GOP-Authored Description of OH Redistricting Reform Measure Full of Inaccuracies

Proponents of an Ohio constitutional ballot measure set to be decided on this fall by residents of the Buckeye State are blasting Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose for crafting a description of the proposal that is long, full of inaccuracies and phrased in a purposefully loaded way in order to dissuade voters from backing it.

The measure, which was promoted by the state-based organization Citizens Not Politicians, would remove redistricting powers from the state legislature, allowing a multi-partisan commission instead to create political boundaries, thereby ending the GOP grip on control that has lasted for years in Ohio due to gerrymandering.

Rather than having state legislatures draw up maps, the proposed amendment would establish a 15-member Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC). Ten of its members would be composed of an equal number of representatives from the two major political parties — which means that, if the commission were in existence right now, there would be five Democratic Party members and five Republican ones. Another five members would include independent members or individuals who are part of smaller political parties in the state, with four retired judges – two Democrats and two Republicans – charged with reviewing applicants’ backgrounds to ensure that they truly are independents or third-party representatives.

Once formed, the 15-member CRC would have sole control over creating Ohio’s legislative and congressional maps. None of the commission’s members can be current politicians, thus taking the map-making powers away from lawmakers who could personally benefit from being on the CRC.

LaRose, as Ohio Secretary of State, is part of a five-member state governing panel called the Ohio Ballot Board, which determines among other things the exact wording of ballot measure explanations that are given to voters ahead of elections. LaRose’s office drafted text to accompany the redistricting proposal that exceeded three pages in length, which is atypical as explainers are generally just a few paragraphs long.

Aside from the lengthy explanation, LaRose’s description of the amendment measure tells voters that it would “repeal constitutional protections” for voters in the state because it would, if passed, go against how the electorate voted in 2015 and 2018, when similar measures to change the redistricting process were offered up.

Notably, voters are allowed to change their views on the process of how legislative maps are drawn. And the explainers for the amendment proposals in 2015 and 2018 were similarly misleading, critics have pointed out.

It’s also disingenuous to describe a change to the state constitution, which removes political map-drawing powers from state legislators, as “repealing” constitutional protections — rather, the measure would merely alter how that process happens, and would arguably expand voters’ rights, as the CRC would give them a better opportunity to have truer representation.

Other parts of LaRose’s description are blatantly false — for instance, at one point in the three-page missive, it’s stated that CRC members cannot be removed “except by a vote of their fellow commission members, even for incapacity, willful neglect of duty or gross misconduct.” Yet within Section 4, subsection C, clause 3 of the measure itself, it specifically states that members who engage in “willful neglect of duty or gross misconduct” in their positions can be removed.

The description of the measure was also changed to state that the commission itself would “gerrymander” political maps, which, by definition, is impossible — gerrymandering occurs when one political party purposefully creates maps that benefit them personally. With the CRC having equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, as well as independents and third parties involved, no one party can create voting map boundaries on their own or control the process in such a manner that would amount to gerrymandering.

“The way that the ballot language plays around with the word ‘gerrymandering’ to make it mean exactly what it doesn’t is both jaw-dropping and it makes you question the integrity of elected officials,” said Common Cause Ohio Executive Director Catherine Turcer.

Despite these glaring problems, the Ohio Ballot Board approved the description offered by LaRose’s office. LaRose abstained from taking part in the vote due to other prior commitments, but a member of his office took his place in the vote, joining with two Republican members of the board in approving the description. Two Democratic members of the board voted against forwarding the description.

State Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson described the language used by LaRose in the explanation of the measure as “dangerous” and “threaten[ing] the integrity of the vote” on the proposal.

Attorney Don McTigue, who represents Citizens Not Politicians, further disparaged LaRose’s description of the ballot measure.

“[LaRose’s] language is stunning in it being false and misleading, and it is unabashed in terms of its prejudicial language,” McTigue said after the vote. “There’s no reasonable person who … after reading that language could conclude that it is an honest attempt to provide fair ballot language that allows voters to make an independent decision about the issue.”

Supporters of the amendment vowed to appeal the approval of LaRose’s description of the measure to the Ohio State Supreme Court. There’s reason to believe that their appeal will be successful — just last year, LaRose attempted a similar action, crafting a deeply inaccurate description of an abortion rights ballot measure. The state’s high court struck that description down, ordering the crafting of a new description that more accurately portrayed what the measure would do. The abortion rights measure went on to win in that year’s election by more than a 13-point margin.

More than 731,000 Ohioans endorsed the signature drive to put the redistricting reform proposal on this year’s fall ballot, far more than the 413,487 signatures that were required in order to qualify for an up-or-down vote. It is the third-highest number of signatures collected for a ballot initiative in Ohio over the past 100 years.