Disingenuous on gerrymandering

In reading the recent Register interview with Rep. D.J. Swearingen, his partisan response to the Ohio gerrymandering question was predictable, "Lawmaker wants to protect children," Sept. 23. Swearingen, in so many words, said he was glad the federal court intervened and sided with the Republican led Redistricting Committee's maps that were rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court. What he didn't mention was the federal ruling was made by a panel of three judges, two Republicans appointed by former President Donald Trump and one Democrat. The deck was stacked in this ruling just as it was with the Redistricting Committee's maps in the first place (five Republicans to two Democrats). The fact that Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Conner, a member of his own party, cast the deciding vote against all maps that were submitted should provide proof of this chicanery. After the federal court ruling by the Trump appointed judges, O'Connor stated, in part, "With the reassurance provided by a federal court that continuing delays and inaction would be rewarded with the implementation of a previously rejected map, the Ohio Redistricting Commission has engaged in a stunning rebuke of the rule of law." The Princeton Gerrymandering Project, which does nonpartisan analysis to understand and eliminate unfair maps gave Ohio's redrawn districts an "F" grade in its March 8, 2022, report for partisan fairness, due to a significant Republican advantage. Since 1,175,000 bipartisan Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved a bill to stop this practice, let's hope that same voter margin of 3-1 shows up Election Day to show their resolve in opposition to those who would disenfranchise their vote. Dennis A. StoutBellevue