Supreme Court approves ballot language for proposed Ohio redistricting amendment

The Supreme Court of Ohio approved the language of a proposed constitutional amendment to alter the drawing of legislative and congressional districts in Ohio.

In a 4-3 ruling, the Supreme Court found that most of the proposed amendment's language is consistent with the measure's full text. 

The amendment was proposed by the group Citizens Not Politicians with the goal of ending gerrymandering in Ohio by removing politicians from the redistricting process and achieve fair and impartial legislative results through an open and independent process.

Backers of the amendment took issue with the ballot language approved by Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose calling it misleading.

However, with the exception of two of the eight sections backers took issue with, the Supreme Court found that the amendment's summary and title were not misleading and do not need to be revised.

The two sections that the Supreme Court asked to be revised are sections five and section eight.

For section five, the Court directed the Ohio's ballot board to explain when a lawsuit may be filed to challenge a redistricting plan and for section eight, the court asked for board to describe the ability of the public to put input on the mapmaking process.

Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy and Justices Patrick Fischer, Patrick DeWine and Joseph Deters joined the majority opinion.

Meanwhile in a dissenting opinion, Justice Michael Donnelly wrote that the ballot board is prohibited from using language to persuade voters to support to reject an amendment adding that that the board can approve separate language for an argument against the amendment.

Justice Donnelly said this ruling did not surprise him referencing another recent ruling stating that boneless wings could have bones in them.

"Given that the four members of this court in the majority today apparently think that the word ‘boneless’ means ‘you should expect bones,’ … I’m sure it comes as no great surprise that they think that a constitutional amendment to ‘ban partisan gerrymandering’ means to ‘require gerrymander[ing],’” Donnelly wrote.

Justice Jennifer Brunner also disagreed with the ruling saying that stating that the amendment would require gerrymandering is "misleading, deceitful, and a fraud upon the voters" and called for “a nearly complete redrafting of what is perhaps the most stunningly stilted ballot language that Ohio voters will have ever seen.” 

You can read more about backers' objections to the ballot language of the amendment in the related coverage below.

RELATED COVERAGE:

Backers of Ohio redistricting measure vow lawsuit over ballot language they call 'deceitful'