by J.D. Davidson
Democrats called the latest version of ballot language for Issue I rigged and misleading after the Ohio Ballot Board made court-ordered changes Wednesday.
The Ohio Supreme Court ordered the board to change two of eight areas in Issue 1’s ballot language that deals with limits on challenging court decisions and the public’s right to influence the commission.
Those changes were approved on a Republican-party line 3-2 vote Wednesday morning after denying completely new language Citizens Not Politicians – the group that put the question on the ballot.
The two Democratic board members repeated criticism that the language does not represent the issue facing voters.
“The final language approved by the majority on the Ballot Board does not, and never has, represented the viewpoint of the majority of Ohioans,” said Rep. Terrence Upchurch, D-Cleveland. “Frank LaRose thinks Ohio’s voters can be fooled, so he maliciously fought for false, misleading, and frankly bizarre ballot language hoping it would confuse them. Ohioans are too smart for these silly games, and they know exactly what gerrymandering is. That’s why they will vote ‘yes’ on Issue 1 in November to end it and begin the dismantling of extremists Republicans grip on power in Ohio.”
Issue 1 would change how the state establishes congressional and statehouse districts, removing the process from the Ohio Redistricting Commission – a political group made up of five Republicans and two Democrats – and putting it into the hands of a nonpolitical citizen committee made up of 15 people, consisting of Republicans, Democrats and independents.
Citizens Not Politicians had submitted proposed language for the ballot that included 15 members who have no disqualifying conflicts of interest and have shown an ability to conduct the redistricting process with impartiality, integrity and fairness.
The Ballot Board approved language stating that the new commission would be “required to gerrymander” the districts.
The Supreme Court’s opinion said it could only force changes to the language if it found the wording would mislead, deceive or defraud voters. The majority ruled most of the language did not.
Democrats on the court, in their dissent, said nearly the entire language should be rewritten.
– – –
An Ohio native, J.D. Davidson is a veteran journalist with more than 30 years of experience in newspapers in Ohio, Georgia, Alabama and Texas. He has served as a reporter, editor, managing editor and publisher. Davidson is a regional editor for The Center Square.
Photo “Ohio Supreme Court Building” by Sixflashphoto. CC BY-SA 4.0.
