Ohio set to decide constitutional amendment establishing a citizen-led redistricting commission

COLUMBUS, Ohio– Ohio voters will decide Tuesday whether to create a citizen-led redistricting commission to replace the state’s troubled political mapmaking system.

The proposed amendment, submitted by a robust bipartisan coalition called Citizens Not Politicians, calls for replacing the current redistricting commission — made up of four legislators, the governor, the auditor and the secretary of state — with a 15-member, citizen-led commission of Republicans, Democrats and independents. The members would be selected by retired judges.

Supporters advanced the measure as an alternative after seven sets of legislative and congressional maps produced under Ohio’s existing system — a Republican Party-controlled panel made up of elected officials — were declared unconstitutional to favor Republicans. A yes vote is in favor of establishing the committee, a no vote is in favor of maintaining the current system.

Leading GOP officials, including Gov. Mike DeWine, have campaigned against the commission, saying its unelected members should not be accountable to voters. The opposition campaign also objects to the amendment’s criteria for drawing the boundaries of the state House and Congress — specifically a standard called “proportionality” that requires taking into account the political makeup of Republicans and Democrats in Ohio – and says this amounts to partisan manipulation.

Voting language that will appear in voting booths to describe Problem 1 has been a matter of litigation. It describes the new commission as “required to cross district lines,” although the amendment states the opposite is the case.

Citizens Not Politicians sued the Republican Party-controlled Ohio Ballot Board over the wording, telling the Ohio Supreme Court that it was perhaps “the most biased, inaccurate, deceptive and unconstitutional” language the state has ever seen. The Court’s Republican majority voted 4-3 to leave the wording in place, but the justices did require some parts of the ballot language to be rewritten.

At a press conference announcing his opposition, DeWine claimed that the map-making rules outlined in Issue 1 would divide communities and mandate outcomes that fit “the classic definition of gerrymandering.” He has pledged to pursue an alternative next year, regardless of whether No. 1 succeeds or fails.

DeWine said Iowa’s system — which prohibits map makers from consulting past election results or protecting individual lawmakers — would work better at removing politics from the process. Supporters of Issue 1 disagree, pointing out that Iowa state lawmakers have the final say over that state’s political district maps — the exact scenario their plan was designed to avoid.