The Ohio Supreme Court is being urged to intervene and demand a revision of the ballot language for an upcoming fall redistricting measure in Ohio. A lawsuit filed by Citizens Not Politicians, the group behind November’s Issue 1, along with two individuals, targets the Ohio Ballot Board and Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose. The lawsuit argues that the current ballot language is biased, inaccurate, deceptive, and unconstitutional. It claims that voters are entitled to accurate and impartial information to make informed decisions on amending the Ohio Constitution.
The proposed amendment, which has bipartisan support, aims to overhaul the state’s current political map-making system, known for producing gerrymandered maps favoring Ohio’s ruling Republicans. The amendment seeks to replace the existing redistricting commission with a 15-person citizen-led commission inclusive of Republicans, Democrats, and independents, selected by retired judges. At the heart of the issue is the approved ballot language which inaccurately describes the amendment as requiring gerrymandering, despite its intention to eliminate partisan manipulation of district maps.
The lawsuit alleges that the 900-word ballot description contains misleading language that violates Ohio Constitutional provisions by misrepresenting the proposal and potentially misleading voters. Numerous phrases in the ballot description are contested, including allegations of inaccuracies regarding the partisan makeup of the commission members and restrictions on citizens’ rights to express their opinions freely. The lawsuit accuses the ballot language of swaying voters against the amendment with biased and deceptive wording.
This legal conflict is not the first faced by the Ohio Ballot Board under Secretary of State Frank LaRose. Previous lawsuits have challenged the wording of ballot measures as misleading or flawed, with some portions being invalidated by the Republican-majority court. Amid legal disputes, Ohio conducted its 2022 elections using unconstitutional maps, resulting in significant Republican victories in congressional and statehouse races. LaRose defended the current system, citing electoral outcomes as proof that voters prefer conservative policies and Republican governance.
Efforts to address the allegedly misleading ballot language highlights the ongoing controversy surrounding the redistricting measure debate in Ohio and the importance of providing voters with accurate and unbiased information during the decision-making process.
