For 111 years, Ohioans who couldn’t get politicians to listen to them have had a straightforward way to try to bring about change. They can sidestep the governor and lawmakers to amend the state constitution on their own.
By gathering several hundred thousand signatures from around the state, they can put issues on the ballot and, with the support of a simple majority, put new policies in place. Under this system, abortion rights advocates have placed a measure on the November ballot that would guarantee access to abortion in a state where restrictions at around six weeks of pregnancy have been put on hold by a judge.
But Ohio Republicans, who control both chambers of the state legislature and have sought to restrict access to abortion, are trying to make the process more difficult. They scheduled a special election for Tuesday with just one issue on the ballot: Should constitutional amendments require the support of 60 percent of voters rather than a simple majority?
To pass, that measure needs just a simple majority. If it’s approved, future ballot initiatives — including the abortion measure — will need to achieve the new, higher threshold.
Supporters of abortion rights and other advocates for keeping the citizen initiative process intact have accused Republican lawmakers of trying to thwart the will of the majority and weaken voters’ voices. Republicans and opponents of abortion have defended their call for the special election, arguing that there should be a high bar for amending the state constitution, just as there is for modifying the U.S. Constitution. They argue that voters still would have a say in state policy under their plan and contend that they want to prevent out-of-state groups from wielding outsize influence in Ohio.
In essence, Ohio voters are grappling with a confluence of two hot-button ideas: the fate of abortion rights and, when it comes to citizens’ ability to change the state constitution, the future of an important tool of democracy.
Well, yes and no. Mostly no, especially if you’re using “small states” as a proxy for “Republican”.
The greater the population of a state, the more “fairly” it is represented, simply due to mathematics.
Any deviation between ideal district size and actual district size is divided among the total number of districts apportioned to the state. The most “unfair” district is not the smallest state being overrepresented, but the largest single-district state being underrepresented. Its population is just barely short of what it would need to earn a second district. It’s people should have almost twice the representation in Congress that they actually have, and they don’t get it because mathematics.
The nominal district size is 761,000 people. Under 761k, the district is overrepresented. More than 761k, the district is underrepresented. This is also the theoretical maximum deviation per state.
Of the 6 single-district states, Vermont and Wyoming are overrepresented, while Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, and South Dakota are all underrepresented.
2-district states with less than 1.52 million are overrepresented, but with more than 1.52 million are underrepresented. West Virginia and Idaho are underrepresented, while Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Montana, and Rhode Island are overrepresented.
So yes, the House is slightly weighted toward some smaller states, but it is also weighted against some other, smaller states. Most of the states it is weighted against are historically “red”, and most of the states it is weighted toward are reliably “blue”.
Solving that deviation problem is mathematically simple, but would require a significant change to House rules. Instead of casting 435 votes in each house issue, the members would cast votes on behalf of their actual constituents. The total vote count in the House would not be 435, but 331 million, with each representative controlling one vote for every person in their district.