POLITICAL PARALYSIS Southeast Ohio’s voice in the Ohio Statehouse can seem inaudible. Here is both the cause and the effect STORY BY AVERY KREEMER & BENNETT LECKRONE
T
hroughout its history, Ohio has had political power centralized along a three point route that is now traced by Interstate 71. The interstate begins near Cleveland, the fifth largest city in the nation at its peak in the 1920s; it continues on toward Columbus, the state’s current population monolith nearing 800,000 residents in the city proper alone; and it makes its last stop in Ohio near Cincinnati, the third most populous city in the state. In Southeast Ohio, it’s not unusual to hear a city or county official reference a lack of funding or attention paid to the region from the Statehouse in Columbus. Meanwhile, the counties that make up the region are the ones that are trying to answer some of Ohio’s hardest questions, like how to limit the region’s opioid epidemic, or how to reduce the high poverty rates that tend to strike rural areas so deeply. In a state where the population distribution is so centralized and the burdens of residents are so dependent on what region they live, a population-proportional political system can tend to turn a blind eye to low-density populations like those of Southeast Ohio. The answer to achieving more political power in this system, of course, is to simply gain more res-
idents in the region. However, Southeast Ohio will never be able to compete with the various other regions throughout the state in this arena. Another possible solution is home rule, a 1912 amendment to the Ohio Constitution that guarantees municipalities the right to govern themselves, a system that isn’t so dependent on a municipality’s population. At its inception, home rule was an effort to take power away from Ohio’s prone-to-lobbying General Assembly, which had for years used a political maneuver that enabled it to enact laws on specific municipalities instead of statewide laws, which was forbidden by an amendment in the Ohio Constitution. Since then, home rule has been a point of contention, as the amendment isn’t so clear on definitions and the case law regarding home rule has been historically inconsistent. Thus, over the years, there have been many instances of the Legislature passing laws that preempt local laws, chipping away at home rule power. Here are some examples of some of those laws since the turn of the century.
OHIO’S REGIONS BY THE NUMBERS PER CAPITA PER CAPITA INCOME INCOME
NE
NW
$60,000 $50,000 $40,000
C SW
$30,000 $20,000 $10,000
SE
$0
NE
SE
SW
NW
Central
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
LAND PERCENTSTATE OF STATE’S LAND
POPULATION POPULATION
35 30
4,000,000
25
3,000,000
20 15
2,000,000
10
1,000,000 0
5 NE
SE
SW
TOTAL: 11,689,442
NW
Central
0
NE
SE
SW
NW
Central
TOTAL: 40,948 sq mi – BRENNA SCHOEN
16 | WINTER/SPRING 2020
HOME RULE EXPLAINER The bill seems innocent enough: Ohio House Bill 242 would prevent municipalities in Ohio from banning plastic bags. For Ashley Brewster, however, the bill comes off as a direct attack on the rights of cities, towns and villages across Ohio. Brewster, the communications director for the Ohio Municipal League, an alliance of more than 700 municipalities across the state, says the bill is just another example of the state legislature’s attacks on “home rule,” or the ability of municipalities to make their own laws. Home rule is a right given to municipalities by the Ohio Constitution.
