Despite objections from Democratic Party members, the Ohio Ballot Board on Wednesday approved minor changes to the ballot language for Question 1.
The anti-gerrymandering question will appear on the November ballot, asking voters whether Ohio should establish a citizen-run redistricting commission to replace the redistricting commission run by elected officials.
The Republican-controlled Election Commission, led by Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, crafted language trying to portray the amendment as a kind of reverse gerrymandering — forcing the lines to conform to a predetermined outcome. The state Supreme Court, also controlled by Republicans, largely gave them a pass but insisted on two changes.
“And that is our sole purpose today,” LaRose said at the beginning of the meeting, “to address those two issues that the court raised, and we will limit our work and our comments today to just those.”
One of the changes aims to make it clear to citizens the opportunity to express their opinions before the committee, while the other clarifies that challenging the committee maps is not confined to issues related to the proportionality standard.
LaRose proposed changes to both, but he wasn’t starting from scratch. Instead, he tweaked existing rules to add a few more benefits. Democratic board members argued those changes were insufficient and proposed much broader changes.
But Republican board members stuck to LaRose’s language. The secretary insisted that major changes were inappropriate for overseas ballots that would be mailed so quickly.
“Given that we have 48 hours to go,” LaRose argued, “I don’t want to risk changing what has already been approved by the highest court in the state, potentially creating an opportunity for another lawsuit that could delay the mailing of ballots.”
Importantly, the entire debate concerns the language of the ballot paper, i.e. the text that voters will see when they enter the voting booth, and not Amendment language.
“The substance of this amendment is not influenced by politicians’ disingenuous attempt to steal the election on Issue 1,” Citizens Not Politicians spokesman Chris Davey insisted after the hearing. “The language of the ballot is the language of the ballot, and the people of Ohio will see through that. They are intelligent. They understand what this issue is.”
Proportionality
The amendment’s basic provision is to establish ground rules that prevent mapmakers from drawing maps that unfairly favor one party or the other. To do so, and to avoid gerrymandering, it directs the commission to analyze the last six years of state elections to determine what share of the vote the major political parties received. The commissioners would then divide the districts so that a proportional share favored one party or the other.
It is clear that candidates would still need to campaign and convince voters to support them, but supporters of the amendment argue that such an approach could reduce the likelihood of one-sided results.
Over the past decade, Ohio voters have favored Republicans over Democrats by an average margin of 56 to 43. But Ohio’s U.S. House delegation is two-thirds Republican, and in the Ohio General Assembly, Republicans hold 68% of the seats in the House and 79% of the seats in the Senate.
The original ballot language said individuals could only challenge “the commission’s standard of proportionality” in court. The state’s highest court justices said that was too narrow.
In response, LaRose quoted a portion of a court ruling verbatim to address the improper consideration of an elected official’s residence or a senator’s term of office when drawing maps as a basis for the lawsuit.
State Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson, D-Toledo, offered a different version. Her language listed all the same types of cases, but instead of emphasizing the limitations of eligible court challenges, it emphasized how those challenges impose limitations on the commission.
“I believe this language more accurately reflects the language used in the petitions that have been circulated,” she argued.
Communication
The proposed amendment is being introduced at a sprawling series of public hearings by the Redistricting Commission, but it also takes steps to ban backroom deals. Republican members of the Election Commission have seized on that last one.
The current redistricting system, which has cemented a gigantic supermajority in the Ohio Statehouse, also requires few public hearings. But critics say the public-facing side of the process is just theater, with partisan committee members doing the real work, hammering out their agendas behind closed doors.
To that end, Order 1 would prohibit commissioners and staff from communicating with the public about the redistricting process outside of a public forum, and would also prohibit members of the public from attempting to contact commissioners or staff privately in an effort to influence the outcome.
The Election Commission described the restrictions as “limiting the free speech rights of Ohioans,” and the state Supreme Court allowed them to stand. But the justices added that by denying the public the ability to communicate with the commission at public hearings or through its website, “we conclude that the Election Commission has strayed into the realm of argument.”
For this provision, LaRose proposed a sandwich. The existing language on restricting speech remains in place, recognizing that the public can express its views at hearings or online, followed by a reiteration that the amendment “prohibits” communication “outside of these contexts.”
Hicks-Hudson argued that the presentation achieves the opposite purpose of the amendment.
“Words matter,” she argued. “It’s clear to me that this language, again, is designed for a specific outcome.”
Hypocritical
LaRose’s proposed language for both provisions passed on a party-line vote. Hicks-Hudson’s proposals were again rejected along party lines. She also proposed changing the title and four other provisions in the ballot language. LaRose rejected, again citing the brief time it would take to deliver ballots to overseas voters and the potential for further lawsuits.
“I think it would be a dangerous risk to take at this point,” he said, “given that this is a provision that has already been approved by the court.”
Hicks-Hudson dismissed those arguments as “disingenuous” and said she was “ashamed of us as elected officials” for accepting language intended to influence voters’ decisions.
Her colleague on the Election Commission, state Rep. Terrence Upchurch, a Cleveland Democrat, thought sending voters biased ballot entries was as bad as risking a delay.
“I think it’s just as dangerous to take language and put it on the ballot that would mislead voters and put them in a position where they wouldn’t be able to influence the outcome of the election,” he said. “I would rather put this off until the fourth quarter, until the last minute on the clock, to make sure we get it right and get it done fairly.”
