Everything You Want and Don't Want to Know About Issue 1: The Citizens Redistricting Commission Initiative
As Election Day quickly approaches, you'll likely hear more discussions about Issue 1 as both sides work to sway voters. But what exactly is Issue 1? Why is it on the ballot? Who is funding it? How did we get here?
My hope is to provide clarity to some of the questions I've received from voters statewide who are confused by the conflicting messages from the "Yes" and "No" campaigns. I also want to provide some background on how we arrived at this point and explain why I believe that neither proposed system will effectively prevent gerrymandering in the future.
What Is Issue 1?
Ohio Issue 1, the Establish the Citizens Redistricting Commission Initiative, is a proposed change to the state's constitution that will be on the ballot on November 5, 2024.
If you vote "yes," you support creating the Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC), which would be made up of 15 members who are not politicians. This commission would handle the drawing of new district maps for state legislative and congressional elections.
If you vote "no," you are opposing the creation of the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC). This means the current Ohio Redistricting Commission, which includes the Governor, Auditor, Secretary of State, and four appointees from the General Assembly, will remain in place. This commission was established in 2015 for state legislative districts, with a process for congressional districts set up in 2018.
Ohio Issue 1, Establish the Citizens Redistricting Commission Initiative (2024)
What Would It Change?
The ballot initiative would change Ohio's redistricting process by creating the Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC). This 15-member commission, would be made up of five Republicans, five Democrats, and five independents or members of other parties. Commission members cannot include elected officials, lobbyists, campaign staff, or anyone closely tied to politics.
Ohio Issue 1: Will it end gerrymandering? Top FAQs answered
This commission would replace the current Ohio Redistricting Commission made up of the Governor (Mike DeWine), the Secretary of State (Frank LaRose), the Auditor of State (Keith Faber), Allison Russo (Democrat House Minority Leader), Nickie Antonio (Democrat Senate Minority Leader Co-Chair), Rob McColley (Republican Senate Majority Leader), and Jeff LaRe (Republican House Representative). The commission is tasked with drawing the district maps for state legislative districts.
How Would The Commission Be Selected?
A panel of four retired judges, selected by the Ohio Ballot Board, will screen applicants for the CRC based on their qualifications, potential conflicts of interest, and commitment to fairness. With the assistance of a professional search firm, the judges will begin with an initial pool of 90 candidates, narrowing it down to 45 before randomly selecting six finalists. The six randomly selected candidates would then review applications and select nine additional commissioners. The commission's meetings would be open to the public, and any decisions would require at least nine votes, including support from both parties and independents.
The CRC must adopt new district plans by September 19, 2025, and every ten years after that. The initiative’s stated objective is to ensure that the number of districts for each party reflects the overall voting preferences of Ohio voters.
Districts would need to be connected and comply with U.S. laws, including the Voting Rights Act. The commission would also consider the needs of communities and ensure that minority groups can effectively participate in elections.
The slides below, provided by the Grassroots Freedom Initiative, illustrate the commissioner selection process.
How Does Ohio Measure Up Against Other States?
Ohio would be the ninth state to set up a non-political commission for congressional redistricting and the tenth for state legislative redistricting. The last states to do this were Colorado and Michigan in 2018.
As of 2024, 34 states have processes where the legislature controls redistricting for state legislative districts. Ohio is one of five states with a political commission for this purpose. For congressional redistricting, 33 states, including Ohio, have similar legislature-dominated processes, but Ohio's can involve steps with the political commission.
Ohio voters have previously rejected efforts to create a non-political redistricting commission, turning down proposals in 2005 and 2012.
Who's Spearheading the Campaigns for the Ballot Initiative?
Citizens Not Politicians is leading the campaign to support the ballot initiative. As of July 31, 2024, they raised $26.95 million, with significant contributions from the Sixteen Thirty Fund ($6.67 million), the American Civil Liberties Union ($3.58 million), and Article IV ($3.50 million).
Key supporters include former Ohio Supreme Court Justices Yvette McGee Brown (D) and Maureen O'Connor (R), Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio (D-23), and House Minority Leader Allison Russo (D-7), along with labor unions like the Ohio AFL-CIO and the Ohio Education Association, and nonprofits such as the ACLU and the Ohio NAACP.
Opponents include the Ohio Republican Party, Governor Mike DeWine (R), Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R), Senate President Matt Huffman (R), House Speaker Jason Stephens (R), and President Donald Trump (R).
Video Explanation: Understanding the Source of Funding
What are the ‘Yes’ Vote Arguments for Issue 1?
Argument # 1:
Proponents of Issue 1 claim that Ohio is one of the most gerrymandered states in the nation. They point out that in 2022, under the current system, leaders of the Ohio Redistricting Commission ignored multiple Ohio Supreme Court decisions that invalidated the congressional and state legislative maps. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled the maps unconstitutional seven times (five times for state legislative maps and twice for congressional ones). This cost Ohio taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and led to a split primary, but it still did not create fair and impartial districts.
Big wheels turning as Ohio voters decide who will take the drivers’ seat in the state’s redistricting process
Ohio’s Redistricting Process Has Been a Roller Coaster
Some proponents also argue that Mike DeWine was an unpopular governor due to his controversial COVID-19 decisions, such as business closures and a state lottery program incentivizing vaccinations. They claim that he would have lost if faced individually by either gubernatorial candidate Joe Blystone or Jim Renacci. To secure his re-election, they assert that DeWine deliberately created a split primary.
As a member of the Ohio Redistricting Commission, DeWine could have resolved the deadlock at any time, but instead, the commission prolonged it to facilitate the split primary. Critics believe this led to the misuse of $30 million in taxpayer funds to ensure DeWine's victory. With only August to November to decide on state representatives, and typically 6-8 months for such decisions, the shortened timeline favored incumbents, ensuring their re-election.
Proponents claim that the redistricting process completely derailed in 2022. Former Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, a Republican, noted that the process didn’t work because politicians were involved in drawing the maps. O’Connor claims the maps were designed solely to enhance the power of politicians and their parties, ensuring their re-election and facilitating a supermajority in the legislature.
Proponents claim that Ohio's current system enables politicians from both parties, along with their lobbyist allies, to gerrymander voting districts through secretive backroom deals, manipulating outcomes to benefit themselves. Most recently, they cite the Blue 22 as an example of this practice. Finally, proponents assert that elected officials need to be removed from the mapmaking process because they have consistently shown they cannot be trusted to do it.
A Timeline of Ohio's Redistricting Saga
Counter Argument:
Opponents of Issue 1 argue that gerrymandering is not occurring in Ohio and that claims of it being one of the most gerrymandered states are baseless. They believe the current redistricting process, established in 2015, has improved fairness by involving a bipartisan commission, reducing the influence of any single party. Senator Rob McColley (R) points to the successful approval of a 7-0 bipartisan map by the commission in September 2023 as evidence of this progress.
He contends that implementing an independent commission risks losing important anti-gerrymandering measures currently in the Ohio Constitution, such as the requirements for compact districts and keeping communities intact. He states that these elements are not prioritized in the proposed amendment. Additionally, he claims that the initiative is largely supported by progressive groups funded by "dark money."
Ohio Redistricting Commission adopts sixth version of Statehouse maps with bipartisan support
Argument #2:
Proponents argue that Voting ‘YES’ on Issue 1 will make gerrymandering illegal by establishing the 15-member Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission. This commission will include Democratic, Republican, and Independent citizens representing various regions and demographics, while excluding politicians and lobbyists. Issue 1 will ensure fair and impartial districting by prohibiting any districts that favor or discriminate against political parties or individual politicians and require an open and independent process for the Commission.
Counter Argument:
Opponents argue that while Issue 1 claims to end gerrymandering, the proposed Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission will not be as impartial as proponents suggest. They contend that even with the inclusion of citizens from various political backgrounds, the potential for bias remains, especially if the commission's members have pre-existing political affiliations or opinions. They also question who would want to serve on a redistricting commission if they have no interest in politics or political outcomes.
For example, the ballot board, made up of appointees from the House and Senate, will appoint four retired judges who have won partisan primaries. This does not fully eliminate politicians from the process. These judges will oversee the selection of 15 commissioners—5 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 5 Independents—who will draw the maps. Critics argue that these judges will be legally empowered to handpick their friends and political allies. Additionally, they raise concern that there is no legal way to challenge these appointments and appointees can only be removed by their fellow commissioners.
Opponents also point out that the appointed commissioners lack accountability to voters. Under Article 8, the only aspect you can challenge in the Supreme Court is whether the political ratio is met. You cannot contest the population size of a district, its compactness, or whether a city, village, or township was unnecessarily split. Although there will be five public hearings, there is no clear outline for what will be discussed or how long individuals can speak. If a consensus isn’t reached, the commission will still make the final decision, likely using ranked choice voting.
Opponents contend that removing politicians and lobbyists from the process does not guarantee a better outcome, arguing that elected officials bring valuable experience and accountability and that an entirely citizen-led commission would lack the necessary experience and expertise.
The maps under Issue 1 require 9 votes out of the 15 member commission to pass. This could allow for a single party to dominate the process without ensuring fair representation for all. The existing bipartisan process established in 2015 and 2018 mandates agreement from both parties for a 10-year map.
Finally, opponents express concern that the panel of judges must rely on the Ohio Department of Administrative Services to find a professional search firm for selecting the fifteen commission members. They argue that this process could be biased, as government bureaucracies often have a predominance of Democratic staff.
Argument #3:
Issue 1 has widespread support from Ohioans of all political affiliations, including Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. Over 100 organizations statewide and a bipartisan group of 85 civic, community, and business leaders have endorsed the measure.
Counter Argument:
Opponents argue that most of the support and backing for Issue 1 comes from foreign and out-of-state interests. Major funders include groups like the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a far left political organization founded by a Swiss billionaire and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). They also point out that the current system was passed by 70% of the voters and produced a unanimous bipartisan vote last September.
THE GREAT $25 MILLION DARK MONEY GERRYMANDER
What are the ‘No’ Vote Arguments for Issue 1?
Argument #1:
According to Senator Rob McColley (R), the intent of Issue 1 is to embed gerrymandering into the Ohio Constitution at the expense of the rest of the state. He claims that a close reading of the amendment language and who is supporting it reveals this truth. Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved anti-gerrymandering measures in 2015 and 2018 to reform how state legislative and congressional districts are drawn. The current system, supported unanimously by both Republicans and Democrats, is bipartisan. Issue 1 would eliminate these anti-gerrymandering restrictions, which received over 70% approval in both elections.
Counter Argument:
Proponents of Issue 1 argue that the amendment will end gerrymandering. They claim Ohio is one of the most gerrymandered states in the U.S., and the current system has allowed politicians to ignore court rulings on unconstitutional maps. The Issue 1 amendment will ban partisan gerrymandering and prohibits redistricting plans that favor one political party over others. It will also establish criteria to ensure that the distribution of districts reflects voters’ preferences, preventing manipulation for partisan gain. They claim that critics of the amendment are politicians who benefit from the current system, have not read the amendment, or are acting in bad faith.
Ohio's voting districts have been declared unconstitutional seven times due to manipulation by politicians and lobbyists, protecting their interests and ensuring incumbents rarely lose. This means politicians choose their voters instead of the other way around.
Argument # 2
Issue 1 would establish a map-drawing commission that is not elected by voters. It would replace representatives elected by the people through a lengthy process for appointing citizen commission members with no accountability. Additionally, the only way to remove a member who abuses their power is through the decision of their fellow commissioners.
Counter Argument:
Proponents argue that Issue 1 promotes transparency and accountability through several key provisions: all commission meetings and actions must be public, and staff and consultants are hired via a public application process. At least five public hearings are required before any redistricting plans are adopted, with a final report detailing decision-making and public feedback. A thorough screening process eliminates conflicted or unqualified applicants before the commission begins its work. Commissioners can be removed for cause after a public hearing, with grounds including failure to disclose information, gross misconduct, or actions that undermine public trust. If a commissioner is removed, their replacement will share the same partisan affiliation.
Argument #3:
Issue 1 will eliminate the requirement for compact districts, resulting in boundaries that stretch over long distances and fragment local communities across multiple counties. Opponents argue it will ignore communities of similar interest and will result in irregularly shaped districts designed to create more Democrat areas.
While districts do have to be contiguous districts, the goal of Issue 1 is to draw less compact districts that will extend from inner cities into the suburbs in order to spread out the number of Democrat voters. For instance, proposed maps could stretch from downtown Cincinnati to Ada, Ohio (Hardin County). Senate President Matt Huffman (R) maintains that the current map, approved by the Ohio Redistricting Commission in September 2023, has the fewest divided communities of any map in the state of Ohio.
This amendment will mandate splitting up communities, cities, and counties to favor one political party over another, which could lead to racial gerrymandering. A similar plan to Issue 1 was attempted in Michigan, where three federal judges unanimously ruled that the resulting maps constituted racial gerrymandering. Opponents argue that if Issue 1 passes, it will result in the same issues, forcing divisions based on ethnic, racial, social, cultural, and environmental identity gerrymandering.
Issue 1 Dumpster Fire Dumps Millions More Into Gerrymandering Campaign
Senator Rob McColley (R) warns that those concerned about the Voter Rights Act and the creation of Majority Minority districts should be wary of this ballot proposal, which resembles Michigan's situation. For the first time in 70 or 80 years, Michigan lacks an African American congressperson due to its redistricting amendment. Additionally, the state's initial map was rejected for being a racial gerrymander. The goal of this ballot proposal is to maximize Democratic districts by fragmenting high-Democrat neighborhoods, often located in minority areas, into separate districts. Additionally, McColley expresses concern that unlike current rules, the proposal does not limit splitting counties or cities.
Governor Mike DeWine opposes Issue 1, stating that if it passes, “proportionality will be king.” He argues that this focus on ensuring the number of districts won by each party reflects recent statewide election results will lead to gerrymandering, as mapmakers will be forced to design districts to achieve specific outcomes. For instance, since Ohio Republicans won about 55% of the vote in recent statewide elections, a proportionate map would likely result in Republicans holding eight or nine of Ohio's 15 congressional districts. Currently, they occupy 10 of those seats.
Senator Rob McColley on Issue One Slicing and Dicing of Districts
Ohio Issue 1: How other states have dealt with redistricting and what Ohio can learn
Counter Argument:
Proponents argue that Issue 1 will require impartial districts by making it unconstitutional to create voting districts that discriminate against or favor any political party or individual politician. They claim that the current system undermines voting power and that gerrymandering is being used to allow politicians to dilute the influence of opposing voters by spreading them across multiple districts or concentrating them into one or two districts.
Proponents assert that the ballot proposal is an improvement over the current system because it establishes clear mapping criteria designed to ensure fair representation. Each proposed plan must consist of single-member districts that are geographically contiguous and comply with federal laws, including the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial gerrymandering.
The criteria prioritize equal population distribution based on the latest census, create opportunities for racial, ethnic, and language minorities to elect candidates of their choice, and strive to preserve Communities of Interest—areas where people share common interests and needs. These communities can include neighborhoods, municipalities, townships, and school districts. Supporters state that the definition of communities of interest will come from Ohioans themselves and not politicians, ensuring that public priorities are reflected in the maps.
The ballot proposal specifies that communities cannot be defined by shared political identity, ensuring that the redistricting process prioritizes representation over partisan advantage. Additionally, the Commission is prohibited from considering the residences of incumbents or candidates during redistricting. Supporters note that the statehouse maps approved by both Democrats and Republicans last year were designed to protect incumbent lawmakers from competing against each other.
The amendment establishes a metric for identifying gerrymandering based on proportionality and representational fairness. Districts must align with statewide partisan preferences to avoid favoring any political party, with a goal of accurately reflecting voting preferences. A permissible deviation of up to three percentage points is allowed.
Supporters argue that proportionality serves as a guideline rather than a strict requirement, enabling this 3% deviation. They emphasize that Ohio's existing laws already mandate districts to reflect voter preferences, which past mapmakers have ignored.
Issue 1: Citizens Not Politicians
How much would it cost if Issue 1 passes?
Lawmakers need to allocate $7 million in 2025 for the search firm, commission members, a retired judges' screening panel, and related litigation.
Commission members will be paid $125 per day, while retired judges will receive the same per diem as appeals court judges.
Ohio Issue 1: Will it end gerrymandering? Top FAQs answered
The Best of Two Bad Options
The Ohio Redistricting Commission has poorly managed the redistricting process, leading to significant backlash. As a result, Ohioans are now faced with one bad option and an even worse one. Had Ohio legislators and Republican leaders listened to the people, they could have proposed their own solution to gerrymandering, such as weighted voting. However, they did not, which resulted in the empowerment of Democrats and left-leaning organizations in Ohio.
Is there a better solution? Some suggest returning the responsibility of drawing districts to the legislature, arguing that lawmakers have neglected their duties and should eliminate the politician-led redistricting commission. Others, myself included, believe that the best alternative would be a system of weighted voting.
Weighted Voting as a Solution
Proponents of weighted voting argue that it would restore integrity to the electoral process and eliminate gerrymandering by removing unelected judges and commissions that can manipulate district lines. Under a weighted voting system, district boundaries would be permanent and aligned with the counties Ohioans already know, ensuring that the value of each representative’s vote reflects the population of the county they serve. Ohioans instinctively understand their county boundaries better than their Ohio House or Senate districts because their county legislative body has a more direct impact on their daily lives.
How Would It Work?
Weighted voting allocates legislative votes based on a district's population. In Ohio, each county could serve as a State House District, with each county electing a single representative. This representative would have a minimum of one vote, plus an additional vote for every 100,000 residents beyond the first 100,000. For example, a county with 200,000 residents would elect one representative who could cast two votes in the legislature.
For the Ohio Senate, every two counties could be designated as a Senate District, with each senator receiving one vote, similar to U.S. senators. This structure would ensure that the Ohio House represents population and the Ohio Senate represents land area. Once established, House and Senate Districts would remain permanent, with only the House's weighted voting adjusting as populations change.
Advantages
Weighted voting eliminates concerns about gerrymandering since districts remain consistent. This familiarity makes districts more relevant to voters. The predictability of fixed boundaries allows political parties and grassroots organizations to strategize effectively.
Redrawing political boundaries every ten years can be problematic and confusing for Ohioans. Weighted voting would truly reflect the will of the people, based on county boundaries and population-weighted votes for legislators.
If Issue 1 does pass as current polling suggests, Ohio’s legislature could choose to draft a weighted voting proposal, finally returning power to the people. If Issue 1 does not pass, there will be little reason or incentive for the Republican Party to take action.
By adopting weighted voting based on county districts, we can simplify our electoral process, making it more intuitive and representative of the people’s will. Ohioans are familiar with their county boundaries, which makes them a more meaningful basis for representation than ever-changing political lines.
Legislators should prioritize credible governance and redirect funds from contentious primaries to critical issues such as supporting law enforcement and addressing abortion, human trafficking, illegal immigration, and the fentanyl crisis. Ohio deserves a government that is accountable and truly representative of its citizens.
So, What Should We Do NOW?!
Since we currently have no option to return the responsibility to the legislature or implement a weighted voting system, how should we vote on Issue 1? I would encourage you to vote No on Issue 1. However, given its likelihood of passing according to recent polling, let's consider a proactive approach. As Republicans, we should start thinking ahead—something our opponents excel at—and explore weighted voting as a viable solution.