The justices are upholding an Orwellian lie that accuses an amendment to end gerrymandering of doing the exact opposite of what it actually does.

In November, Ohio residents will have an opportunity to vote on Issue 1, a constitutional amendment that would finally abolish the state’s extreme partisan gerrymandering. Voters will not, however, be informed of this fact on the ballot. Instead, the Ohio Supreme Court’s Republican majority ruled Monday that the amendment will be described in egregiously misleading terms on the ballot itself, with ultra-biased language designed to turn citizens against it. Incredibly, a proposal that would end gerrymandering will be framed as a proposal to require gerrymandering, a patently false representation of its intent and effect. The court’s 4–3 decision marks yet another effort to subvert democracy in Ohio by Republicans who fear that the citizenry—when given a voice on the matter—might dare to loosen their stranglehold on power.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/09/ohio-supreme-court-voter-fraud-gop.html

  • skoberlink@lemmy.world
    1181·
    2 days ago

    I don’t think the article included it and it’s a little difficult to find the phrasing.

    I found a sample ballot

    https://www.boe.ohio.gov/clark/c/upload/ELEC_BallotProofs.pdf

    The phrasing there is

    To create an appointed redistricting commission not elected by or subject to removal by the voters of the state

    However a vote of “Yes” would establish a non-partisan (or, IMO more accurately, a mixed partisan) committee of 15 (5R, 5D, 5 other) where a majority of the committee must approve the redistricting.

    The extended description starts with this

    1. Repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three-quarters of Ohio electors participating in the statewide elections of 2015 and 2018, and eliminate the longstanding ability of Ohio citizens to hold their representatives accountable for establishing fair state legislative and congressional districts.

    Technically all of this is correct but I can absolutely see how it’s misleading voters.

    Full disclosure, I’m not a lawyer or political scientist and I do not live in Ohio.

    • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
      54·
      2 days ago

      As an ohioian, the current system isn’t enabling some nobel pursuit of holding people accountable. It’s blatantly “our team draws the lines, in a way that benefits our team, who can draw the lines next time, benefitting our team again”

      And even after the R weighted supreme court rules “the lines are biased - throw out the map”, they still find a way to use the map anyway. Yeah. Calling it a “repeal of gerrymander protection” is a joke and a half.

    • johker216@lemmy.world
      36·
      2 days ago

      We don’t have sample ballots yet, but this matches our local reporting:

      Now LaRose is abusing his position on the Ohio Ballot Board to paint Issue 1 in a comically negative light. The Ohio Constitution bars ballot language that would “mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters.” Yet the board’s description of the amendment states that it would create “a new taxpayer-funded commission of appointees required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts” to produce “partisan outcomes” (emphasis added). It also declares that the amendment would “repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three-quarters of Ohio electors participating in the statewide elections of 2015 and 2018,” a gratuitous reference to the failed reforms of the previous decade.

      This is grossly misleading of what we approved in the past.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      13·
      2 days ago

      Thank you for sharing this clear and succinct comment. Looked through the article and didn’t see it formated so clearly.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        10·
        1 day ago

        The entire ballot measure is riddled with lies and doublespeak. This is just one example, and that’s what makes it hard to describe the problem in clear and succinct language. Vinny Gambini’s opening statement comes to mind.

    • dezmd@lemmy.worldMEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      Wont the 5 others just be libertarians that always end up voting in lockstep with Republicans?

      • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
        6·
        2 days ago

        Not necessarily. Half of Americans are registered unaffiliated. I imagine most of those aren’t libertarians. I’m registered unaffiliated because I’m a socialist.