On September 20, 2023, outside the Ohio Supreme Court in Columbus, two Democrats on the Ohio Ballot Board criticized the state attorney general for representing them in a lawsuit over ballot language for a proposed redistricting amendment. They disagreed with the language, which they believe violates the state constitution, and submitted their own court document.
The Ohio Ballot Board is being sued by the amendment’s authors, who argue that the approved ballot language is misleading. The language, written by Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, was contested by the amendment’s creators, particularly the title: “To create an appointed redistricting commission not elected by or subject to removal by the voters of the state.”
The proposed amendment, supported by over 535,000 Ohio voters, aims to replace the current Ohio Redistricting Commission, composed of politicians like LaRose, with a 15-member citizens commission.
The challengers took their case to the Ohio Supreme Court, asking for the ballot language to be changed, claiming it does not comply with constitutional requirements. The approved language includes a controversial phrase introduced by state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, stating that the amendment would require the commission to “gerrymander” district boundaries. LaRose supported this change.
Democratic board members State Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson and Rep. Terrence Upchurch opposed the language, calling it deceptive. They were unhappy to find themselves listed as part of the defense in the lawsuit without prior consultation. They argued that the document filed by the Attorney General’s Office ignored their opposition and their stance against gerrymandering.
In response, Hicks-Hudson and Upchurch filed their own court documents, criticizing the process and the truthfulness of the language adoption. They claimed the Ballot Board violated its constitutional duty and misrepresented the amendment.
Ohio House and Senate Minority Leaders also supported the Democrats, criticizing the Attorney General’s Office for not consulting them and for denying their request for outside legal counsel. They plan to pursue further legal action if their concerns are not addressed.
The Attorney General’s Office defended its actions, stating it represents the entire Ballot Board and that no individual member is entitled to separate counsel.