Ohio Supreme Court Approves Most of the Language Used for Redistricting Amendment

Proponents of the proposal say the change is intended to ban partisan gerrymandering and bar redistricting.

Ohio’s top court on Sept. 16 largely upheld the description of a proposed constitutional amendment that would significantly change how redistricting is done in the state, rejecting claims from challengers who argued the language was biased against the proposal.

In a 4–3 decision, the majority ruled that saying the amendment, if approved, would “repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering” and require a new commission to gerrymander state and congressional districts was accurate.

The proposed amendment would establish a commission made up of individuals appointed by a panel or the first group of members to handle redistricting, a process currently done by legislators. Only the commission itself would have the authority to remove members.

Proponents of the proposal say the change is intended to ban partisan gerrymandering and bar redistricting that favors one political party while disfavoring others. The proposal specifies that districts have to be drawn to “correspond closely to the statewide partisan preferences of the voters of Ohio.” The commission would have to meet this requirement by calculating the votes received by Republicans and Democrats in previous years.

The requirement from the rules “falls within the meaning of ‘gerrymander,’” the Ohio Supreme Court majority said in the new ruling. “They mandate the new commission draw district boundaries that give a political advantage to an identifiable group—Republicans in some districts and Democrats in others.”

The challenged language describing the proposed amendment, which will be presented to voters in November, was adopted by the Ohio Ballot Board.

Most of the other challenged language is also appropriate, according to the majority, but they found two sections to be defective.

The description incorrectly suggested that the Ohio Supreme Court could only review redistricting cases based on a proportionality standard, when in fact justices can consider cases involving other related matters, the majority said. Another section wrongly excluded information about how the public can participate in redistricting, the justices added.

The court ordered those sections to be fixed.

Justices Sharon Sharon L. Kennedy, Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, and Joseph T. Deters formed the majority.

Fischer said in a concurring opinion that the proposed amendment certainly requires gerrymandering, in favor of one of the two major parties.

“And if you are an independent voter, or a member of the Libertarian or similar third parties, your state constitution would dictate that your voice is removed from Ohio’s political world via a bipartisan gerrymander, thereby undermining the concept of ‘one person, one vote,’” he said.

Justice Jennifer Brunner in a dissent joined by Justices Michael P. Donnelly and Melody J. Stewart said she found the parts of the description about gerrymandering to be misleading.

“We should be requiring a nearly complete redrafting of what is perhaps the most stunningly stilted ballot language that Ohio voters will have ever seen,” Brunner wrote.

Citizens Not Politicians, which proposed the amendment and challenged the description, said in a statement, “While we disagree with much of the decision, we agree with the court’s repudiation of the politicians on the Ballot Board for violating the Ohio Constitution and writing language that was ‘inaccurate,’ ‘defective,’ and amounted to ‘argumentation’ against Issue 1.”

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose said in a statement to news outlets that the decision is a “huge win for Ohio voters, who deserve an honest explanation of what they’re being asked to decide.”