An unexpected decision by Ohio's highest court has left voters questioning the true intent behind a key ballot measure.
In a recent ruling, the AP News reported that the Ohio Supreme Court has upheld most of the ballot language for Issue 1, an anti-gerrymandering measure, despite claims that it misrepresents the proposal's objectives.
In a narrow 4-3 decision, the court-mandated revisions to two sections of the language while allowing the rest to remain unchanged. The ballot measure, supported by the bipartisan coalition Citizens Not Politicians, seeks to eliminate partisan gerrymandering by establishing a 15-member, citizen-led commission responsible for redrawing district boundaries.
This initiative emerged after multiple versions of congressional and legislative maps were deemed unconstitutional for favoring Republicans following the 2020 Census. However, opponents argue that the current ballot wording misleadingly suggests that the measure will enforce gerrymandering, contrary to its intended purpose.
Court Ruling Details
The Ohio Supreme Court's majority asserted that only language that "misleads, deceives, or defrauds the voters" can be invalidated. They determined that most of the ballot descriptions merely detailed the amendment without misleading voters.
However, the court identified two sections where the language was problematic. These sections pertained to the timeframe for filing lawsuits against the new commission’s redistricting plans and the mechanisms for public input during the map-making process.
Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, along with Justices Patrick Fischer, Patrick DeWine, and Joseph Deters, formed the majority opinion, while Justices Michael Donnelly, Melody Stewart, and Jennifer Brunner dissented.
In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Fischer defended the approved language, stating that it accurately portrayed the commission's requirement to "gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor the two largest political parties." He argued that this language was necessary to inform voters about the potential implications of the measure.
Public and Political Reactions
Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose lauded the court's decision, emphasizing the importance of providing voters with a clear and honest explanation of the ballot measure.
"This decision is a huge win for Ohio voters, who deserve an honest explanation of what they’re being asked to decide," LaRose stated. He also noted that the approved description would help voters navigate the complexities amid expected extensive advertising campaigns.
Citizens Not Politicians expressed their dissatisfaction with parts of the decision, though they acknowledged the court's recognition of inaccuracies in the ballot language. The group criticized the ruling, asserting that it allowed politicians to "confuse voters" and maintain gerrymandering practices despite the amendment's goal to end them.
Next Steps for the Ballot Board
Following the court's ruling, Ohio’s ballot board, chaired by LaRose, has reconvened to address the required revisions. The board plans to rewrite the two sections deemed unconstitutional, ensuring that the final ballot language accurately represents the measure without misleading voters.
This process mirrors a similar situation last year when the board had to revise language for an amendment guaranteeing access to abortion rights in Ohio's constitution, which ultimately passed without significant dispute over its wording.
The exact language of the constitutional amendment will be available at polling locations, allowing voters to review the measure in its entirety before casting their ballots. This transparency is intended to provide clarity and reduce confusion among the electorate regarding the implications of Issue 1.
Conclusion
The Ohio Supreme Court's ruling has maintained most of the ballot language for the anti-gerrymandering measure, Issue 1, while requiring revisions to two sections to prevent misleading voters. The measure proposes a 15-member citizen-led commission to oversee redistricting, aiming to eliminate partisan bias. Despite the court's decision, groups like Citizens Not Politicians remain critical of the language, arguing it can confuse voters about the measure's true intent. The ballot board is now working to revise the disputed sections to ensure clarity and accuracy ahead of the November election.
