Commentary: Suit filed by Issue 1 against the Ohio Ballot Board

A large number of citizens in Ohio have organized and successfully placed Issue 1 (Citizens Not Politicians) on the November 2024 ballot that, if passed, will end the practice of gerrymandered election districts in the state.  These citizens worked to gather over 731,000 petition signatures for this citizens-led ballot initiative.

As citizens of Ohio have learned, gerrymandering is the deliberate manipulation of election district maps to predetermine the outcome of an election before the first vote is ever cast.  This is done by the majority party to retain power and control, in spite of voter wishes.

Overview

On August 16, 2024, the Ohio Ballot Board held a hearing where it disclosed new language for Issue 1 in complete contradiction to the language provided by supporters of this constitutional amendment.  

Three days later, on August 19, 2024, proponents of Issue 1 filed litigation in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking to have key components of the Ballot Board’s language removed.

GOP politicians represent a majority on the Ohio Ballot Board, which is required by law to provide the language on the actual ballot that voters will see.

The law suit filed against the Ohio Ballot Board states:

” So, let’s be blunt about what is happening here: Politicians do not wish to give up power, they oppose the Amendment, and they’re using control of the Ballot Board to try to influence voters with ballot language so farcically biased and deceptive that it approaches comedy. Whether the Amendment is good policy is for Ohioans to decide—not the Ballot Board— . . .”

Ohio Law

Article XVI, Section 1 and Article II, Section 1g of the Ohio Constitution guide the Ballot Board on what it can and can not lawfully do concerning modifying ballot language submitted by proponents of a constitutional amendment.

Article XVI, Section 1 requires the Ohio Ballot Board to structure language for Issue 1 that “properly identifies the substance of the proposal to be voted upon.” 

This section of the Article further states: “The ballot language shall not be held invalid unless it is such as to mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters.”

And the Ohio Revised Code §3519.21 requires that the Secretary of State establish a title for the ballot issue that “shall give a true and impartial statement of the measures in such language that the ballot title shall not be likely to create prejudice for or against the measure.”

The law suit filed against the Ohio Ballot Board states:

“The ballot title and language adopted by the Ohio Ballot Board to describe the Amendment are unlawful. Because both the title and language embody a brazen effort to mislead and sway voters, they are incurably and wholly tainted.”

Ballot Board Language

In an August 16, 2024 article, Susan Tebben, a reporter with Ohio Capital Journal shared Don McTigue’s (attorney for Citizens Not Politicians) comments about the Ballot Board’s Ballot language: 

“The SOS ( Secretary of State Frank LaRose) language is stunning in it being false and misleading, and it is unabashed in terms of its prejudicial language,”McTigue said. “There’s no reasonable person who … after reading that language could conclude that it is an honest attempt to provide fair ballot language that allows voters to make an independent decision about the issue.”

Ohio Case Law Prevents the Ballot Board from Misleading Voters

There is significant case precedence for the Ohio Supreme Court to order the Ohio Ballot Board to remove misleading and prejudicial Ballot language.

In the 2023 case of The State ex rel. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights et al. vs. Ohio Ballot Board et al. (174 Ohio St.3d 285) the Court ruled that language used by the Ohio Ballot Board was “misleading to (the) average voter, and, thus, language violated (the) constitutional standard requiring ballot language to identify (the) substance of (the) amendment . . .”

In the 2012 case of The State ex rel. Voters et al. vs. Ohio Ballot Board (133 Ohio St.3d 257) the Court ruled:

“ In order for ballot language describing a proposed constitutional amendment to be valid under (the) state constitution, the text of the ballot statement must fairly and accurately present the question or issue to be decided in order to assure a free, intelligent and informed vote by the average citizen affected, and ballot language  ought to be free from any misleading tendency, whether of amplification, or omission.”

Gerrymandering in Ohio

Issue 1 removes all politicians and lobbyists from the process of drawing election district maps, and eliminates the current Ohio Redistricting Commission made up completely of politicians. 

During the 2022 midterm election process, the Ohio Supreme Court on seven (7) occasions ordered that the election district maps submitted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission were unconstitutionally gerrymandered, and ordered the maps to be redrawn.

The Ohio Redistricting Commission refused to redraw fair maps and forced Ohio to use their gerrymandered versions.

Michigan’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission

Issue 1, if passed, will replace the Ohio Redistricting Commission with an Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission similar to the entity put in place by citizens in Michigan.  The Michigan entity has successfully ended gerrymandering in the state by preventing politicians from rigging the outcome of elections with the use of gerrymandered election district maps.  

In 2012, prior to Michigan’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, 9 of the 14 Michigan seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were won by Republican Party candidates even though they received 240,000 less votes than the opposing Democratic Party candidates.

In 2022, after the establishment of Michigan’s Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, the number of Michigan seats won for the U.S. House of Representatives by each political party was very close to the percentage of votes cast by their supporters in the election. Seven (7) of the 13 seats were won by candidates of the Democratic Party who received a slightly higher percentage of votes than the Republican Party candidates who won 6 seats.