COLUMBUS, Ohio — On Tuesday, voters in Ohio will cast their ballots on a proposal aimed at establishing a citizen-led redistricting commission, intended to replace the state’s controversial political map-drawing procedures.

The initiative, championed by a strong bipartisan coalition named Citizens Not Politicians, suggests a shift from the existing redistricting commission, which currently includes four legislators, the governor, the auditor, and the secretary of state. The proposed new 15-member commission would be composed of representatives from both major parties and independents, with its members being selected by retired judges.
Supporters of the amendment present it as a necessary alternative after a series of legislative and congressional maps produced under Ohio’s current system—a Republican-dominated panel of elected officials—were found to be excessively biased in favor of the GOP, thus deemed unconstitutionally gerrymandered. A vote in favor of the amendment would initiate the formation of the citizen-led commission, while a vote against it would keep the existing framework.
Nevertheless, many leading Republican figures, including Governor Mike DeWine, have campaigned actively against the establishment of this commission. They argue that the members of the proposed commission, being unelected, would lack accountability to the citizens. The opposition has also raised concerns regarding the criteria set by the amendment for delineating Statehouse and congressional district lines, particularly a measure known as “proportionality,” which would require that the political demographics of Ohio, comprising Republicans and Democrats, be factored into the map-making process. Critics label this as a form of partisan manipulation.
The ballot language describing Issue 1 has sparked legal disputes. It alleges that the new commission is “required to gerrymander” district boundaries, which contradicts what the amendment itself stipulates. Citizens Not Politicians took legal action against the GOP-led Ohio Ballot Board over the wording, claiming it could be among “the most biased, inaccurate, deceptive, and unconstitutional” descriptions the state has produced. Although the Ohio Supreme Court, with a Republican majority, allowed the wording to remain, it mandated certain parts to be revised.
At a recent press conference, Governor DeWine expressed his opposition to the proposal, suggesting that the stipulations set forth in Issue 1 would disrupt community cohesion and enforce outcomes that fit the traditional model of gerrymandering. He has committed to advocating for an alternative solution next year, regardless of whether Issue 1 gains approval.
DeWine cited Iowa’s redistricting system as a model, where mapmakers do not consult previous election outcomes or seek to protect individual lawmakers, asserting that this approach would better eliminate political influence from the process. Supporters of Issue 1, however, contend that Iowa’s lawmakers retain the ultimate authority over political district maps, which is precisely the situation they seek to avoid with their proposed changes.