Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

An Ohio voter’s guide to understanding ‘gerrymandering’ and Issue 1

Both the campaigns for and against Issue 1 are claiming their side fights gerrymandering. 'Who’s telling the truth?'

Jigsaw puzzle of Ohio
Jeff Haynes/Signal Cleveland

Tobias is a reporter for Signal Ohio.

Early voting starts Oct. 8 for the Nov. 5 election, which includes a ballot measure known as Issue 1. In short, it’s an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would change the state’s system for drawing political district maps for Congress members and state lawmakers.

But Issue 1 has sparked a lot of questions and confusion about what exactly it will do – and if it will end gerrymandering. That’s a word that references how the process of map making can be manipulated to the benefit of one party. In short, the parties’ experts know how to study past elections to predict who voters may support in the future, among other tricks of the trade, to try to maximize their chances of winning.


Both the campaigns for and against Issue 1 are claiming their side is against gerrymandering. This could leave voters to wonder: Who’s telling the truth?

To help voters navigate the campaign and make an informed decision, Signal Ohio is offering this nonpartisan guide about Issue 1.

This includes a comparison of the official ballot language, which summarizes the measure’s effects for voters, with the amendment’s official text. We also offer an explanation of key points of the text to help translate its technical and legal jargon.

First, it’s important to provide a bit more information about Issue 1 and the backstory of the ballot language summary.

What does Issue 1 do?

The proposed amendment describes a multi-step process to change redistricting, the drawing of boundaries that define the political districts for state lawmakers and members of Congress. If approved by voters, the amendment would require redistricting to happen in 2026 and then every 10 years starting in 2031. It would start with replacing the Ohio Redistricting Commission, a panel of elected officials that’s currently controlled by Republicans, with a citizen’s commission that couldn’t include elected officials, lobbyists, party officials, candidates or their immediate family members. It also would set rules supporters say are meant to limit gerrymandering by requiring the maps to favor each party to win a share of districts similar to the parties’ share of the statewide vote.

Who wrote the ballot language?

State Republicans who oppose Issue 1 wrote the language that Ohioans will see on their ballots when they make their vote. The ballot language has no legal effect – it only summarizes what Issue 1 would do. Allowing ballot summaries was a reform passed in the 1970s to avoid having to publish lengthy and technical amendments directly on the ballot that might confuse voters. But research has shown that ballot language also can influence a measure’s chances of passing depending on what it says, especially in close elections.

What voters should know about the Issue 1 ballot summary

The pro-Issue 1 campaign filed a lawsuit in August calling the summary biased. But the Ohio Supreme Court’s four Republican justices largely upheld the summary as fair and accurate, although the court’s three Democrats disagreed.

The main “yes” campaign group, Citizens Not Politicians, wrote the amendment and is funded by a collection of organized labor and other left-leaning groups, although its chief spokesperson is Maureen O’Connor, a retired Republican chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court. Like the state ballot board that wrote the amendment summary, the anti-Issue 1 campaign has close ties to the Ohio Republican Party.

This article was originally published in Signal Cleveland, which goes deeper into each section of Issue 1.


Read More

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less