Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has called for the state Supreme Court to dismiss a filing by minority members of the Ohio Ballot Board. This development comes in response to a legal challenge over ballot language for a proposed constitutional amendment.
According to The Center Square, Yost argues that the board's majority decision should stand, rejecting attempts by the losing members to contest the outcome in court.
The controversy stems from a recent vote by the Ohio Ballot Board on the language for Issue 1, which will appear on the November ballot. The proposed amendment aims to change how Ohio establishes voting districts, moving the process from the current Ohio Redistricting Commission to a new nonpartisan citizen committee. The board's decision to approve specific ballot language was made along party lines, with a 3-2 vote favoring the Republican members.
Yost, who serves as legal counsel for the Ballot Board, responded to the filing on Tuesday. He emphasized the importance of respecting the majority vote in democratic processes. Yost stated:
If the losing members of a voting board can relitigate their loss in court, we don't have a democracy, we have government by judiciary. A multi-member body speaks through its majority vote.
The attorney general's position underscores his view that allowing minority members to challenge board decisions in court could undermine the democratic process and shift power to the judiciary.
The constitutional amendment at the center of this dispute proposes a significant change to Ohio's redistricting process. It seeks to remove the responsibility from the Ohio Redistricting Commission, currently composed of five Republicans and two Democrats, and transfer it to a new nonpartisan citizen committee.
This proposed committee would consist of 15 members, including Republicans, Democrats, and independents. The amendment stipulates that these members should have no disqualifying conflicts of interest and demonstrate the ability to conduct the redistricting process impartially, with integrity and fairness.
The crux of the current legal battle lies in the ballot language approved by the Ballot Board. Citizens Not Politicians, a bipartisan coalition advocating for the amendment, submitted proposed language that emphasized the nonpartisan nature of the new commission and its commitment to fair districting principles.
However, the language approved by the board, which passed on a 3-2 vote along party lines, includes contentious phrasing. It states that the new commission would be "required to gerrymander" the districts, a claim that Democrats and amendment supporters argue is false and misleading.
This discrepancy led Citizens Not Politicians to file a lawsuit challenging the approved ballot language. In response, the two Democratic members of the Ballot Board, state Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson and state Rep. Terrence Upchurch filed their own response to the lawsuit, alleging malpractice by Attorney General Yost and accusing Secretary of State Frank LaRose of partisan behavior in establishing the ballot language.
If the amendment passes, it would shift the redistricting process from a politically appointed commission to a citizen-led committee. Proponents argue this change would lead to fairer, more representative districts that better reflect the state's political diversity.
However, the current controversy over ballot language highlights the challenges and political tensions surrounding electoral reform efforts. The dispute between Attorney General Yost and the Democratic Ballot Board members underscores the high stakes involved in how such amendments are presented to voters.
In conclusion, Ohio's redistricting amendment has sparked a legal battle over ballot language, with Attorney General Dave Yost seeking to dismiss filings by minority Ballot Board members. The dispute centers on language describing a proposed citizen committee to handle redistricting. This controversy highlights the ongoing debate over fair representation and the challenges of electoral reform in Ohio.
