Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court
Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Gerrymandering and voting rights under review by Supreme Court again

On Dec. 13, The Fulcrum identified the worst examples of congressional gerrymandering currently in use.

In that news report, David Meyers wrote:

Keep ReadingShow less
Rear view diverse voters waiting for polling place to open
SDI Productions/Getty Images

Open primary advocates must embrace the historic principles of change

This was a big year for the open primaries movement. Seven state-level campaigns and one municipal. Millions of voters declaring their support for open primaries. New leaders emerging across the country. Primary elections for the first time at the center of the national reform debate.

But with six out of eight campaigns failing at the ballot box, it’s also an important moment of reflection.

Keep ReadingShow less