The Ohio Ballot Board on Friday passed controversial language written by Secretary of State Frank LaRose as a ballot summary that would explain November’s anti-gerrymandering amendment to voters. Supporters of the amendment called the language misleading and unconstitutional and said they would challenge it in court.
The board met Friday morning to determine the summary that will be placed on individual ballots — the final word Ohioans will see before they decide to accept or reject the initiative.
The proposed amendment would remove Ohio politicians from the process of drawing state Capitol and congressional district maps. Instead, a citizens’ commission would be created to draw the maps, made up of Republicans, Democrats and independents.
The board was led by Ohio Secretary of State LaRose, who passed his preferred ballot language for the amendment 3-2, with both Democratic board members, state Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson and state Rep. Terrence Upchurch, voting against approval. LaRose is one of a number of politicians on the current Ohio Redistricting Commission and one of a number of Republican Party members who repeatedly voted for maps that were ruled unconstitutional by a bipartisan majority on the Ohio Supreme Court before they were nonetheless imposed on voters by a federal court in 2022 after the deadline to draw constitutional maps had passed.
One amendment was made to LaRose’s language Friday, brought by board member and Republican state Rep. Theresa Gavarone. The change takes a paragraph that says the commission will be “committed to gerrymandering” state and congressional district boundaries … and changes it to say the commission will be “committed to gerrymandering” those districts, a change that drew shocked jeers from the crowd gathered at the board meeting.
The referendum aims to establish a 15-member redistricting commission that would decide statewide districts for the Capitol and Congress. The proposed amendment, sponsored by the group Citizens Not Politicians, would be decided at public meetings, with people being able to voice their opinions during the process.
The commission would be made up of citizens, not elected officials. Citizens Not Politicians submitted its own proposed summary for consideration by the Election Commission, saying the commission members would be individuals “who have demonstrated no disqualifying conflicts of interest and who have demonstrated the ability to conduct the redistricting process in an impartial, fair, and equitable manner.”
Democrats tried to approve language put forward by Citizens Not Politicians, but the motion was defeated by a 3-2 vote, with only Democratic Party board members supporting it.
Hicks-Hudson also tried to change the language written by LaRose and replace it with “Citizens, not politicians,” but that motion was also rejected.
“This is a dangerous proposal that threatens the integrity of the vote on Issue 1,” Hicks-Hudson said, referring to the secretary of state’s language.
The amendment’s title states that it “would create an appointed redistricting commission that is not elected by, and cannot be recalled by, the voters of the state.” The language approved by the board calls for eliminating “the longstanding ability of Ohio citizens to hold their representatives accountable for drawing fair legislative and congressional districts” and aims to “repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three-fourths of Ohio’s electors who voted in state elections in 2015 and 2018.”
Attorney Don McTigue noted that citizens cannot hold their elected legislators accountable by voting in bipartisan districts, which by definition guarantee victory to bipartisan legislators.
“The problem is that the whole accountability argument only works when you have fair voting districts, not when you have drastically gerrymandered districts like we have in this state,” McTigue said during the public comment portion of the board meeting.
McTigue, who represents the sponsors and supporters of the referendum initiative, requested the text proposed by Citizens Not Politicians rather than the text proposed by the Secretary of State, citing Ohio law, which dictates the text and title of the referendum initiative.
“The language is stunning because it is false and misleading, and it makes no bones about its prejudicial language,” McTigue said. “There is no reasonable person who … could read that language and conclude that this is an honest attempt to provide honest election language that allows voters to make an independent decision on this matter.”
He cited the 2015 and 2018 redistricting measures, in which the Election Commission “selected the most important aspects of proposed changes to the Ohio Constitution’s redistricting.”
The language LaRose said at the election commission meeting was written by him “with input from my team,” sharply criticized by leaders and supporters of this measure before the meeting for misleading and biased language that violated constitutional rules regarding language used on ballots.
LaRose defended the provision in his brief, saying the amendment would “limit the right of Ohioans to freely express their views to commission members or commission staff regarding the redistricting process or proposed redistricting plans,” arguing the provision may unfairly shield members of the recent commission from public scrutiny.
McTigue objected, saying that context had a significant bearing on the reading of the summary and therefore did not support the wording used by the Secretary of State.
“I think something can be misleading or deceptive if you don’t know the full context,” McTigue said.
The text of the Secretary of State’s letter was released on Thursday, giving board members and McTigue little time to review it, which was discussed at the meeting.
“I think the record should make it clear that 24 hours is not necessarily a lot of time to deal with 900 words that really, I’m not sure are within the bounds of what the law requires, and … make a really thoughtful assessment of the language,” said board member and state Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson.
Board member Theresa Gavarone, a state senator, said LaRose’s 900 words “explain exactly what this is,” and noted that details about the redistricting process were not included in Citizens Not Politicians’ proposed summary language.
LaRose also addressed the committee member selection process in the amendment, stating that the longest part of his summary was explaining the process.
“The way you get to the current (Ohio Redistricting Commission) is pretty straightforward,” LaRose said. “(The proposed process) is a bit of a Rube Goldberg thing, with a lot of twists and turns… it’s a complex process.”
He described the five-point summary proposed by the CNP as “completely insufficient” and said he was unable to “identify the substance” of the amendment.
Notable opponents of the vote include Senate President Matt Huffman and Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, who both publicly opposed the measure. Huffman said the effort cause a wave of legal problems for the stateand DeWine said the focus on proportionality in the redistricting rules will cause more problems than his supporters claim, and that “Ohio will effectively end a system that mandates, that forces mapmakers to create bipartisan districts,” he said at recent press conference.
Supporters of the amendment have said they will appeal the Ohio Ballot Board’s decision to court, just as supporters of the reproductive rights referendum did in the Ohio Supreme Court after the Election Board approved it.
Citizens Not Politicians has already pledged to “seek relief” from the Ohio Supreme Court by filing a brief against the language next week, according to Jen Miller of the League of Women Voters of Ohio.
LaRose did not speak to reporters after the meeting.
