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.

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

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote Here" sign

America’s political system is broken — but ranked choice voting and proportional representation could fix it.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics

Politics isn’t working for most Americans. Our government can’t keep the lights on. The cost of living continues to rise. Our nation is reeling from recent acts of political violence.

79% of voters say the U.S. is in a political crisis, and 64% say our political system is too divided to solve the nation’s problems.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less