redistricting reform was on the way and if they had voted no on them then the Republicans on the commission would have produced even more gerrymandered maps.

Creators of the Issue 1 redistricting reform included a provision in the proposed amendment that would explicitly prohibit partisan gerrymandering.

Huffman and Faber’s fellow commission colleague, Gov. Mike DeWine, also opposes Issue 1, claiming the commission that would be established within the language of the redistricting reform would be “forced” to gerrymander the state in a Democratic direction, and that there’s no way the commission could work as written.

The former Michigan chair

The messaging from the opposition matches comments made by a member of the Michigan commission who was brought in by state Sen. Michele Reynolds, R-Canal Winchester, to participate in a press conference last week urging votes against Issue 1 in Ohio.

Rebecca Szetela is a former chair of the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, and said her experience as a supporter and member of the commission should warn Ohioans against thinking a similar commission might be a good idea in their state.

“The (Michigan) commission was misguided and I think part of that is because these commissions are composed of people who have no experience whatsoever in redistricting, in voting rights law, anything like that,” she said at the Tuesday press conference. “They’re random people chosen from the public.”

Szetela said she feared “a repeat of what happened in Michigan,” where maps were thrown out by a federal court which ordered a redraw of certain state House and Senate districts in the Detroit area.

Those changes were made by the commission, and accepted by the federal court. All maps in Michigan are now in effect since the changes were made earlier this year.

Ohio’s congressional maps remain unconstitutional as none of the court ordered changes were made to the maps by the Ohio Redistricting Commission.

Issue 1 doesn’t use Michigan as an exact model, according to former Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, a champion for the redistricting reform and the swing vote that brought the rejection of five Statehouse maps and both congressional maps brought by the Ohio Redistricting Commission in its current form.

In comments made during a public forum hosted by the Columbus Metropolitan Club, O’Connor said Ohio’s model was developed after looking at several states and redistricting methods, and while Michigan was considered, Ohio’s reforms are “not Michigan.”

The Michigan commission completed their work, but Szetela said the group became “an elite class of persons who get to make all the decisions,” creating in Michigan an “insular” group who she said “stopped listening” to the public and even fellow commission members, suggesting the power went to some of the commissioner’s heads.

“I think the process is flawed by not having experienced people,” Szetela said.

Reports of the commission’s drama popped up when Szetela herself was the target of multiple censuring attempts — and tried to censure people herself — with one fellow commissioner saying she “personally felt bullied” by Szetela and another saying Szetela “exhibited microaggressions” toward a commission member.

Szetela was formally censured in September for personal comments made about a third commission colleague.

Szetela claimed her right to free speech was being trampled in the censure efforts.

The current Michigan chair

The current chair of the Michigan commission, Anthony Eid, said he doesn’t understand why Szetela claims the process in their state doesn’t work, when the maps have been established and court-approved.

“There’s no perfect system for redistricting, but something we’ve proven here in Michigan is that independent redistricting commissions do work and they provide better representation,” Eid told the Capital Journal.

He takes special issue with her comments saying the commission members didn’t listen to the public and use their advice in drawing maps.

“We have many districts in the final map that are almost a 1-for-1 match for what the public asked for,” Eid said. “The idea that we didn’t listen to public comment is just false.”

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project gave Michigan’s congressional map an overall “A” grade, with another “A” specifically for partisan fairness. The map received “C” grades for competitiveness and geographic features (which includes district compactness and county splits).

The state’s House and Senate maps both received “B” grades, though the House maps were noted to have “very compact districts” with “few county splits.” The House map had a slight Republican advantage, and the Senate map had a slight Democratic advantage.

Ohio’s maps, in comparison, have received “D” grades.

The Michigan commission is working on a “lessons learned” document to reflect on the things that worked within the commission, and the things that could have been done better. Eid said he’d like to see more experts brought in for more perspectives, and he’d recommend to Ohio as many in-person versus virtual meetings as possible. As a commission that started during the pandemic, he said the engagement is much different when the commission is in front of a live group.

“My hope would be the next commission uses our success and uses our failures and incorporates those lessons into their rules,” Eid said.

Eid said he supports Issue 1 in Ohio, and said he thinks Ohioans will see a group of commissioners who are willing to learn, willing to listen to the public and who are accountable.

“It’s good that the public gets to have a say in these maps, it’s good that the public can see exactly how they’re being drawn,” he said. “(The Michigan independent commission) did fix the issues, and (the maps are) more reflective of how the people of Michigan voted in elections.”