So. Some interesting things going on in my area. First off, there's a referendum in Ohio to overhaul how districts get drawn, and that's not even the most interesting thing about it. What's interesting is that the description of the referendum (courtesy of our Secretary of State) is such blatant propaganda against it that it ought to be unconstitutional. Like, seriously, I'm going to try to pare it down to just the worst parts but I'm struggling.
Sounds like we need another referendum to make that a job for a nonpartisan committee too. Also I'm memorizing the name "Frank LaRose." If that mother-puss-bucket tries to run for any elected office, I'm going to have to show up in March and ask for a Republican ballot again just to hurt his chances of surviving the primary.
Other things of note:
No less than three Republicans on the bench in our district court of appeals are running completely unopposed. Once again, our country would be a much better place if "none of the above" was a valid option for all seats.
One of the races for State Supreme Court is between two sitting justices. Howzat work?
Both of our candidates for state representative have never held political office before. And both, wisely, actually filled out Ballotpedia's interview, a rarity for state-level offices.
Our district's Democratic candidate for Congressional Representative will be serving the month following election day in jail for voter fraud.
Despite all the Trump and Bernie Moreno signs in our area, there's one local Democrat who has huge signs up all over the place; the Republican running for that office has none that I've seen. I guess people who actually care about local politics do still care about people over party.
Also, this happened:
(Womp womp.)
The proposed amendment would:
1. Repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three-quarters of Ohio electors participating in the statewide elections of 2015 and 2018, and eliminate the longstanding ability of Ohio citizens to hold their representatives accountable for establishing fair state legislative and congressional districts.
2. Establish a new taxpayer-funded commission of appointees required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor either of the two largest political parties in the state of Ohio, according to a formula based on partisan outcomes as the dominant factor, so that:
A. Each district shall contain single-member districts that are geographically contiguous, but state legislative and congressional districts will no longer be required to be compact; and
B. Counties, townships and cities throughout Ohio can be split and divided across multiple districts, and preserving communities of interest will be secondary to the formula that is based on partisan political outcomes.
3. Require that a majority of the partisan commission members belong to the state's two largest political parties.
4. Prevent a commission member from being removed, except by a vote of their fellow commission members, even for incapacity, willful neglect of duty or gross misconduct.
5. Prohibit any citizen from filing a lawsuit challenging a redistricting plan in any court, except if the lawsuit challenges the proportionality standard applied by the commission, requirements pertaining to an incumbent elected official's residence, or the expiration of certain senators' terms, and then only before the Ohio Supreme Court.
(blah blah blah)
8. Limit the right of Ohio citizens to freely express their opinions to members of the commission or to commission staff regarding the redistricting process or proposed redistricting plans, other than through designated meetings, hearings and an online public portal, and would forbid communication with the commission members and staff outside those contexts.
(blah blah)
10. Impose new taxpayer-funded costs on the State of Ohio to pay the commission members, the commission staff and appointed special masters, professionals, and private consultants that the commission is required to hire; and an unlimited amount for legal expenses incurred by the commission in any related litigation.
Sounds like we need another referendum to make that a job for a nonpartisan committee too. Also I'm memorizing the name "Frank LaRose." If that mother-puss-bucket tries to run for any elected office, I'm going to have to show up in March and ask for a Republican ballot again just to hurt his chances of surviving the primary.
Other things of note:
No less than three Republicans on the bench in our district court of appeals are running completely unopposed. Once again, our country would be a much better place if "none of the above" was a valid option for all seats.
One of the races for State Supreme Court is between two sitting justices. Howzat work?
Both of our candidates for state representative have never held political office before. And both, wisely, actually filled out Ballotpedia's interview, a rarity for state-level offices.
Our district's Democratic candidate for Congressional Representative will be serving the month following election day in jail for voter fraud.
Despite all the Trump and Bernie Moreno signs in our area, there's one local Democrat who has huge signs up all over the place; the Republican running for that office has none that I've seen. I guess people who actually care about local politics do still care about people over party.
Also, this happened:
(Womp womp.)
Last edited: