@Lucia_Flevares@Mattttt89@darreldrowland@DispatchAlerts There are two ways to interpret redistricting's role in the election results. Either voters overwhelmingly agreed with the GOP, or they were indifferent. Either way, the people who seek to reignite the controversy will have to face the fact that they do not speak for Ohio voters.
@darreldrowland I know you know the difference between a policy disagreement over something like abortion and a wild-eyed accusation that the constitution and democratic process are being subverted to consolidate power in defiance of the will of the people. The premise was rejected, period.
@Mattttt89@darreldrowland@DispatchAlerts If I'm right, voters recognized that the court behaved unconstitutionally. If you're right, voters believed Republicans behaved unconstitutionally but were indifferent to that when re-electing them by historic margins. Not sure things look too good for you either way.
@Tylerjoelb I've lost count of how many times I have explained to voters that election results aren't official for a couple weeks and why. If you really want to know why voters now expect final outcomes "called" on election night, look at your colleagues in the media not elections officials.
@Mattttt89@darreldrowland@DispatchAlerts Allow me to square the circle for you. Thanks to politically motivated lawsuits and judicial activism, the redistricting process Ohio voters saw in 2022 was not what they voted for in 2015 and 2018.
@darreldrowland The lawsuits filed by these people over the past year have ensured that bipartisan redistricting reform will be a once in a lifetime phenomenon. Fool me once, etc.
@Rusty_Shackle4 @SB9@darreldrowland I forgive you for not knowing the difference between a county party and a state party. Most people don't. But maybe tone down the arrogance if you're going to be wrong.
@Rusty_Shackle4 @SB9@darreldrowland We don't own any property. No idea what you're talking about. Anyway, if you think it makes sense to create a constitutional crisis out of the inconvenience of having to strike down the same law multiple times there's probably no reason to continue the discussion.