2024 Ohio 4547
Ohio2024Background
- Issue 1 is a proposed constitutional amendment to replace Articles XI and XIX with a new Article XX establishing a 15‑member redistricting commission and new redistricting standards (including a statewide partisan‑proportionality requirement).
- The Ohio Ballot Board (3–2 vote) adopted ballot language; Secretary of State LaRose adopted the ballot title. Relators (Citizens Not Politicians and two Ohio voters) challenged multiple sections of the adopted ballot language and the title as misleading and sought mandamus to reconvene the board and order a new title.
- The court reviews ballot language under Ohio Const. art. XVI, § 1 (ballot language may be invalidated only if it would “mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters”) and applies expedited‑election procedures; the secretary statutorily sets the ballot title (R.C. 3519.21).
- The ballot board defended its language as factually accurate and within its discretion; the secretary defended the title as a concise, impartial statement.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio granted a limited writ: it held parts of the ballot language defective (requiring reconvening to fix them) but rejected most other challenges and upheld the ballot title. The court granted leave to withdraw an answer by two dissenting board members and denied as moot a motion to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 2 (describing the amendment as "required to gerrymander") is misleading | Board’s phrase falsely asserts the amendment "requires gerrymandering" though the amendment says it "bans partisan gerrymandering" and mandates proportionality, not intentional unfairness | Board: the amendment’s prioritization of partisan proportionality (over traditional neutral criteria) fits ordinary and case‑law meanings of "gerrymander"; wording is factually accurate and germane | Held: Not defective — court concluded the term aligns with common/case definitions and accurately describes the amendment’s effect |
| Whether section 5 (judicial‑review description) is misleading by saying challenges are limited to the "proportionality standard" and barred in "any court" | Plaintiffs: language falsely suggests Ohio Supreme Court jurisdiction would be limited to proportionality claims and that federal review is excluded | Board: language follows the amendment’s text (gives Ohio Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over §6(B) claims and uses "any court" phrasing) | Held: Partially defective — the phrase limiting review to a "proportionality standard" is inaccurate (some §6(B) provisions are not proportionality claims); court ordered correction of this specific misstatement |
| Whether section 8 (communications/public participation) is misleading by saying the amendment "limits" citizens’ right to express opinions | Plaintiffs: board omitted that the amendment provides numerous public‑meeting/hearing and portal procedures, so focusing only on restrictions implies loss of public participation rights | Board: current law already provides public participation and the summary may focus on what is new; concision permitted | Held: Defective — court found omission of the amendment’s concrete public‑participation provisions left a materially misleading implication and ordered correction |
| Whether the ballot title is prejudicial or inaccurate | Plaintiffs: title "create an appointed redistricting commission not elected by or subject to removal by the voters" prejudicially implies lack of democratic legitimacy and omits selection/removal details | Secretary/Board: title is a concise, accurate summary and titles should be brief; more detail belongs in the summary, not the title | Held: Not defective — court upheld the title as a true, impartial, concise statement and declined to convert the title into a summary |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735 (1973) (upheld a plan drawn to approximate statewide political strengths; discussed as an example of bipartisan/proportional mapmaking)
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) (discusses partisan‑gerrymandering doctrine and describes limits of federal courts on pure partisan claims)
- Gill v. Whitford, 585 U.S. 48 (2018) (uses term "bipartisan gerrymander" and discusses partisan‑outcome‑based mapping)
- Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) (concurrence and discussion of partisan and bipartisan gerrymandering concepts)
- Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023) (racial gerrymandering precedents and standards for assessing districting)
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) (establishes supremacy of federal law; cited regarding federal courts’ jurisdiction)
- Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534 (1986) (federal‑court jurisdiction is governed by federal law/statute)
- State ex rel. Bailey v. Celebrezze, 67 Ohio St.2d 516 (1981) (Ohio precedent: ballot language must not be argumentative or persuasive)
- Jurcisin v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 35 Ohio St.3d 137 (1988) (discusses the need for concise, non‑argumentative ballot summaries)