COLUMBUS, Ohio — A ballot measure to change the way Ohio draws its congressional and state legislative districts is confusing voters who largely oppose gerrymandering.
Proponents of Issue 1 say it would end partisan gerrymandering, while opponents argue it would only further politicize the districts. The truth is murky as both processes involve political considerations.
If approved, Issue 1 would create a 15-member commission of citizens, appointed by retired judges with help from a professional search firm, to draw district lines that “correspond closely to the statewide partisan preferences of the voters of Ohio.”
That would be a change from the current process in which elected politicians create the maps: The state legislature sets the congressional districts, while a seven-member political commission draws the state legislative districts.
The citizen commission, if approved, would be formed next year and tasked with drawing new districts in time for the 2026 midterm elections.
Support for Issue 1 is led by a group called Citizens Not Politicians, which has spent $37 million urging a yes vote on the ballot measure.
“Ohio’s current system allows politicians of both parties and their lobbyist friends to gerrymander voting districts in secret backroom deals to manipulate the outcomes to benefit themselves,” the group wrote in its official arguments. “Issue 1 will ban politicians and lobbyists and make it illegal to gerrymander voting districts.”
Opposition group Ohio Works, which was formed much later in the cycle, has spent $4.6 million pushing a no vote.
“Issue 1 is a cynical attempt to trick Ohio voters by promising to end gerrymandering and empower citizens when, in fact, the amendment forces gerrymandering in the Ohio constitution and removes accountability to Ohio voters,” the opponent group wrote in its arguments.
Republican opponents of Issue 1 say it would result in a partisan shift in Ohio’s congressional delegation that could upend the balance of power in the House if the GOP holds onto its narrow majority.
Ohio GOP Rep. Mike Carey said at an event last week that the state delegation to Congress would go from a 10-5 split favoring Republicans to a 9-6 split favoring Democrats.
“That changes the majority,” he said.
The Washington Times could not independently verify his claim.
The dispute about whether the ballot measure would lead to more or less gerrymandering has confused voters on both sides of the aisle.
“I don’t think Ohioans, really Republicans, don’t really know what it’s all about. We’ve done a horrible job of explaining it,” said Roy Debolt, a Republican from Westerville, Ohio, and Issue 1 opponent. “The elected officials that we’ve voted for are not going to have a say.”
Carolyn Bayat, a Democrat from Fairfield, Ohio, said she voted yes on Issue 1 because she does not like gerrymandering.
“But I guess the way the issue is written is kind of confusing for people,” she said.
‘Unelected bureaucrats’ vs. ‘career politicians’
Republicans, who control the Ohio legislature and most statewide offices, largely oppose the ballot measure, arguing it would give power to “unelected bureaucrats.”
“We the people always have more power, more influence, more say when people who we can vote in or out are making the decisions, and that’s what we want,” Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan said on a tele-townhall that Issue 1 opponents held this week.
Mr. Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee that has jurisdiction over federal redistricting laws, said Ohio Republicans shouldn’t be punished just because the electorate has trended more conservative.
“We can’t help it that, frankly, right now, Democrats can’t win a statewide election,” he said.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump weighed in against Issue 1 last month accusing Ohio Democrats of trying a “redistricting scam.”
“Vote No on Issue 1. Stop the Steal!” he said.
Democrats primarily support Issue 1, but its proponents don’t fall squarely along party lines.
A Republican, former Ohio Supreme Court chief justice and former lieutenant governor Maureen O’Connor, wrote the proposed amendment that would be added to the state constitution if voters approve the ballot measure.
“Career politicians have so blatantly gerrymandered our voting district maps that Ohio’s Supreme Court ruled the maps unconstitutional seven times. I know because I was chief justice on that court,” Ms. O’Connor said in an ad in favor of the ballot measure. “Then those same politicians lied about Issue 1.”
Ballot language
Proponents of Issue One say the ballot language summarizing the constitutional amendment was written to mislead voters to oppose it.
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican who serves on the Ohio Redistricting Commission that the ballot measure would eliminate, was primarily responsible for crafting the language.
The ballot measure lists 10 points about Issue 1, including claims that it would “repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three-quarters of Ohio electors participating in the statewide elections of 2015 and 2018” and would “establish a new taxpayer-funded commission of appointees required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts.”
The text of the proposed constitutional amendment says its purpose is “to ban partisan gerrymandering and prohibit the use of redistricting plans that favor one political party and disfavor others.”
In 2015, Ohioans voted 71% to 29% to create the seven-member Ohio Redistricting Commission. In his role as secretary of state, Mr. LaRose serves on that commission as well as the Ohio Ballot Board that oversees voter-led ballot initiatives to change the state constitution.
The governor and state auditor are also automatic members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission, along with four members appointed by the state legislature’s party leaders. All of the current commission members are elected officials with a 5-2 party split favoring Republicans.
In 2018, Ohioans voted 75% to 25% to require the state legislature to adopt congressional district maps on a three-fifths, bipartisan majority basis, rather than a simple majority vote that could pass with just one party’s support.
The constitutional amendment proposed under Issue 1 would replace both of those processes with a 15-member Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission comprised of five Republicans, five Democrats and five independents.
Citizens commission requirements
Only Ohio citizens who have lived in the state for at least six years can serve on the commission. Citizens cannot serve if they or their family members hold any elected or appointed role in politics, have in the past six years or have run for office during that time. Politicians’ staff, paid political consultants and lobbyists are also barred from serving on the commission.
The commission must draw districts that are geographically contiguous and “correspond closely to the statewide partisan preferences of the voters of Ohio,” defined as deviating by no more than 3 percentage points in either direction.
“No redistricting plan shall be drawn with consideration of the place of residence of any incumbent elected official or any candidate for state or congressional office,” the proposed constitutional amendment says.
The process for selecting the citizen commissioners is complicated. It starts with a bipartisan screening panel of four retired judges, two from each party.
Those judges would be selected by the four Ohio Ballot Board members who are appointed by state legislative leaders. The Republican ballot board members would select the former Democratic judges and vice versa.
The screening panel would hire a professional search firm to solicit applications for the 15 members of the Citizens Redistricting Commission and help conduct background checks and interviews.
The proposed constitutional amendment says commissioners should be selected “in a manner that is impartial, transparent, and fair and that promotes applications from a geographically and demographically representative cross-section of Ohio.”
The screening panel first narrows the applicant pool to 90 candidates, split equally among Republicans, Democrats and independents, who will be subject to publicly broadcast interviews. Ohioans will be able to submit public comments via a portal for the screening panel to review as it narrows the pool to 45 finalists.
In a public meeting, the panel will randomly draw two Republicans, two Democrats and two independents from the applicant pool to serve as the first six commissioners. Those six commissioners will then select nine more commissioners from the remaining applicant pool to serve with them, again retaining the equal party splits.
The commission shall conduct its deliberations during public meetings, with any actions requiring support from at least nine commissioners and two from each party. Any impasse in approving final maps will result in a ranked-choice selection process.
Before drafting maps, the commission must hold at least five hearings throughout different regions of Ohio to gather public input. It must hold at least five more hearings after releasing draft maps and at least two hearings for every revised plan. After adopting the final maps, the commission must produce a public report to explain its decision-making.
The constitutional amendment calls for the appointment of a new commission for every 10-year redistricting cycle, which follows the production of the U.S. census population data that is used to help draw the maps.
• Lindsey McPherson can be reached at lmcpherson@washingtontimes.com.