Ohio voters face an unappetizing choice this fall: Do they retain Ohio's long- standing procedures for drawing congressional and legislative districts after each census -- procedures manipulated by rapacious Republicans last year as they sliced and diced communities to lock in control of what is really a 50-50 state?

Or do they opt for State Issue 2, a well-intentioned but overly complex effort at reform that purports to remove politics from the most political of democratic exercises -- and yet may guarantee only prolonged litigation?

Supporters of Issue 2 allow that it's not perfect, but warn against making the perfect the enemy of the good. The real alternative, they say, is a bad system that keeps getting worse.

It's a tempting argument. But Issue 2 isn't a piece of legislation that can be passed, then fixed by the General Assembly.

Issue 2, whose cumbersome mechanisms could invite lawsuits, would go into the Ohio Constitution -- and amending that is, quite rightly, a difficult process.

So we urge a "no" vote on Issue 2.

But rejection must not end the discussion. Both parties in Columbus -- but especially the Republicans who run the Statehouse -- must use an upcoming constitutional review to develop a more open, more accountable and fair way to draw political lines. Otherwise, we would expect the coalition behind Issue 2 to be back -- with an even stronger argument.

About our editorials

Plain Dealer editorials express the view of The Plain Dealer's editorial board -- the publisher, editor and editorial-writing staff. As is traditional, editorials are unsigned and intended to be seen as the voice of the newspaper.

• Talk about the topic of this editorial in the comments below.

• Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.

• Email general questions or comments about the editorial board to Elizabeth Sullivan, editor of the editorial page.

Opposing Issue 2 is a tough call because we also were disgusted by the most recent map-drawing charade, especially the congressional map with its dumbbells and dog legs. Only a few of the 16 districts -- designed to send 12 Republican and four Democrats to Washington -- could be described as compact or logical.

The 99 new Ohio House districts are generally less egregious, although they, too, take some strange twists and turns in order to stymie competition.

Such gerrymandering is more than mere political mischief. Packing districts with Democrats or Republicans feeds the partisan rancor in Washington and Columbus. In lopsided districts, primaries often are decisive, and they favor candidates who toe the party line. They don't reward compromise or independence.

The results are groupthink and gridlock.

Political cartography in Ohio has two parts. New legislative districts are created by a board that includes the governor, secretary of state, auditor and two legislators. Because of their 2010 sweep, Republicans dominated the latest process -- and took full advantage.

On a parallel track, legislative committees draw new congressional lines. Last year, the GOP in Columbus essentially ratified a map crafted by U.S. House Speaker John Boehner. Having ousted five Democratic incumbents in 2010, Boehner and Co. had to draw some very odd lines to protect their gains.

The GOP's overreach emboldened a group of good-government advocates to propose Issue 2. The coalition picked up support from labor and the Democratic Party, which in 2010 rejected a promising legislative effort to require bipartisan agreement on new maps.

Issue 2 would create a panel of Democrats, Republicans and nonaffiliated voters to draw compact, competitive districts for Congress and the General Assembly.

Sounds good, but the devil is in the details.

The details include a Rube Goldberg selection process that involves appellate judges -- who are, remember, nominated in partisan primaries -- and requires that even the registered Democrats and Republicans who serve be free of political ties. Advocates talk of commission members who might bring important academic skills to the table. They could just as easily be unsophisticated do-gooders subject to manipulation by party leaders, lobbyists or staff -- much like the "citizen politicians" promised by term-limit advocates are now. Finally, there's no requirement for bipartisan agreement. Either party's representatives could pass a map by winning over the unaffiliated members.

A better, simpler approach would require bipartisan supermajorities and impose clear, enforceable guidelines on mapmakers. The redistricting could be done by a hybrid panel of lawmakers and expert nonpoliticians.

One more idea: Open primaries. In heavily Democratic or Republican areas -- and there are some places where you simply cannot draw a competitive district -- that might mean two members of the same party advancing to the November ballot. But because winners will have to appeal to a broader electorate, the odds would favor candidates in the middle or with wide political appeal. That would help fix much of what ails Congress and the Statehouse.

Yes, Ohio needs reapportionment reform. But it can do better than Issue 2.