To the editor:
Issue 1 is an Ohio Constitutional Amendment to ban gerrymandering in the state.
A “yes” vote will ban gerrymandering by creating a redistricting commission of 15 citizens (5 Republicans, 5 Democrats and 5 independents), none politicians.
A “no” vote will reinforce existing gerrymandering (and the resulting supermajorities) by keeping the current Ohio Redistricting Commission in place. As noted on that commission’s website, the commission is made of the following seven members, all either politicians or appointees of politicians:
- One individual appointed by the senate president
- One individual appointed by the speaker of the house
- One individual appointed by the senate minority leader
- One individual appointed by the house minority leader
- The governor
- The auditor
- The secretary of state
Unfortunately, when you go into the voting booth and read the ballot initiative (several screens’ worth of text), you might not be able to tell which vote will ban gerrymandering. This is because “The (Ohio Supreme) Court sided with the Ballot Board on the most controversial part of its description, which states that the new redistricting commission would be “required to gerrymander” districts to achieve the amendment’s intended outcomes.” In other words, since the Ohio Ballot Board (challenged by Citizens Not Politicians) couldn’t keep the inflammatory word “gerrymandering” off the ballot, they managed to twist the logic until they got away with saying that the citizen commission would “repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three-quarters of Ohio electors participating in the statewide elections of 2015 and 2018, ….”
I’m writing this letter because I witnessed this wording have its intended effect, namely utter befuddlement of the voter.
On the second day of early voting last week, a 20-something voter sat to my right. He got to what had to be Issue 1 and voiced his frustration to the poll worker in the room. I can’t quote him verbatim, but these are close to his halting sentences:
“I thought I understood this issue….”
Then, “Maybe I’ve got it wrong….”
And finally, “Are we allowed to use our phones to Google the issue?”
The poll worker could only tell him to keep tapping More to read the issue in full, and I could only leave the Board of Elections hoping that the voter had cast his vote as he intended and lamenting that he was one of just 8-12 people in that room. This is a super small sample size, to be sure, but within this sample, at least 8.3% of voters in that
room were confused.
Most appalling to me was that this was a literate voter who took his right and responsibility to vote seriously. So much so that he voted on the second day. He was just stymied by a mishmash of deliberately misleading text written by folks who are supposed to represent his and other voters’ best interests.
For more information about Issue 1 before entering the booth, I recommend The Athens County Independent’s 2024 Voter Guide and David DeWitt’s October 11 commentary in the Ohio Capital Journal.
In the end, it comes down to this simple question: “Do you want to ban gerrymandering in Ohio?”
If your answer is “yes,” vote “yes.”
If your answer is “no,” vote “no.”
As a retired technical writer, I hesitate to say, “Don’t read what’s on the ballot.” However, when what’s on the ballot is designed to confuse you, then I say, “You’re under no obligation to read it.”
Know your choice before you go. Then, trust that decision in the voting booth. You got this!
Carolyn Sweeney
Athens, Ohio
