Left, a Vote Yes sign in favor of the constitutional amendment that would remove politicians from the redistricting process in favor of a citizen commission. Right, a No sign against the proposal. (Photo and graphic by WEWS)

Reactions to the defeat of Ohio Issue 1 redistricting reform showed strong feelings on both sides, with supporters expressing frustration with confusion over the ballot language, and those opposed praising voters for rejecting the Citizens Not Politicians proposal.

With 100% of precincts reporting, the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office reports an unofficial result of 54.78% of voters against Issue 1, and 46.22% in favor of the measure. The office counts 220,046 outstanding absentee & provisional ballots, not enough to cover the more than 400,000-vote margin in the race.

Opposition praises outcome

Those in opposition to Issue 1 praised the decision of a majority of Ohio voters on Tuesday night.

Before the race had even been called by The Associated Press, anti-abortion organization Ohio Right to Life was already celebrating the defeat, calling Issue 1 a “potential power grab by liberal elites.”

“By joining Ohio Right to Life and defeating Issue 1, the voters of Ohio have shut the door on special interests polluting our state constitution,” the group said in a statement.

The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, led by its president and CEO, former Ohio Republican congressman Steve Stivers, said it was “pleased to see Ohio voters recognize the consequences that Issue 1 could have caused, had it passed.”

“We agree that the current redistricting system is flawed; however, this constitutional amendment would have only created larger problems, like raising the cost of doing business in our state and making us less economically competitive,” Stivers said in a statement.

Stivers said the chamber looked forward to “working with state legislators and elected officials going forward to find the right solution for all.”

Supporters react

Representatives from Citizens Not Politicians, the group who led the charge for Issue 1, and Democrats expressed frustration at the confusion they say led some Ohioans to vote against the measure, despite their desire to end gerrymandering.

“Everybody that voted in this election, I venture to say, thought they were voting to end gerrymandering, it’s as simple as that,” said former Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, after a Tuesday night watch party in downtown Columbus.

While O’Connor said she was encouraged by the support to end gerrymandering from those who voted against the measure, she said those voters “were duped” by the summary ballot language passed by the Ohio Ballot Board, led by Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose.

“It was just the manipulation (of the ballot language), that’s what defeated it,” O’Connor said.

Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, also blamed the language that was adopted by the Ballot Board and upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court after anti-gerrymandering advocates sued over it.

“The Secretary of State and the Ballot Board purposely lied to the people of Ohio about what Issue 1 was to protect their own power,” Miller told the Capital Journal. “All I can say is that the league fights for every voter and we will continue to fight gerrymandering and the kind of corruption that developed the ballot language that misled Ohioans.”

House Minority Leader Allison Russo, D-Upper Arlington, accused LaRose of using “lies and dirty tricks this entire election year to mislead voters in a historic abuse of power.”

Russo was a member of the Ohio Redistricting Commission over the years that the commission adopted six statehouse maps and two congressional maps. The sixth statehouse map was the only one that wasn’t rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court as unconstitutionally favoring the GOP, against voting trends in the state. That map was also the only one to receive unanimous, bipartisan approval.

It was Russo and Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio’s affirmative votes that the Republicans, and ultimately the state supreme court, used as reason to uphold the most recent statehouse map, citing that bipartisan support.

Russo said she supported the maps merely as a strategy to take the map-making process out of the hands of the elected officials making up the ORC, setting her sights on the proposed constitutional amendment that was being formulated at the time.

“The failure to pass Issue 1 means extremists at the Statehouse will continue to prioritize issues that only benefit themselves and special interest groups, not the hard-working men and women of Ohio,” she said in a Tuesday statement.

It’s likely the Ohio Redistricting Commission would have the support of the Ohio Supreme Court going forward, now that conservative justices hold a 6-1 majority. The swing vote on the previous maps that were rejected was O’Connor, before she left the bench due to age limits.

Current Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy and the conservative justices on the court have supported the ORC in dissents against the map rejections, and Kennedy led the court when they upheld the sixth statehouse map amid a court challenge.

What’s next

Gov. Mike DeWine already has a plan in mind, one that he plans to work with the legislature to implement in the next General Assembly, according to a spokesperson for the governor’s office.

He introduced the plan, modeled after the redistricting method used in Iowa, at a July press conference where he also stated his opposition to Issue 1. In Iowa, map-drawing is entrusted to an entity similar to Ohio’s Legislative Service Commission, the nonpartisan group that drafts analyses of bills introduced in the General Assembly.

The LSC’s maps would need to be approved by the legislature and the governor, according to the Iowa plan.

Spokesperson Dan Tierney said the governor felt he had a “moral obligation” to give Ohioans another possibility if he was going to oppose the proposal on the table.

“He does not disagree with folks that think we deserve a better system or that the system didn’t work very well in 2021,” Tierney said.

Now that Issue 1 has been defeated, DeWine plans to move forward with discussions to get the legislature onboard with a new plan, and is optimistic about support for the General Assembly-developed initiative.

“When you do it legislatively, you have the opportunity to have hearings, you have the opportunity for public input, for the public to come and testify, and you have the opportunity to amend the proposal,” Tierney said.

So, if there are certain things about the Iowa plan that legislators and/or the public don’t like, that can be voiced before the measure heads to the ballot, according to Tierney.

While exact plans have not yet been formulated by voting rights advocates to further the fight against gerrymandering they say created the extremist policies and supermajority in the Ohio General Assembly, advocates definitely aren’t giving up.

“Under no circumstances is this over,” Miller said. “Having fair representation is a right that every Ohioan has; my organization started this a half-a-century ago, and we will not stop until Ohioans have fair districts.”

Legislative Democrats also pledged to continue the fight, despite the “setback,” as Assistant Senate Democratic Whip Catherine Ingram, D-Cincinnati, called it.

“While we may be disappointed by this outcome, our work is not over,” she said in a joint statement with fellow Senate Democrats. “We will continue to fight for the fairness and equality that every Ohioan deserves, and we will not stop pushing for a more just and inclusive future for our state.”