What does a yes vote on Ohio Issue 1 mean? What does a no mean? • Ohio Capital Journal

Ohioans will vote this November on Issue 1 – a redistricting proposal that would eliminate politicians from the process in favor of a citizens' commission. But there is a problem. Readers are concerned that the message both for and against the change is confusing.

Both the “yes” and “no” sides say their party would end gerrymandering. We'll explain what you're actually voting for – and answer other questions you might have.

What am I voting on?

They will vote on whether Ohio should exclude politicians from the redistricting process.

Right now, elected officials and lawmakers in Ohio are drawing the maps – maps that directly impact them and their colleagues.

The Ohio Redistricting Commission (ORC) consists of seven agencies. Two always go to the Republicans and two to the Democrats in the Statehouse. The three remaining seats include governor, secretary of state and comptroller.

This led to the Ohio redistricting mess of 2021 and 2022, in which a bipartisan Ohio Supreme Court ruled seven different adopted maps unconstitutional, saying the commission's GOP members had drawn lines to unfairly favor their party help.

Voting “yes” to Item 1 would create a 15-member Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission (OCRC) composed of Republican, Democratic, and Independent citizens broadly representing the state’s diverse geographic areas and demographics .

It prohibits current or former politicians, political party officials, lobbyists and major political donors from serving on the commission.

It requires fair and impartial electoral districts by making it unconstitutional to create electoral districts that discriminate against or favor a political party or individual politician. The Commission is also mandated to work in an open and independent process.

The commissioners would create the maps based on federal law and also take into account past election data on partisan preferences. The commission would ensure that each district has a reasonably equal population and that communities of interest are held together.

If you vote “no” on topic 1, you would reject the independent commission’s proposal and maintain the current structure. Voting no could also mean hoping Republicans keep their word and propose a “solution” to improve the system in the coming months.

How do we know whether the Commission would be truly independent?

Everyone involved in this process must be vetted by various authorities, starting with the Bipartisan Screening Panel (BSP). The Ohio Ballot Board is helping select the BSP, which would consist of four retired judges.

The panel would work with an independent recruiting firm to solicit applications and review applicants' background, references, potential conflicts of interest, relevant experience and skills, and community ties. The applicant will also be assessed on their “commitment to impartiality, willingness to compromise and fairness.”

As noted above, the amendment prohibits current or former politicians, political party officials, lobbyists and major political donors from serving on the Commission.

Party affiliation would be determined based on a number of factors, including election results, political donations and campaign activity.

The panel would then announce 90 possible commissioners, with 30 per commission affiliation — Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated Ohioans. The board and the company would open a public portal for comments on the individuals.

The jury would then select 45 finalists. The panel randomly selected six commissioners. These six commissioners would meet and select the remaining nine.

There is also a clause that states: “All applications must be filed under penalty of perjury within a time limit determined by the bipartisan review panel.”

That seems to say there is a retroactivity clause for the BSP's lying, said Atiba Ellis, an election law professor at Case Western Reserve University.

“Lying to get to the commission would probably have consequences,” Ellis said.

Why do both sides say gerrymandering will stop? Why are they both allowed to say that?

The First Amendment.

“People can say whatever they want if they take their side,” Ellis said. “In fact, the Supreme Court has even said that politicians can lie when making political statements. Of course, these lies obviously have consequences, but protecting political speech is the highest value of the First Amendment.”

Which side is correct?

The “yes” side would stop gerrymandering, the professor said.

“Republicans who argue that this would lead to gerrymandering are relying on the thin argument that there is partisan representation on the commission and that a partisan outcome is expected – when the reality is that the proposal seeks to do so. “the state representative of who the people want to vote for,” Ellis said. “For the state to be representative is not gerrymandering, making politicians more powerful than they are popular is gerrymandering.”

The nonpartisan legal expert continued that Republicans are “trying to hide this difference.”

What’s the deal with ballot language?

The Republican-controlled Board of Elections has changed the language you'll see at the polls.

Instead of using the language voters signed to place the amendment on the ballot, Republican Sec. Secretary of State Frank LaRose and the board of elections changed the wording of the amendment, saying the commission was “committed to gerrymandering.”

Proponents of the proposal filed a lawsuit, but the Republican-led Ohio Supreme Court allowed it.

“I never in my life thought I would tell people, 'Don't read carefully what's on the ballot,'” said Annette Tucker Sutherland of the League of Women Voters. “Do your homework before you get there, read everything about it before you get there.”

Who supports each side?

Vote yes

Supporters include hundreds of organizations, from unions to religious groups to business owners.

“Our support comes from a broad coalition of Republicans, independents and Democrats who want to get the politicians out of the process because they have repeatedly shown they are either unwilling or unable to pass fair maps,” Chris said Davey, spokesman for Citizens Not Politicians said.

Former Republican Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor is the face of the campaign, showing that this is not a partisan issue.

They have raised over $23 million.

Most of the money comes from out-of-state progressive groups, which is typical for campaigns in Ohio, regardless of party.

Vote no

Opponents of Issue 1 include the Ohio GOP, although some Republican lawmakers have told me they hope it passes, and several organizations. These include Ohio Right to Life, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Farm Bureau, the Ohio Manufacturers' Association, Buckeye Firearms and the Black Equity and Redistricting Fund.

The campaign against Issue 1, called “Ohio Works,” reported no donations or expenditures as of the end of July. They have not responded to our request for updated numbers.

We contacted each of the six organizations that opposed the change and asked if they had donated money to Ohio Works. The Chamber, Buckeye Firearms and the Black Equity and Redistricting Fund responded with every share they didn't donate. Buckeye Firearms and the Black Equity and Redistricting Fund both said they are only using their platforms to state their beliefs.

The Ohio Republican Party is the group that created the signage, so it's spending money — but it's unclear what Ohio Works received or paid for itself.

Follow WEWS Statehouse reporter Morgan Trau continued Twitter And Facebook.

This article was originally published on News5Cleveland.com and is published in the Ohio Capital Journal under a content sharing agreement. Unlike other OCJ articles, it is not available for free republication by other news outlets because it is the property of WEWS in Cleveland.