Supporters of Issue 1, the redistricting amendment that will be on the ballot this November, have filed suit against the Ohio Ballot Board over summary language it approved for the issue Friday. The summary language is what voters will see on the actual ballot - not the amendment itself. The lawsuit filed at the Ohio Supreme Court, the group Citizens Not Politicians said the ballot summary is not factual, is partisan, misleading, and therefore, is unconstitutional.
Citizens Not Politicians spokesman Chris Davey said his group is asking the state's high court to order the Ballot Board to adopt different language. And Davey said the court would need to do that quickly, since early and overseas voting will start soon.
On Friday, the Republican-dominated Ohio Ballot Board passed a written by Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who is a member of the Ohio Redistricting Commission and has voted for all the maps it has approved. Those maps have been declared unconstitutional seven times, but a federal court relented to allow them to be used in 2022 because time was running out to develop new ones. The Ohio Redistricting Commission then unanimously approved new maps in 2023, with the panel's two Democrats saying their votes for the maps was a compromise and they're hoping for better ones after this redistricting proposal is approved.
Don McTigue, attorney for Citizens Not Politicians, said LaRose鈥檚 ballot language for Issue 1 is more than four times longer than previous language on redistricting proposals. McTigue also said the wording is not constitutional because it breaks the rule that it be non-prejudicial. He called it 鈥渁 farce of Shakespearean proportion鈥�.
LaRose defended the summary length, saying the amendment itself was long and full of complicated ideas, and that a five-point summary wasn鈥檛 sufficient. And in the end, the board passed the summary proposed by LaRose with one change - an amendment by Sen. Theresa Gavarone (R-Bowling Green) that changed the word "manipulate", swapping it with "gerrymander." That suggestion brought gasps and jeers from backers of the plan who packed the room.
Once that adoption was approved, the majority Republicans, by a 3-2 margin, approved a language that includes this section:
"Establish a new taxpayer-funded commission of appointees required to manipulate the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor the two largest political parties in the state of Ohio, according to a formula based on partisan outcomes as the dominant factor鈥�.
On a podcast produced by Ohio Senate Republicans, LaRose and Gavarone defended the language, saying passage of this amendment would lead to gerrymandering and would take power away from politicians to correct it.
But its backers say gerrymandered maps are exactly what Ohio has now because politicians have made decisions to protect their power.
Citizens Not Politicians Attorney Don McTigue said the amendment's goal is to prevent gerrymandering by taking the politicians out of the process of map drawing. Supporters say the proposed process would allow for a 15-member citizen panel made up of Republicans, Democrats and independents, who would use strict criteria to draw fair maps that would keep communities together and allow voters to pick their politicians instead of allowing politicians to pick their voters. One of the key authors of the proposed amendment is former Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, a Republican who was on the court when it repeatedly ruled the current maps unconstitutional.
Independent groups that monitor redistricting processes throughout the country have repeatedly said Ohio's current maps are among the most gerrymandered in the nation.
Now, it's up to the Ohio Supreme Court, which has four Republican justices and three Democratic justices.
