COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohioans will be voting on Issue 1 this November — a redistricting proposal that could drastically change the balance of power within the Statehouse. But there is a problem. Viewers and readers have worried that the messaging, both for and against the amendment, is confusing.
Both the Vote Yes and Vote No side say theirs would end gerrymandering. I break down what you're actually voting for — and answer other questions you may have.
After we spent a day with each side of the campaign, we got an influx of messages from viewers and readers asking additional questions.
RELATED: What is Ohio Issue 1? We explain the redistricting amendment
What am I voting on?
You will be voting on whether Ohio should remove politicians from the redistricting process.
Currently, Ohio lawmakers draw the maps — ones that directly impact them and their colleagues.
The Ohio Redistricting Commission (ORC) is made up of seven spots. Two will always go to Republicans and two to Democrats in the Statehouse. The three remaining seats include the governor, secretary of state and auditor.
This led to the Ohio Redistricting Mess of 2022, where a bipartisan Ohio Supreme Court struck down seven different passed maps, citing that the GOP members of the commission were drawing lines to unfairly benefit their party.
Voting yes on Issue 1 would create a 15-member Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission (OCRC), made up of Republican, Democratic and independent citizens who broadly represent the different geographic areas and demographics of the state.
It bans current or former politicians, political party officials, lobbyists and large political donors from sitting on the commission.
It requires fair and impartial districts by making it unconstitutional to draw voting districts that discriminate against or favor any political party or individual politician. It also mandates the commission to operate under an open and independent process.
The commissioners would draw the maps based on federal law, also taking into account past election data on partisan preferences. The commission would make sure that each district has a reasonably equal population and that communities of interest are kept together.
Voting no on Issue 1 would be rejecting the independent commission proposal and keeping the current setup. Voting no could also mean you are hopeful that Republicans will keep to their word of proposing a "solution" to make the system better in the future months.
How do we know if the commission would truly be independent?
Anyone involved in this process has to be vetted by different agencies, starting with the bipartisan screening panel (BSP). The Ohio Ballot Board helps pick the BSP, which would be made up of four retired judges.
The panel would work with an independent search firm to solicit applications and do checks on the applicants' backgrounds, references, possible conflicts of interest, relevant experiences and skills and community ties. The applicant will also be evaluated on "commitment to impartiality, compromise and fairness."
As mentioned above, the amendment bans current or former politicians, political party officials, lobbyists and large political donors from sitting on the commission.
Party affiliation would be determined based on a slew of factors, including voting records, political donations and campaign activities.
The panel would then publicize 90 possible commissioners, with 30 per affiliation under the commission — Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated Ohioans. The panel and firm would open a public portal for comment on the individuals.
After that, 45 finalists would be chosen by the panel. At random, the panel would choose six commissioners. Those six commissioners would meet and choose the remaining nine.
There is also a clause saying, "All applications shall be submitted under penalty of perjury by a deadline set by the bipartisan screening panel."
That seems to say there is a repercussion clause for lying to the BSP, Case Western Reserve University elections law professor Atiba Ellis said.
"To lie in order to get on to the commission would presumably have a consequence," Ellis said.
Why are both sides saying it stops gerrymandering? Why are both permitted to claim that?
The First Amendment.
"People can say whatever they wish in advocating for their side," Ellis said. "In fact, the Supreme Court has even said that politicians can lie in the course of making political statements. Of course, those lies have consequences obviously, but the protection given to political speech is the highest First Amendment value."
Which side is accurate?
The Vote Yes side would stop gerrymandering, the professor said.
"Republicans making the argument that this would cause gerrymandering are relying on the thin reed of arguing that there is partisan representation on the commission and that there is an expectation of a partisan type of outcome — where the reality is that the proposal is trying to make the state representative of who the people wish 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 law expert continued that Republicans were "trying to hide that difference."
Follow up: What is the deal with the ballot language?
The Republican-controlled ballot board changed the language you’ll see when at the polls.
Instead of using the language that voters signed onto to get the amendment on the ballot, Republican Sec. of State Frank LaRose and the GOP changed the language of the amendment to say the commission would be “required to gerrymander.”
The proposal backers sued, but the Republican-led Ohio Supreme Court allowed it.
"I never in my life thought I'd be telling people 'Don't read carefully what's on the ballot,'" League of Women Voters' Annette Tucker Sutherland said. "Do your homework before you get there, read all about it before you get there."
Who is supporting each side?
Vote Yes
The supporters have hundreds of organizations ranging from unions to religious groups to business owners.
"Our support is coming from a broad coalition of Republicans, independents and Democrats who want to get the politicians out of the process because they've demonstrated repeatedly that they are either unwilling or unable to pass fair maps," Citizens Not Politicians spokesperson Chris Davey said.
Former Republican Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor is the face of the campaign, showing that this isn't a partisan issue.
They have raised over $23 million.
The majority of the money is coming from progressive groups from out of state, which is typical for ballot campaigns in Ohio, no matter the side.
RELATED: Who is funding Ohio’s redistricting amendment?
Vote No
The opponents of Issue 1 include the Ohio GOP, although some Republican lawmakers have told me they hope it passes, and several organizations. This includes 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, hasn't reported any contributions or spending as of late July. They didn't respond to our request for updated numbers.
I reached out to each of the six organizations opposing the amendment to ask them if they have contributed any money to Ohio Works. The Chamber, Buckeye Firearms and the Black Equity and Redistricting Fund responded, with each sharing they haven't donated. Buckeye Firearms and the Black Equity and Redistricting Fund both said they are just using their platforms to explain their beliefs.
The Ohio Republican Party is the group that made the signage, so they are spending money — but it is unclear what Ohio Works has received or paid for itself.
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.
