|
unofficial figures, and I think that was
probably one of the main reasons why the
Supreme Court reversed it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: These unofficial
figures were probably the best the State of
Ohio could come up with at that time.
Would it be safe to say that computerized
figures would be official or unofficial?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: In my opin-
ion, any redistricting commission or any
General Assembly could not use any Cham-
ber of Commerce or comparable organization
figures because most of these are designed
for ballyhoo and attracting industry, and
certainly give you an exaggerated point
of view. You would have to go to some
official state agency like the State Planning
Department.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: Would it not be
true that truly the only official figures
would be the Census figures?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No, the only
official federal population figures are the
census figures, which are presently de-
cennial in nature, and may be on a five-year
basis, but it is possible, and we have de-
termined that the State can give you pop-
ulation figures procured from official state
records.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: Just one last ques-
tion along these lines.
You say "we" have determined — who is
this?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Well, the
Committee, the committee staff by talking
to the State Department of Planning.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: If I may ask a sec-
ond line of approach here, do I understand
that the congressional redistricting would
be effective in 1972, and may I inquire why
we reapportion or redistrict congressional
districts in 1972 and yet we are all going
to redistrict the General Assembly in 1970
on unofficial figures?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: I think the
answer is fairly obvious. We are operating
today in a General Assembly whose popu-
lation basis is the 1960 federal census.
|
Consequently, we are certainly pretty far
from any actual view of population as it
exists today. There have been tremendous
shifts in population.
I think that the deviations in the General
Assembly based even on the 1960 Census
are in the 60 percent category, whereas the
federal congressional districts which were
redistricted in 1966 by a federal court, while
it is true they used 1960 census figures, the
deviations there are less than two percent.
Certainly, then, the likelihood of malappor-
tionment is much greater for the General
Assembly as it exists today than it is for
congressional redistricting.
Now, I am not arguing with you that
some very unfortunate things were done by
the federal court in the 1966 case, but it has
the one overriding virtue of being substan-
tially equal in population. It also preserved
a few congressional seats, whose members
happened to be chairmen of the committees.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fox.
DELEGATE FOX: Delegate Gallagher,
would it be possible for section 3.03 (e),
the congressional redistricting procedure,
to stand even though section 3.03 (b), that
tries to set a rigid standard, should be
deleted?
I notice there is no date in section
3.03 (e), and there is one in 3.03 (b), which
is why I ask the question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Yes, it
would be possible for 3.03 (e) to stand by
itself, but it would be a wobbly kind of
stand.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Ross, did
you have a question?
DELEGATE KOSS: Chairman Gal-
lagher, I was interested in what the impli-
cations of the inclusion are with reference
to court resort. Without a provision in this
constitution, would the federal courts be
the only avenue for redress?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher.
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: No, I do
not think so. I think you could go to the
state courts as well.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Chairman Gal-
lagher, the last congressional district sec-
tion proposed, which was withdrawn, as I
|
