Orwell would blush at Frank LaRose’s and the far right’s latest attack on democracy in Ohio. Putin and Orban would admire it for being so bold.
A few weeks back, I wrote an article about the “Ohio Ballot Board” and Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s attempt to fool Ohio voters who oppose gerrymandering to vote No on Issue 1—when voting Yes is what will end partisan gerrymandering.
As I feared, they went ahead and approved this outrageous language. (They actually even made it worse). Newspapers across the state have called out what an abuse of power it is.
There has now been a suit filed to stop the ballot language, and I want to provide a quick summary of its arguments. They make clear just how disturbing the actions of Ohio’s Secretary of State were—dishonestly harnessing the apparatus of the state to fool voters and protect a faction of politicians from its own citizens.
It’s a true abuse of power, in plain sight.
Reminder:
Issue 1 would fire the politicians from the districting process and replace them with a 15-member panel of citizens (5 Republicans, 5 Democrats, 5 independents—no politicians or lobbyists welcome) to follow clear rules and a clear, transparent process to draw nonpartisan maps.
Finally!
Threatened by the end of gerrymandering, what did LaRose and the ballot board do with this straightforward proposal? They converted it into ballot language chock full of lies and misleading framing that, unless reversed by the Ohio Supreme Court, will appear on the ballot of every Ohio voter. Here’s a quick summary of the lies:
LIE #1: The Amendment requires gerrymandering:
THE LIE: The language approved by the ballot board states that the Amendment would require the Commission to “gerrymander district boundaries” to “favor the two largest political parties in the state of Ohio.”
THE TRUTH: “the Amendment would “ban partisan gerrymandering and prohibit the use of redistricting plans that favor one political party and disfavor others.”…It does so by ensuring that the plans adopted by the Commission seek to approximate the statewide partisan preferences of Ohioans while drawing geographically contiguous districts that reflect communities of interest.”
LIE #2: Commission members must “belong” to two political parties:
THE LIE: The language approved by the ballot board states that the Amendment requires a majority of the “partisan” commissioners to “belong to” the two largest political parties.
THE TRUTH: “the Amendment requires that five commissioners must be “affiliate[ed]” with each of the two major political parties and that five commissioners must be unaffiliated with both major parties….It sets out exactly what it means to be “affiliate[ed]” with a party. (“Party affiliation shall be determined based on the applicant’s voting record in party primaries and various other relevant factors including, but not limited to, political contributions, campaign activities, and other reliable indicia of partisan affiliation.”). By contrast, “belongs” implies membership, and being a member of a political party is different than being affiliated with a political party. R.C. 3513.19(A)(3) (explaining that a person is entitled to vote in a partisan primary if they are “affiliated with” or a “member of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote”). It is flatly misleading to suggest that a person must “belong to”—be a member of—one of the two major political parties to serve on the Commission.”
“Likewise, the Amendment requires the affirmative vote of at least nine commissioners, including at least two from each affiliation category (including unaffiliated commissioners), for all actions by the Commission….This requirement ensures that the Commission’s actions will not be dominated by partisan actors.”
LIE #3: The Amendment limits Ohio citizens from participating in the process
THE LIE: The language approved by the ballot board states that the Amendment will “[l]imit the right of Ohio citizens to freely express their opinions to members of the commission or to commission staff regarding the redistricting process or proposed redistricting plans.”
THE TRUTH: “This baseless statement is explicitly contradicted by numerous provisions, all of which exemplify the Amendment’s clear aims to ensure maximum transparency and opportunities for all Ohioans to participate and be heard. Nothing in the Amendment prohibits any Ohioan from exercising their right to express their opinions to the Commission.
The Amendment explicitly requires that “[a]ll deliberations and actions of the commission shall be in public meetings,” id., Ex. A, Sec. 4(A), and guarantees that “[t]he commission shall conduct its hearings in a manner that invites broad public participation throughout the state, including by using technology to broadcast commission meetings and to facilitate meaningful participation from a range of Ohioans.” …
“…[B]ecause the Commission is required to conduct its business transparently in open public meetings, the Amendment prohibits the Commission and its staff from communicating with “any outside person about the redistricting process or redistricting plan outcomes” outside public meetings and official Commission portals.”
LIE #4: No Court Challenges Allowed
THE LIE: The language approved by the ballot board states that the Amendment will “[p]rohibit any citizen from filing a lawsuit challenging a redistricting plan in any court, except if the lawsuit challenges the proportionality standard applied by the commission, and then only before the Ohio Supreme Court.”
THE TRUTH: “state law cannot strip the jurisdiction of federal courts. That is simply not how federal law works.”
Overall: Not a Summary of the Amendment, But Arguments Against It
Beyond these outright lies, the court challenge points out that “[e]very single paragraph of the ballot language includes misleading and biased language that further serves to sway voters against the Amendment,” including:
The approved ballot board language declares that Issue 1 “[r]epeal[s] constitutional protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three- quarters of Ohio electors participating in the statewide elections of 2015 and 2018, and eliminate the longstanding ability of Ohio citizens to hold their representatives accountable for establishing fair state legislative and congressional districts.”
The response: “First, it is patently inappropriate, irrelevant, and seemingly unprecedented for the Ballot Board to include information about the vote margin or method by which current law was adopted. The only reason to include this information is to persuade voters that they are being asked to repeal a “popular” redistricting system. Second, it is misleading and prejudicial to characterize the Amendment as a “repeal” of “constitutional protections against gerrymandering,” and to juxtapose that claim with the second section claiming the Amendment would require the Commission to “gerrymander” district boundaries for partisan purposes.”
My additional response: it was Frank LaRose, Mike DeWine and legislators who are the ones that violated the “protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three- quarters of Ohio electors participating in the statewide elections of 2015 and 2018”—7 different times! Their violation of those new amendments are the reason this new amendment is needed in the first place.
The approved ballot board language “says that “[c]ounties, townships and cities throughout Ohio can be split and divided across multiple districts, and preserving communities of interest will be secondary to the formula that is based on partisan political outcomes.” Id., Ex. B ¶ 2(B).
The response: “The Amendment, in fact, sets out rules for “preserv[ing] communities of interest to the extent practicable,” including political subdivisions.”
The approved ballot board language “inaccurately and misleadingly contends that voters themselves adopted the current redistricting plan, stating that Commission-adopted plans would “replace the most recent districts adopted by the citizens of Ohio through their elected representatives.” But citizens of Ohio do not get a vote on the existing Ohio Redistricting Commission. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Ohioans did not have an opportunity to vote for a majority of the current Commissioners, because a majority of the current Commission were members of the General Assembly elected from specific districts. Again, this is an improper attempt at persuasion.”
The approved ballot language states that the Amendment “[i]mpos[es] new taxpayer-funded costs on the State of Ohio” and requires payment of “unlimited” legal fees. But under current law, the “general assembly shall be responsible for making the appropriations it determines necessary in order for the commission to perform its duties under this article and Article XIX of this constitution.” Ohio Const., art. XI, § 1(D). This includes paying for staff hired by the Ohio Redistricting Commission. Id. § 1(B)(2)(a). And, famously, the Ohio Redistricting Commission and Ohio General Assembly have incurred more than a million dollars in legal fees defending its recidivist violations of Ohio law. “
For the entire challenge to this outrageous language, go HERE.
What’s Next?
The good news is that Ohio law makes clear that:
“When assessing ballot language,” the Ohio Supreme Court “typically examine[s] whether the language tells voters what they are being asked to vote on and whether the language impermissibly amounts to persuasive argument for or against the issue.” One Person One Vote, 2023-Ohio-1928, ¶ 8, citing State ex rel. Bailey v. Celebrezze, 67 Ohio St.2d 516, 519 (1981). If that examination establishes that “there are defects in ballot language,” the Court “examine[s] the defects as a whole and determine whether their cumulative effect violates the constitutional standard.” Id., citing Bailey, 67 Ohio St.2d at 519.”
This should be a pretty open-and-shut case that LaRose and his fellow GOP hacks on the ballot board violated the standard. We will see.
Either way, amid this outrageous attempt to confuse and misinform, please do one simple thing:
Tell everyone you know to vote YES on ISSUE 1!
This latest, egregious action by Ohio’s corrupt cabal of politicians proves yet again why they need to be fired from the distraction process, and replaced by citizens.
Spread the word.
Dissecting Blatant Ballot Disinformation