A contentious decision by the Ohio Supreme Court has allowed ballot language to stand that describes an anti-gerrymandering measure as requiring the opposite.
According to The Associated Press, the Ohio Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling, has largely upheld the ballot language for Issue 1, a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at reforming the state's political map-making system.
The court ordered revisions to two of eight disputed sections while maintaining the other six that were contested by the measure's backers. The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Citizens Not Politicians, the group behind the November 5 amendment. The organization argued that the approved ballot language was potentially "the most biased, inaccurate, deceptive, and unconstitutional" ever seen in the state.
The ballot language, approved by the Republican-controlled Ohio Ballot Board, includes a description stating that the commission created by Issue 1 is "required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor the two largest political parties." This description has been a point of major contention, as the proposed amendment actually aims to prevent gerrymandering.
Citizens Not Politicians brought the legal challenge, asserting that the language could mislead voters about the true intent of the measure. The group's proposal seeks to establish a 15-member, citizen-led commission comprised of Republicans, Democrats, and independents to replace the current map-making system.
The Ohio Supreme Court's majority opinion noted that it can only invalidate language approved by the ballot board if it is found to "mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters." The court determined that most of the contested language did not meet this threshold.
In the 4-3 decision, the court's three Democratic justices dissented from the majority opinion. The majority, consisting of Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy and Justices Patrick Fischer, Patrick DeWine, and Joseph Deters, found that much of the disputed language merely described the extensive amendment in detail rather than being misleading.
Justice Patrick Fischer wrote a separate concurring opinion defending the use of the term "gerrymander" in the ballot description. He argued that the language accurately reflects the proposed commission's mandate to create maps ensuring certain political outcomes.
The court ordered revisions to two sections of the ballot language. These revisions pertain to when lawsuits challenging the new commission's redistricting plan can be filed and the public's ability to provide input on the map-making process.
Citizens Not Politicians expressed disagreement with much of the court's decision but acknowledged the ruling that portions of the language were "inaccurate," "defective," and amounted to "argumentation" against Issue 1. The group stated:
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled seven times that politicians broke the law with unconstitutional gerrymanders, and the Ohio Supreme Court ruled today that politicians broke the law with lies about our Issue 1 amendment to end the gerrymandering they hold dear.
Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who chairs the ballot board, praised the ruling as a win for Ohio voters, stating that it would help voters understand the proposed measure amidst expected campaign advertising.
LaRose has reconvened the ballot board for Wednesday to rewrite the two sections ruled unconstitutional. This process is similar to what occurred last year with an amendment concerning abortion access in Ohio's constitution.
The Ohio Supreme Court's decision to largely uphold the controversial ballot language for Issue 1 has significant implications for the upcoming November 5 vote. While the court ordered revisions to two sections, it allowed the description of the anti-gerrymandering measure as requiring gerrymandering to stand. This ruling has drawn criticism from the measure's backers, who argue it misrepresents their proposal to create a citizen-led redistricting commission.
