Citizens Not Politicians v. Ohio Ballot Board

DESCRIPTION

ELC filed an amicus brief in support of relators, Citizens Not Politicians, before the Ohio Supreme Court arguing that the state’s definition of gerrymandering, used in the language for a ballot amendment, finds no footing in either the scholarship or caselaw. Citizens Not Politicians proposed the ballot amendment and ask that the Ohio Supreme Court change the ballot language to better reflect the reality of the proposal. 

The ELC amicus brief surveys Ohio Supreme Court precedent, Supreme Court precedent, and major scholarly works. The brief, filed on behalf of Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos, Edward B. Foley, Ruth Greenwood, David Niven, and Dan Tokaji, outlines that “no common notion of [gerrymandering] equates it with ensuring that parties’ legislative representation is congruent to their popular support. On some accounts, this kind of congruence is the antithesis of gerrymandering.” 

BACKGROUND

In the upcoming November elections, Ohioans will find Issue 1 atop their ballot, proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gerrymandering. More specifically, the amendment establishes the “Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission,” an independent redistricting commission composed of 15 impartial members, to devise state and congressional district lines. Separately, the Ohio state constitution requires that district lines must be drawn to achieve close proportionality between the choices of voters and the actual seats in the legislature (“seat-vote correspondence”)—a requirement the legislature has ignored, necessitating the commission as a nonpartisan solution.   

The Ohio Ballot Board is responsible for drafting the actual language to appear on the ballot, and, under Ohio law, that language must “fairly and accurately” summarize ballot issues. Yet the adopted language stipulates that the “commission of appointees [will be] required to gerrymander.”  

In Citizens Not Politicians v. Ohio Ballot Board, the state argues that if the commission were put in place and followed the constitutional seat-vote correspondence requirement, they would necessarily be gerrymandering. Their argument rests on the idea that, to achieve seat-vote correspondence, the commission would have to focus on the political makeup of each district when drawing lines, and that that process inherently demands gerrymandering.  

The amicus brief filed by ELC pushes back on assertions made by another amicus party, that argues that seat-vote correspondence would lead to precipitous drops in minority representation in the legislature. Rather, as seen in Michigan, seat-vote correspondence can lead to improved legislative representation for minority communities by moving away from strict majority-minority districts, which may pack in minority voters, and instead adopting opportunity districts, which more evenly spread out minority populations while still ensuring their candidate of choice is elected.