Ohio Ballot Board approves Secretary LaRose's redistricting amendment language

The Ohio Ballot Board approved the language for the redistricting amendment set for the November ballot during Friday's meeting.

If passed, the amendment would build a new political map-making system for the state. The board was presented with two versions: one from Secretary of State Frank LaRose's office and one from citizen initiative Citizens Not Politicians.

In a 3-2 vote, the board approved LaRose's version, which comes with a few concerns, according to Case Western Reserve Law and Political Science Professor Jonathan Entin.

"There is no universe that I am aware of where this document satisfies the legal requirement that the ballot contain a fair and accurate portrayal of this proposal," he said.

Entin says the approval shocked him as the language includes what he calls "advocacy words."

LaRose's version says the amendment would "repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three-quarters of Ohio electors" and "establish a new taxpayer funded commission of appointees required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor the two largest political parties in the state."

Language that Citizens Not Politicians said differs from their intent to end gerrymandering by creating a new redistricting commission made up of a diverse group of citizens. Language that Entin said also does not meet the state's calls for neutral language on the ballot.

"The language on the ballot is going to make a difference to voters who are not sure what this proposal is about," he said.

In a statement to News 5, LaRose justified his version by saying it was complete and accurate.

“The summary approved by the board is fair and factual, and it accurately identifies the substance of the proposed amendment.," said LaRose. "We invited and included suggestions from both sides of the debate, as well as from the amendment itself. The group that drafted the amendment has no credibility to complain about whether the summary is truthful because their own summary had to be rejected twice by the attorney general as dishonest."

Citizens Against Politicians says it now plans to file a lawsuit with the Ohio Supreme Court.

"I appreciate the time and effort that you took," member Julia Catania told LaRose during the meeting, "Because I believe it took a lot of time and effort to twist and turn this in a way that is confusing and inaccurate."

CLICK HERE to look at the full document.

We Follow Through Want us to continue to follow through on a story? Let us know. First Name Last Name Email What story do you want us to follow through on? What questions do you have? Please include the headline and/or URL of the story you want us to follow through on. Provide any other information that may help us to follow through on the story Captcha