The Supreme Court’s 4-3 vote of approval for the disingenuous wording of the ballot description of the Issue 1 preserves Ballot Board language that was clearly intended to discourage voters from approving Issue 1.

The Supreme Court’s excuse is that its job was not to wordsmith the ballot board but to correct any blatant inaccurate statement. The Ballot Board language was not the language the minority Democrats wanted, but they don’t have a majority vote. If Democrats could win some statewide and legislative elections in Ohio, they would be able to imprint their own language on the ballot questions that will come before voters. Issue 1 will help Democrats gain seats that they haven’t won through the normal political process.

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 38-page ruling that upholds most of the description of the amendment that was created by the Republican-controlled Ohio Ballot Board.

The language ordered by the ballot board — which is the wording that will appear on the ballot when voters go to the polls on and before Nov. 5 — is clearly designed to disparage the proposed amendment.

The job of the ballot board was to create clear and neutral language. It did not do so, inserting its bias against the amendment at every opportunity.

The language most heavily contested is the Ohio Ballot Board’s use of the word “gerrymander” to describe the purpose of the amendment.

The universal understanding is that “gerrymandering” results in unfair, distorted, and corrupt legislative mapmaking, just like what Ohioans have come to expect in the past few map drawings. However, the court found a number of relatively benign references to gerrymandering in U.S. Supreme Court cases to justify the Ballot Board’s use of the word.

The amendment requires that a newly created 15-member citizen redistricting commission must produce legislative and districts that, at least on paper, would result in a General Assembly and congressional balances that are comparable to voters’ political preferences as expressed in recent elections.

Under the amendment, based on the most recent elections, there would have to be about 54 percent Republican and 46 percent Democratic districts, rather than the current Republican supermajorities of 10-5, 26-7, and 67-32 in the congressional delegation, Ohio Senate, and Ohio House respectively.

The amendment requires the citizen commission to make the districts contiguous and comply with the U.S. Voting Rights Act. It says the maps must attempt to keep jurisdictions and communities of interest together, but that the priority is to create maps that produce a political balance in the legislature that is proportional to how voters voted in recent statewide elections.

In a way gerrymandering, but as mandated by the voters (if Ohio voters approve).

If approved by voters, the amendment will likely result in a more politically proportionate General Assembly and with more competitive legislative and congressional districts. Competitive districts will make candidates work harder to support policies that have broader approval. We have yet to see the extent to which cities, townships, and counties will have to be split in order to achieve the proportionality required in the amendment.

Previous attempts by the Ballot Board to scare or woo voters with biased language have failed. The Supreme Court should have required the Ohio Ballot Board to reject intentionally obfuscating wording that will only result in long lines at the polling places as voters try to read the lengthy description written by the Ballot Board.

Give the voters clear and concise descriptions of the intent of the ballot question and let them decide.

Read the original piece here.