Ohio Issue 2, Redistricting Commission Initiative (2012)

Ohio Issue 2
Election date November 6, 2012
Topic Redistricting measures
Status Defeated
Type Initiated constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

Ohio Issue 2 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in Ohio on November 6, 2012. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported establishing a 12-member non-politician commission responsible for adopting state legislative and congressional redistricting plans.

A "no" vote opposed establishing a 12-member non-politician commission responsible for adopting state legislative and congressional redistricting plans.

Election results

Ohio Issue 2
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,800,107	36.82%
No		3,088,414	63.18%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Issue 2 was as follows:

“

State Issue 2 To create a state-funded commission to draw legislative and congressional districts Proposed Constitutional Amendment Proposed by Initiative Petition To add and repeal language in Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 13 of Article XI, repeal Sections 8 and 14 of Article XI, and add a new Section 16 to Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Ohio A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass. The proposed amendment would: 1. Remove the authority of elected representatives and grant new authority to appointed officials to establish congressional and state legislative district lines. 2. Create a state funded commission of appointed officials from a limited pool of applicants to replace the aforementioned. The Commission will consist of 12 members (4 affiliated with the largest political party, 4 affiliated with the second largest political party, and 4 not affiliated with either of the two largest political parties) who will be chosen as follows: A. On or before January 1 of the year that the decennial census is conducted, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio shall select by lot a panel consisting of eight judges of the courts of appeals of Ohio, no more than four of whom may be members of the same political party. This panel of judges shall be responsible for selecting potential members of the Commission. On or before April 1 of the year that the decennial census is conducted, this panel of judges shall appoint an independent auditor who shall assist the judges in determining the eligibility of potential members of the Commission. B. Eligible persons may submit applications for membership on the Commission to the Secretary of State by May 1 of the year that the decennial census is conducted. The Secretary of State shall make available an appropriate application form designed to help determine the eligibility and qualifications of applicants and shall publicize the application process. The Secretary of State shall provide the panel of judges with the applications and any other records necessary to determine eligibility of the applicants. C. On or before August 1 of the year that the decennial census is conducted, the panel of eight judges described in subparagraph A shall select from the applicants forty-two individuals to serve as potential members of the Commission. The judges, after adopting a selection procedure, shall select applicants who have the relevant skills and abilities, including a capacity for impartiality, and who reflect the diversity of Ohio. These shall include the fourteen most qualified applicants affiliated with each of the two largest political parties, and the fourteen most qualified applicants who have been unaffiliated with either of these political parties during the prior five years. The selection of potential members shall require the affirmative vote of at least five of the eight judges. The two largest political parties shall be determined based on the votes received by the candidates for Governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. D. On or before August 15 of the year that the decennial census is conducted, the speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives and the highest ranking member of the House not of the same political party as the speaker may each respectively eliminate up to three of the fourteen potential members affiliated with the largest political party, up to three of the fourteen potential members affiliated with the second largest political party, and up to three of the fourteen potential members not affiliated with either of these parties. This shall result in a final pool of not less than twenty-four potential members of the Commission.  E. From the final pool of potential members, the panel of eight judges, or their designee, shall choose by lot, and in public, three individuals affiliated with each of the two largest political parties and three individuals not affiliated with either of these parties to serve as members of the Commission. On or before October 1 of the year that the decennial census is conducted, these nine members shall meet to select from the final pool of potential members three additional members, which shall include one member affiliated with the largest political party, one member affiliated with the second largest political party, and one member not affiliated with either of these parties. In selecting the final three members, the members of the Commission shall seek a total commission membership that reflects the diversity of Ohio and that has the relevant skills and abilities, including a capacity for impartiality, which will allow the Commission to fulfill its responsibilities. The nine members selected by lot and the three additional members selected by the original nine members shall comprise the full Commission. F. No member of the Commission shall be subject to removal by the general assembly or any member of the executive branch. 3. Require new legislative and congressional districts be immediately established by the Commission to replace the most recent districts adopted by elected representatives, which districts shall not be challenged except by court order until the next federal decennial census and apportionment. Affirmative votes of 7 of 12 Commission members are needed to select a plan. In the event the Commission is not able to determine a plan by October 1, the Ohio Supreme Court would need to adopt a plan from all the plans submitted to the Commission. 4. Repeals current constitutional requirements for drawing legislative districts that avoid splits to counties, townships, municipalities and city wards where possible, and when not possible, limiting such divisions to only one division per governmental unit, and also repeals requirements to form as many whole legislative districts solely within a county as possible. The foregoing would be replaced and require the Commission to adopt a plan that complies with all applicable federal and state constitutional provisions, federal statutory provisions, and the contiguity requirement and that most closely meets the factors of community preservation, competitiveness, representational fairness, and compactness. The Commission would also be required not to draw or adopt a plan with an intent to favor or disfavor a political party, incumbent, or potential candidate. 5. Mandate the General Assembly to appropriate all funds necessary to adequately fund the activities of the Commission including, but not be limited to, compensating: A. Staff B. Consultants C. Legal counsel D. Commission members If approved, the amendment will be effective thirty days after the election. Shall the amendment be approved?

”

Support

Voters First, also known as Yes on Issue 2, led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative.

Supporters

Political Parties

• Green Party of Ohio
• Libertarian Party of Ohio

Unions

• AFL-CIO

Organizations

• America Votes
• Children’s Defense Fund
• Common Cause Ohio
• Equality Ohio
• League of Women Voters of Ohio
• NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio
• Ohio Council of Churches
• Ohio NAACP
• Ohio Organizing Collaborative
• Sierra Club Ohio

Arguments

Voters First Ohio: "Voters First’s proposal will create an Independent Citizens Commission. Politicians, lobbyists and political insiders are prohibited from serving on the commission. The Commission’s work will be open and it will be accountable to the public. The Commission will empower voters to choose their politicians instead of politicians picking their voters.

• Citizens, Not Politicians. Instead of the current procedures (in which politicians draw district boundaries that unfairly favor their own party and/or protect incumbents), a 12-member Citizens Commission will create the districts. Any member of the public can submit a plan for consideration.

• Openness and Transparency. All meetings, records, communications and draft plans of the Commission must be open to the public. No more backroom deals.

• Balance and Impartiality. The Citizens Commission will include equal numbers of Republicans, Democrats and independents, and the approval of at least seven of the twelve members of the commission will be required for the adoption of any plan. This will ensure that the final plan fairly represents all Ohioans, not just those currently in power.

• Community Representation. Districts will be created that are geographically compact, and which minimize the division of counties, townships, municipalities and wards between different districts.

• Accountability & Competitive Districts. Politically balanced districts will be created, rather than “safe districts” which make it difficult or impossible for voters to hold elected officials accountable.

• Fairness. To the greatest extent possible, the share of districts leaning toward a party will reflect the political preferences of the voters of Ohio."

Opposition

Protect Your Vote Ohio led the campaign in opposition to the ballot initiative.

Opponents

Organizations

• Ohio Chamber of Commerce
• Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
• Ohio Judicial Conference
• Ohio Manufacturers' Association

Arguments

• Jenny Camper, spokeswoman for Protect Your Vote: "We expect proponents will continue to tell Ohio voters that this plan is an effort to remove partisan politics and special interests from the line-drawing process. However, the facts don’t lie. Recent finance reports which reveal funding by and large from unions and liberal organizations, and the fact that these same groups comprise the majority of the amendment’s supporters, tell us that the amendment is designed by liberal special interests to change Ohio’s constitution for their own partisan gain."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Ohio ballot measures

The political action committee (PAC) that supported Issue 2 was Voters First. The PAC that opposed Issue 2 was Protect Your Vote Ohio.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$6,374,796.59	$1,823,251.60	$8,198,048.19	$6,374,152.65	$8,197,404.25
Oppose	$8,210,045.00	$0.00	$8,210,045.00	$7,852,235.00	$7,852,235.00
Total	$14,584,841.59	$1,823,251.60	$16,408,093.19	$14,226,387.65	$16,049,639.25

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Issue 2
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Voters First	$6,374,796.59	$1,823,251.60	$8,198,048.19	$6,374,152.65	$8,197,404.25
Total	$6,374,796.59	$1,823,251.60	$8,198,048.19	$6,374,152.65	$8,197,404.25

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Ohio Education Association	$2,000,115.32	$480,673.67	$2,480,788.99
National Education Association	$1,300,000.00	$0.00	$1,300,000.00
Ohio Democratic Party	$250,000.00	$470,136.97	$720,136.97
Ohio AFL-CIO	$315,000.00	$100,000.00	$415,000.00
OCSEA Local 11	$252,333.00	$0.00	$252,333.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the measure.

Committees in opposition to Issue 2
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Protect Your Vote Ohio	$8,210,045.00	$0.00	$8,210,045.00	$7,852,235.00	$7,852,235.00
Total	$8,210,045.00	$0.00	$8,210,045.00	$7,852,235.00	$7,852,235.00

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Partnership for Ohio's Future	$3,912,500.00	$0.00	$3,912,500.00
American Action Network	$850,000.00	$0.00	$850,000.00
Republican State Leadership Council	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Ohio Republican State and Central Executive Committee	$356,660.00	$0.00	$356,660.00
Boich Companies, LLC	$300,000.00	$0.00	$300,000.00
Western and Southern Life Insurance Company	$300,000.00	$0.00	$300,000.00

Path to the ballot

Supporters turned in 1,700 signatures to the Ohio Attorney General's office, along with the ballot measure's wording, as mandated by state initiative law.

On April 5, the Ohio Ballot Board approved ballot language for the redistricting amendment. Supporters of the proposal had until July 4, 2012 to turn in the 385,247 signatures required to place the measure on the ballot. According to the Ohio Secretary of State's office, when contacted by Ballotpedia that day, supporters of the measure turned in signatures by the deadline.

A total of more than 406,000 valid signatures were certified, meaning that the initiative effort met the necessary requirements to make the ballot.

Voters First v. The Ohio Ballot Board

The coalition in favor of the amendment, Voters First, filed a lawsuit with the Ohio Supreme Court on August 23, 2012 that challenged the ballot wording formulated by the Ohio Ballot Board.

According to the lawsuit, the group challenged that the wording wasn't fair or accurate. The lawsuit asked the court to reconvene the board to come up with new language or to have the high court write the language instead of the board.

The formal title of the court case was State ex rel. Voters First, Ann Henkener, Samuel Gresham, Jr., Ellis Jacobs, Richard Gunther, and Dan Tokaji v. The Ohio Ballot Board and Hon. Jon Husted, Ohio Secretary of State.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled during the week of September 11, 2012 that the wording of the measure was "defective" and "misleads voters." As a result, the ballot language that would be placed in front of voters was ordered to be rewritten.

On September 13, 2012, the Ohio Ballot Board met to change the description in order to comply with the high court's orders. That same day, the ballot language was doubled in length.

See also

2012 Measures

• 2012 Measures
• Redistricting measures on the ballot
• 2012 legislative sessions

Ohio

• Ohio ballot measures
• Ohio ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls