How 'gerrymandering' language will appear to Ohio voters on redistricting amendment
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) -- The Ohio Supreme Court has approved the language voters will see when they decide on a statewide amendment, but the judges also requested two changes before it heads to the ballot.
The court was reviewing contested language on Issue 1, a ballot initiative led by Citizens Not Politicians to place the responsibility of drawing Ohio's electoral maps in the hands of a new, independent commission, instead of the current one made up of politicians. The 15-member group would decide on district borders.
When Citizens Not Politicians submitted the language to go on ballots to the Ohio Ballot Board -- under Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose -- the former said it came back as the “most biased, inaccurate and unconditional ballot language ever adopted by the Ohio Ballot Board," prompting a lawsuit. The first line voters will see at the ballot box reads, “The proposed constitutional amendment would repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering," while another portion describes creating the commission, whose appointees would be “required to gerrymander."
But in a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court announced Monday evening that it would allow six provisions in the current version to stay as they are while asking for changes to two. The four judges in the majority called for changes to language on when the public can file a lawsuit to challenge a redistricting plan, as well as different language on how the public can share input on the map-making process.
The majority decision came from Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, and Joseph Deters. In an opinion on the ballot language, Fischer wrote that the new independent commission would be "required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor either of the two largest political parties." He wrote that the Ohio Ballot Board's inclusion of the word "gerrymander" for the ballot should stay, because the commissions' drawn districts would negatively impact independent and third-party voters.
Justices Michael Donnelly, Jennifer Brunner, and Melody Stewart all dissented. Brunner wrote that stating the amendment would "require gerrymandering" is "misleading, deceitful, and a fraud upon the voters," which could persuade them to reject it. Donnelly, in another opinion, referenced a July ruling on a chicken bone lawsuit.
"The four members of this court in the majority today apparently think that the word 'boneless' means 'you should expect bones,'" Donnelly said. "I'm sure it comes as no great surprise that they think that a constitutional amendment to 'ban partisan gerrymandering' means to 'require gerrymandering.'"
View the Ohio Supreme Court's per curiam opinion below: