A panel of three federal judges weighed in on a, uh, weighty matter, when they ruled, unanimously, that a map of Ohio is “unconstitutional.”
Writing for the majority, B. Czaro, who asked to remain anonymous, wrote, “We are convinced that this diagrammatic representation of the state was intentional, and that no legitimate justification accounts for its extremity.” What Czaro meant by “its extremity” is unknown; he refused to offer an explanation, except to say “it sets a precedent” (whatever that means).
The mapmaker, Rand-Um McKnally, plans to appeal the judges' “ludicrous ruling."
Ohio's secretary of state, Frank Loser, said the judges' ruling is “arbitrary and unreasonable.” Their decision is based on their own preferences and biases, Loser charged. “For example,” he said, “they prefer bodies of water represented on the map be sea-green, not light blue, in color, and they object to the state's 'irregular border.'”
Rany-Um McKnally spokesmouth Carr Tograf-Er, who also wished to remain anonymous, said “the colors are traditional. As are the symbols used to identify landmarks and other points of interest.”
The judges also objected to the shields on which interstate highway numbers appear, and to the different sizes of black dots indicating cities and towns and their relative sizes (bigger dots for bigger cities, smaller dots for smaller towns). In addition, the judges did not “like the way the northern border of the state abuts Lake Erie.”
“We're in the business of making accurate and intelligible maps,” Tograf-Er said, “not of fulfilling the wild fantasies of whimsical judges.”
The three-judge panel is expected to rule next week on the legitimacy of a United States map that shows 50, instead of the 51, states mentioned by former President Barack Obama.
