Ohio set to decide constitutional amendment establishing a citizen-led redistricting commission

By JULIE CARR SMYTH Associated Press

This story is published as part of a partnership between The Land and The Associated Press.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio voters will decide Tuesday whether they want to set up a citizen-led redistricting commission to replace the state’s troubled political mapmaking system.

The proposed amendment, advanced by a robust bipartisan coalition called Citizens Not Politicians, calls for replacing the current redistricting commission — made up of four lawmakers, the governor, the auditor and the secretary of state — with a 15-person citizen-led commission of Republicans, Democrats and independents. Members would be selected by retired judges.

Proponents advanced the measure as an alternative after seven straight sets of legislative and congressional maps produced under Ohio’s existing system — a GOP-controlled panel composed of elected officials — were declared unconstitutionally gerrymandered to favor Republicans. A yes vote favors establishing the commission, a no vote supports keeping the current system.

Leading GOP officials, including Gov. Mike DeWine, have campaigned against the commission, saying its unelected members would be unaccountable to voters. The opposition campaign also objects to criteria the amendment establishes for drawing Statehouse and congressional boundaries — particularly a standard called “proportionality” that requires taking Ohio’s political makeup of Republicans and Democrats into account — saying it amounts to partisan manipulation.

Ballot language that will appear in voting booths to describe Issue 1 has been a matter of litigation. It describes the new commission as being “required to gerrymander” district boundaries, though the amendment states the opposite is the case.

Citizens Not Politicians sued the GOP-controlled Ohio Ballot Board over the wording, telling the Ohio Supreme Court it may have been “the most biased, inaccurate, deceptive, and unconstitutional” language the state has ever seen. The court’s Republican majority voted 4-3 to let the wording stand, but justices did require some sections of the ballot language be rewritten.

At a news conference announcing his opposition, DeWine contended that the mapmaking rules laid out in Issue 1 would divide communities and mandate outcomes that fit “the classic definition of gerrymandering.” He has vowed to pursue an alternative next year, whether Issue 1 passes or fails.

DeWine said Iowa’s system — in which mapmakers are prohibited from consulting past election results or protecting individual lawmakers — would work better to remove politics from the process. Issue 1 supporters disagree, pointing out that Iowa state lawmakers have the final say on political district maps in that state — the exact scenario their plan was designed to avoid.