The debate over Issue 1, a proposed constitutional amendment to reform redistricting in Ohio, has intensified. The lawsuit now includes Ohio’s House and Senate Democratic leaders and the creators of the amendment, accusing the Ohio Ballot Board of misleading voters.
The amendment aims to replace the current redistricting system, which is controlled by elected officials, with a 15-member citizen commission. This new commission would be tasked with creating fair district maps and ending gerrymandering. The lawsuit claims the summary provided by the board, led by Secretary of State Frank LaRose, misrepresents the amendment’s goals.
Attorney Don McTigue, representing the Citizens Not Politicians group, argues that the summary falsely suggests the amendment would reduce accountability and increase gerrymandering. He believes the summary needs to be revised to accurately reflect the amendment’s intent.
The Ohio Attorney General’s Office, however, defends the summary, arguing that it correctly describes the amendment and does not mislead voters. Deputy Attorney General Julie Pfeiffer asserts that the summary clearly outlines the amendment’s changes, including replacing elected officials with appointed members on the redistricting commission.
Democratic lawmakers have voiced their support for the lawsuit and criticized LaRose for the lack of transparency in drafting the summary. They argue that the summary’s language distorts the amendment’s purpose and calls for clearer and more accurate information.
State Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney has also called for LaRose to ensure that all ballot issue materials are free from political bias before approving the $405,000 funding for their publication.
The Ohio Supreme Court is now considering the legality of the summary language. Democratic board members Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson and Rep. Terrence Upchurch, who opposed the summary, have filed their own response to the lawsuit, challenging the board’s actions. They argue that the summary was misleading and violated their constitutional duties.
The court has not yet ruled on the matter.