Changing gerrymandering is issue No. 1 in 2024, but the fight is not over yet

Supporters of a proposed amendment to the state constitution, Issue 1 of 2024, announced Friday that they plan to file a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court over the language voters will see on their ballots. The language was written by Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose and approved by the Republican-dominated Ohio Ballot Board in a partial vote on Friday.

“I have never seen such dishonest and blatantly illegal language on ballots,” said attorney Don McTigue in a statement from Citizens Not Politicians (CNP), the coalition that drafted the amendment and placed it on the ballot. “This is an insult to voters and I am ashamed of the Secretary of State.”

The amendment is intended to put an end to gerrymandering, the practice of drawing districts to favor one party over another. Both parties have used gerrymandering to their own advantage at different times and in different states. In Ohio, it is the Republicans who are benefiting today.

Getting an amendment on the ballot is a lengthy process. On Friday, CNP's amendment reached the final stage, a hearing before the Ohio Ballot Board. The board's duties include reviewing ballot language — the summary of the amendment that is printed on ballots for voters to read — to make sure it fairly and accurately reflects the impact of the amendment.

The Elections Committee is made up of three Republicans (including LaRose, who chairs it) and two Democrats. At Friday's hearing, Democratic members proposed adopting the election language proposed by CNP (read it here). But Republicans rejected that, instead adopting a much longer summary prepared by LaRose's staff.

According to CNP, this summary is full of misleading descriptions. For example, the first paragraph reads: “Restore constitutional protections against gerrymandering that were approved by nearly three-quarters of Ohio voters who participated in the 2015 and 2018 statewide elections, and eliminate the longstanding ability of Ohioans to hold their representatives accountable for creating fair districts for the state's legislature and Congress.”

While Ohio voters passed measures to combat gerrymandering, as the Ohio Capital Journal explained, the Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly overturned the results:

“The current Ohio redistricting commission, made up of politicians, has produced six different statehouse maps and two congressional district maps in its two years of work. Five of the statehouse maps have been declared unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court, and none of the congressional district maps have passed constitutional review…”

CNP provided further examples of misleading language.

“Grotesque abuse of power”

“It is one grotesque abuse of power after another by politicians desperately trying to protect the current system that benefits only themselves and their lobbyist friends,” Maureen O'Connor, retired Republican chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court who helped draft Question 1 and the proposed ballot language, said in a statement obtained by CNP.

“This is just another example of why we need to keep politicians out of redistricting,” said Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio.

“This decision is the latest in a long line of attempts to deceive voters and prevent fair representation of Ohioans,” said the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute. According to the Brennan Center, more than three-quarters of Ohioans live in House districts where there is no competition – meaning the same party always wins.

LaRose spokesman Dan Lusheck defended the summary in the Columbus Dispatch.

“We sought input from both sides and relied on the language of the petition and the amendment itself,” Luscheck said. “The final summary provides Ohioans with a fair and factual understanding of the proposed amendment.”

CNP announced that it will seek an expedited decision from the Ohio Supreme Court. County election commissions must begin printing ballots soon.

In 2023, LaRose made significant and controversial changes to that year's Issue 1 summary, the constitutional amendment that guaranteed reproductive rights, including access to abortion. LaRose is a vocal opponent of abortion rights. The board voted along party lines to adopt LaRose's changes last year. The amendment passed anyway.

🗳️For more information about the elections in November this year, see our “Election Signals 2024” page.