COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) – The Ohio Supreme Court should intervene on behalf of voters and order a rewrite of ballot language on a fall redistricting measure that “may be the most biased, inaccurate, deceptive and unconstitutional” the state has ever seen. , claims a lawsuit filed late Monday.
Citizens Not Politicians, the campaign promoting the November 1 issue, and two individuals filed the promised lawsuit against the Ohio Board of Elections and Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, the state’s chief elections officer and panel chairman.
“This court’s intervention is needed to ensure that Ohio voters are provided with the truthful and unbiased ballot title and ballot language required by law to exercise their right to decide for themselves whether to amend the Ohio Constitution,” the lawsuit says.
The proposed change, put forth by a strong bipartisan coalition, calls for replacing the state’s troubled current political map-making system, which produced seven sets of Statehouse and congressional maps that were declared unconstitutional to steer Ohio’s governing Republicans. It would replace the current redistricting committee — made up of four lawmakers, the governor, the auditor general and the secretary of state — with a 15-member citizen-led commission of Republicans, Democrats and independents. Members would be elected by retired judges.
In this case, the question is about the voting language, which was approved by the voting board on Friday according to the party. Among other things, it would describe a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at “prohibiting partisan gerrymandering,” creating a 15-member citizen redistricting commission that would be “responsible for directing” Ohio’s legislative and congressional districts.
Republican state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, who wanted to add that phrase, said the context matched the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of “gerrymander.”
In the lawsuit, Citizens Not Politicians said the approved ballot language “sets it back completely” because their proposal prohibits partisan manipulation of maps. “It does this by ensuring that the plans adopted by the commission seek to approximate the statewide partisan preferences of Ohioans while drawing geographically contiguous districts that reflect those interests,” the suit says.
Redistricting is the process of dividing a state into new districts for election purposes, typically to reflect updated population figures from the decennial United States Census. Gerrymandering is defined as: “manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor one party or class”.
The lawsuit alleges that the salacious language and several other phrases in the 900-word ballot description violate provisions of the Ohio Constitution that require ballot language to identify the proposed issue and prohibit wording that could “mislead, deceive or defraud voters.” “
Except for the change Gavarone made, LaRose and his staff developed it, he said, into a painstaking process that aims for accuracy and fairness.
The lawsuit calls it “an absolute barrage of lies.” It claims the wording misrepresents commissioners’ partisanship requirements, falsely suggests the amendment would limit Ohioans’ right to “freely express their public opinion” and falsely claims it would bar “all citizens” from filing suit against the plan. “in some court.”
“Each paragraph of the ballot language contains misleading and biased language that continues to sway voters against change,” it states.
The voting board chaired by LaRose has recently faced several lawsuits against its ballot language, claiming the wording was misleading or incomplete.
Last August, a Republican-majority court struck down some of the wording adopted to describe a constitutional amendment guaranteeing access to abortion and other forms of reproductive care — though it survived much of the questionable phrasing. In a failed U.S. Senate hearing last year, LaRose revealed that she had consulted prominent anti-abortion groups when drafting the language.
In June 2023, the justices ordered the panel to redraft its description of a divisive August constitutional amendment that would have made it more difficult to amend Ohio’s constitution.
Both LaRose and Gavarone left Friday’s voting booth without speaking to reporters. Instead, they recorded a 35-minute podcast in which Ohio Senate Republican President Matt Huffman’s communications chief, John Fortney, defended the ballot measure and blasted the fall proposal — which they’ve dubbed “Political Outcomes Over People.” — as undemocratic, overbroad and burdensome.
Amid legal battles, Ohio’s 2022 election moved forward under unconstitutional maps.
That year, Republicans won 10 of Ohio’s 15 congressional seats on the unconstitutional U.S. House map, although Democrats won several notable victories. The contested Statehouse maps produced even larger Republican supermajorities.
LaRose pointed to the election results during the podcast as evidence that Ohio’s system works.
“Look, when Ohio voters have created a Republican supermajority in the House and a Republican supermajority in the Senate, and they’ve given every statewide office to Republicans, I think they’re telling us something,” LaRose said. presentation. “I think they’re telling us they prefer conservative public policy and they want us to operate that way.”
