As promised, supporters of an anti-redundancy amendment have asked the Ohio Supreme Court to intervene in language the Ohio Board of Elections approved for the November ballot, arguing that the language violates the Ohio Constitution.
A brief filed on Monday The lawsuit before the state’s highest court relies on constitutional provisions that dictate how titles and language can appear on Ohio’s ballots, according to the court document, which was written by lawyers for Citizens Not Politicians, the group that wrote the redistricting reform bill.
“This November, Ohio voters will be asked to consider a proposed constitutional amendment that would strip politicians of the power to redistrict and give it to a citizens’ redistricting commission,” wrote attorney Don McTigue. “Politicians are fighting back with a barrage of falsehoods.”
McTigue called the wording approved by the panel “possibly the most biased, inaccurate, misleading and unconstitutional election wording the Ohio Board of Elections has ever adopted.”
The Board approved the wording of the summary for the newly published Issue 1 by a vote of 3 to 2. at its meeting on 16 August Ohio Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Republican Senator Theresa Gavarone and House member William N. Morgan voted for the language.
The proposed amendment would replace Ohio’s current redistricting commission, which is made up of politicians such as the governor, secretary of state, auditor and two representatives from each party, with a 15-member citizens’ commission made up of equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independent citizens without elected office or political affiliations.
According to the Voting language approved by the divided board – LaRose, the chairman of the Elections Committee, said at the meeting that he wrote with help from his staff – the redistricting initiative would “override constitutional protections against gerrymandering” and “eliminate the long-standing ability of Ohioans to hold their representatives accountable for creating fair districts for the state’s legislature and Congress.”
In a final change to LaRose’s wording during the board meeting, Gavarone replaced the word “gearing” in a paragraph about changing district boundaries. Instead, it now says the new commission would be required to gerrymander the boundaries of the state’s legislative and congressional districts. This change was supported at the meeting by LaRose and fellow board member William Morgan.
“That is completely false,” McTigue countered in Citizens Not Politicians’ complaint. “In fact, the amendment would ‘prohibit partisan gerrymandering and prohibit the use of redistricting plans that favor one political party and disadvantage others.'”
McTigue said the language of the summary contained “numerous serious flaws” and contained “campaign rhetoric designed to persuade – not impartial, factual information designed to inform voters.”
After the Ohio Board of Elections approved the language written by LaRose, the organization Citizens Not Politians wasted no time in announcing that it would challenge the language in court. Former Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court Maureen O’Connor called the approval and the events leading up to it “one grotesque abuse of power after another by politicians desperately trying to protect the current system that only benefits themselves and their lobbyist friends.”
“Secretary of State Frank LaRose has voted seven times for maps that have been found unconstitutional by courts, and this week he is violating the Constitution with objectively incorrect wording on the ballot,” O’Connor said in a statement.
LaRose was a member of the Ohio Redistricting Commission when it passed six statehouse district maps and two congressional district maps during the two years the group worked. Among those maps, the Ohio Supreme Court found five statehouse district maps and both congressional district maps to be unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering.
Under Ohio law, ballot titles must be a “true and impartial representation of the measures in such language that the ballot title is not likely to produce a bias for or against the measure.”
The language presented to voters is also regulated by Ohio law. The constitution states that the full text of the amendment is not required, but that the language used must not “mislead, deceive, or defraud” voters.
“Whether the change is good policy is for the people of Ohio to decide – not the Board of Elections – and the court does not decide,” McTigue wrote in his briefing Monday. “The Board of Elections’ duty is clear, the legal standards are clearly defined, and the title and language of the ballot blatantly violate those standards.”
The state Supreme Court faced a similar case last August when supporters of the reproductive rights amendment that was on the ballot last November filed a lawsuit challenging another roundup. written by LaRose and co-workers which they said was misleading.
Ohioans unite for reproductive rights asked the Supreme Court of Ohio to direct the Elections Committee to use the full text of the amendment or to “correct obvious inaccuracies” and use “language that fully, accurately and impartially describes the scope and impact of the amendment.”
The Ohio Supreme Court ordered the Election Commission optimize only one thing Among the many issues supporters pointed out was a paragraph that read “the citizens of the State of Ohio” instead of “the State of Ohio” on the ballot.
Nevertheless, the abortion amendment was passed with 57% of the vote.
Regardless of what wording appears on the redistricting ballot this year, the full text of the amendment itself remains the same language, written by citizens, not politicians and supported by more than 535,000 voters in Ohio who participated in a petition drive that helped put the measure on the ballot for the November general election. The Elections Committee summary does not change the actual anti-gerrymandering amendment.
Get the morning’s headlines straight to your inbox
