COLUMBUS, Ohio — The proposed constitutional amendment to prevent gerrymandering in Ohio has been rejected for being "confusing and vague" by Attorney General Dave Yost. This, however, is relatively common for first-time submissions.
Fast Facts
Coalition Citizens Not Politicians has put forward a constitutional amendment for the November 2024 ballot.
The proposal creates the 15-member Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission (OCRC) made up of Republican, Democratic and independent citizens who broadly represent the different geographic areas and demographics of the state.
RELATED: Amid heating up redistricting debate, Ohio Gov. DeWine says politicians shouldn’t draw district maps
Rejection
Yost's job is to determine whether a submitted summary is a "fair and truthful" representation of the amendment.
"We identified omissions and misstatements that, as a whole, would mislead a potential signer as to the actual scope and effect of the proposed amendment," Yost wrote in a letter to the petitioners.
It wasn't about the content of the amendment, but rather the slight differences from the summary language to the official petition language. A summary, historically, is more condensed than the writing that proceeds.
"The summary provides near-recitations of some sections of the proposed amendment while giving short shrift to other sections," Yost wrote.
An example of this is shown when the AG quotes the summary's statement that a bipartisan screening panel must get a search firm to help with candidate review.
Here is the explicit difference:
Summary:
"Require the Panel to retain the services of a professional search firm to assist with the application and application review processes."
Language:
“The bipartisan screening panel shall engage a professional search firm to solicit applications for commissioner, screen and provide information about applicants, check references, and otherwise facilitate the application review and applicant interview process.”
Problem
This is a problem because the summary "diminishes the actual role of the search firm," Yost said.
The nine outlined problems are "just a few examples of the summary's omissions and misstatements," he said. Yost's letter of rejection does specify what other omissions or misstatements are in the summary.
Read Attorney General Yost's full letter here.
Response
“It is not at all uncommon for the Attorney General to reject the summary of a petition in this first early stage of bringing a constitutional amendment,” said Citizens Not Politicians Spokesperson Chris Davey. “We believe our summary was accurate. But we will review the Attorney General’s guidance, will make necessary adjustments, and will collect new signatures with our broad, statewide, nonpartisan coalition of partners to refile as soon as possible because it’s time for citizens and not politicians to draw Ohio’s legislative maps.”
The advocates can resubmit as many times as they want.
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.
