Some Ohioans say voters will be misled by ballot language over redistricting issues

There is only one state issue on next month’s ballot. And there appears to be some anecdotal evidence that the voting summary language for No. 1 is confusing some voters.

Ohio’s board of elections adopts summary language to describe state issues that will be decided by voters. A majority of Ohio’s elected Republicans oppose a proposal to change the redistricting process, No. 1. The language approved by a majority of Republicans on the election board angered No. 1 supporters, who say it is biased and unfair.

Delaware resident Kelly Vogt said when she went to vote early, she knew she wanted to vote No. 1.

“But when I got there, I started reading the language because I hadn’t read it beforehand and it’s very confusing. It makes you believe it’s causing more gerrymandering,” Vogt said.

Vogt voted against the amendment and said he later realized he had voted to keep the status quo.

No. 1 would replace the seven elected officials on the now Republican-dominated Ohio Redistricting Commission with a 15-member panel made up of equal parts Republicans, Democrats and independents. Current or former politicians, lobbyists, party officials or others with political connections would be barred from the panel. The panel would use a proportionality formula based on the results of the last six years of state elections to draw legislative and congressional maps.

Matt Dole with Ohio Works, the group opposing Issue 1, said the ballot summary does not confuse voters.

“If people come in and intend to vote for No. 1, read the ballot language and vote no, they’re not confused,” Dole said. “They’re reading the ballot language and realizing what they’re hearing in the No. 1 crowd doesn’t match what’s on the ballot.”

Read the voting summary language here.

It is true that the language of the vote does not match that of the amendment. The ballot language approved by the Ohio Board of Elections at an August meeting was written by Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who chairs that panel. Its wording was changed slightly by Sen. Theresa Gavarone (R-Bowling Green). He suggested replacing the word “manipulate” in a line describing the process of drawing district lines with the word “gerrymander.” This led to an outburst from No. 1 supporters.

Democrats on the board also protested and took the summary vote to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Republican majority said the language was fine with a small technical change. Democrats slammed it, with Judge Jennifer Brunner writing that it is “perhaps the most astonishing election language Ohio voters have ever seen.”

Issue 1 supporters are telling voters to read the full amendment before voting, because that’s what will be enacted if the issue passes, not the ballot summary wording.

“The important thing for people to understand is that the language on the ballot is false and misleading and is not the amendment itself,” said Chris Davey of the Issue 1 group Citizens Not Politicians.

“When No. 1 passes, the ballot language will disappear and what will be left is the Citizens, Not Politicians amendment,” Davey said. “It will prohibit partisan gerrymandering and prohibit the use of redistricting plans that favor one political party and disfavor others.” ‘ So that’s what people are voting for and if you want to ban gerrymandering, you have to vote yes on No. 1,” Davey said.

Read the entire amendment here.

“Yes on 1” signs say No. 1 would ban gerrymandering. But the “no to 1” signs say so too. Experts note that when voters are confused, they often vote “no” or don’t vote at all. But opponents of the issue said they are not counting on confusion to win.

“I don’t think anybody is counting on all the people to vote ‘no’ because they don’t like it,” said Ryan Stubenrauch, a Republican strategist who speaks in favor of the “no on 1” campaign. people will read the summary and say, I don’t think it sounds that good, and I hope they vote “no”.

But Vogt said he felt like he was tricked into voting for what he wanted.

“He threw it at me and at the last minute I voted no and now I really regret it and I think it’s false advertising,” Vogt said.