As the final weeks of the Issue 1 campaign approach, various groups are sharing claims about the amendment that are simply not true. To help voters stay informed, here’s an Issue 1 Fact Check Guide, providing accurate information and clarifying common misconceptions about the proposal.

FACT: ISSUE 1 BANS GERRYMANDERING

Under the current system in which politicians are able to ignore court rulings about unconstitutional gerrymanders, Ohio is recognized as one of the 10 most gerrymandered states in the country. The Issue 1 amendment explicitly states that it will “ban partisan gerrymandering and prohibit the use of redistricting plans that favor one political party and disfavor others.” (Section 6[B]). Issue 1 also establishes criteria that ensure the statewide proportion of districts aligns closely with voters’ preferences, thereby preventing manipulation for partisan advantage, which is another way of saying it prevents “gerrymandering.” Almost everyone saying otherwise is a politician who likes the present system because it benefits them, has not read the amendment, is not acting in good faith, or is lying. In many cases, it’s all of the above.  

FACT: THE BALLOT LANGUAGE IS DESIGNED BY POLITICIANS TO MISLEAD VOTERS AND RIG THE ELECTION

Some of the same politicians who gerrymandered Ohio, who benefit from corrupt gerrymandering, have written false and misleading ballot language on Issue 1. Ohio voters won’t be fooled. Here’s what you need to do before you vote:

• Know that the ballot language is false and misleading and has no impact on what the constitutional amendment itself actually says and does: It will “ban partisan gerrymandering and prohibit the use of redistricting plans that favor one political party and disfavor others.” It’s right there in the amendment: (Section 6[B]). 
• Read the legally certified petition summary that was approved by the Ohio Attorney General and is available here. That legally approved summary is what more than a half million Ohio Republicans, Democrats and Independents read when they signed the petitions to put the amendment on the ballot.  
• Visit www.citizensnotpoliticians.org to read all about what the amendment really does.
• Tell your neighbors, friends and loved ones that to end gerrymandering, it’s YES on 1.
• Vote Yes on Issue 1 before or on Nov. 5 to end gerrymandering in Ohio and tell the politicians – once again – to take a hike.   

FACT: ISSUE 1 CREATES ACCOUNTABILITY WHERE IT CURRENTLY DOES NOT EXIST

What could be more unaccountable than the current system in which politicians ignore seven Ohio Supreme Court rulings to make Ohio one of the 10 most gerrymandered states in the country? The politicians on the current Redistricting Commission are not accountable to the voters: One of the Republican members got his seat on the Senate after running with no opposition in a gerrymandered district, and one of the Democratic members is running unopposed for reelection this November after she redrew her district to make it even more gerrymandered. That’s not accountability.  

Issue 1 ensures transparency and accountability through multiple provisions:

• All commission meetings and actions are required to take place in public meetings, and the commission must retain staff, professionals, and consultants through a public application process (Section 4(A)).
• At least five public hearings across different regions are required before adoption of any redistricting plans, and the final redistricting plan must include a report explaining the basis of decisions and how public comments were used (Section 5).
• A multi-step screening process sets the Commission up for success by removing conflicted and unqualified applications from the commissioner pool before work ever begins (Sections 2 and 3). 
• A commissioner can be removed for cause by the commission after notice and a public hearing. Causes for removal include failing to disclose required information, gross misconduct, neglect of duty, incapacity, or actions undermining public trust. If a commissioner is removed, the vacancy will be filled by selecting a finalist with the same partisan affiliation as the removed commissioner (Section 2(C)). 

FACT: ISSUE 1 REQUIRES MULTI-PARTISAN VOTE OF REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT & INDEPENDENT CITIZEN COMMISSIONERS FOR ANY ACTION 

The amendment explicitly requires a supermajority of nine votes to adopt any motion — including motions to adopt maps — including at least two votes from each major party and two from independent commissioners (Section 4(A)). This structure means that neither party, nor the independents alone, can force a map through without bipartisan consensus. The need for at least two votes from each party ensures that the redistricting process remains balanced and cannot be dominated by a coalition of Democrats and Independents or Republicans and Independents.

FACT: FIREFIGHTERS, POLICE OFFICERS AND ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY MEMBERS WILL BE AMONG THE EVERYDAY OHIO CITIZENS ELIGIBLE AND ENCOURAGED TO SERVE ON THE CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION

Issue 1 prohibits “[c]urrent elected or appointive officials to federal, state, or local office and their immediate family members” from serving on the Commission. Article XX, § 3(c)(1). In Ohio law “appointive officials” means offices appointed by the President, Governor, or local jurisdiction. See, e.g., Ohio Rev. Code § 3.03 (on filing of a vacancy in appointive state office); 733.31 (vacancies arising in appointive offices of cities are filled by the mayor). Similarly, in the context of the state’s campaign finance law, “public office” means “any state, county, municipal, township, or district office, except an office of a political party, that is filled by an election and the offices of United States senator and representative.” Id. § 3517.01(9). In contrast, police officers receive appointments in Ohio, not offices. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 124.41 (“No person shall be eligible to receive an original appointment to a police department, as a police officer, subject to the civil service laws of this state, unless the person has reached the age of twenty-one…”).

As it relates specifically to military enlisted personnel and officers, in interpreting similar provisions of Ohio law, “appointive officials” means offices appointed by the President, Governor, or local jurisdiction. See, e.g., Ohio Rev. Code §§ 3.03 (on filing of a vacancy in appointive state office); 733.31 (vacancies arising in appointive offices of cities are filled by the mayor). Similarly, in the context of the state’s campaign finance law, “public office” means “any state, county, municipal, township, or district office, except an office of a political party, that is filled by an election and the offices of United States senator and representative.” Id. § 3517.01(9). Members of the military generally enlist. See 10 U.S.C. § 502. While officers receive appointments by the President, they are not appointed to office. See id. § 531. Additionally, members of the Ohio National Guard receive commissions. Ohio Rev. Code § 5919.05. Commissioned officers are appointed by the Governor but they also do not hold offices. Id. § 5919.02.
Therefore, police officers, firefighters, active-duty military – including military officers – and many others would be eligible to serve on the Commission.

AMENDMENT TEXT:

The following persons shall be ineligible to serve on the commission, on the bipartisan screening panel, as a special master, or as staff, a professional, or a consultant to the commission:

1. Current elected or appointive officials to federal, state, or local office and their immediate family members;
2. Persons who have served in any federal, state, or local elective or appointive office in Ohio for any period during the current year and immediately preceding six years and their immediate family members; 
3. Persons who have been a candidate for any federal, state, or local elective office in Ohio during the current year or immediately preceding six years and their immediate family members;  
4. Persons who have served as an officer, paid consultant, or contractor to any political party, political action committee, or campaign committee at the federal, state, or local level for any period during the current year and immediately preceding six years and their immediate family members;  
5. Persons who have served as a staff member, paid consultant, or contractor for any elected official or candidate for any federal, state, or local office for any period during the current year and immediately preceding six years and their immediate family members;6. Persons who have been a registered lobbyist or legislative agent with the State of Ohio or the federal government for any period during the current 

FACT: CONVICTED FELONS UNDER ISSUE 1’S ELIGIBILITY RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE THE SAME AS CURRENT LAW

To be eligible to serve on the Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission, an individual must be an Ohio voter in good standing. However, an individual who is incarcerated for a felony conviction is not qualified to vote, and so would not be eligible to serve on the Commission. 

More broadly, an individual who has not been paroled cannot serve in an office of the public trust. Ohio Rev. Code § 2961.01(A)(1). The law provides: “A person who pleads guilty to a felony under the laws of this or any other state or the United States and whose plea is accepted by the court or a person against whom a verdict or finding of guilt for committing a felony under any law of that type is returned, unless the plea, verdict, or finding is reversed or annulled, is incompetent to be an elector or juror or to hold an office of honor, trust, or profit.”  Id.  The right is only restored if they receive a full pardon. Id. § 2961.01(A)(2). The Attorney General provided further guidance that “a person convicted of a felony under the laws of Ohio is restored the privilege of holding an office of honor, trust, or profit […] when the person is granted a final release by the Adult Parole Authority….” Oh. Attorney General Op. 2006-030. 
Practically, this means that individuals with a felony conviction would have not been granted a final release from the Adult Parole Authority and would not be eligible to serve on the Commission, just like any other office of public trust in Ohio. 

FACT: ISSUE 1 PRESERVES THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE MAPS IN COURT

The Citizens Redistricting Commission Amendment preserves Ohio voters the right to challenge any redistricting plan adopted by the Commission in the Ohio Supreme Court. Any registered voter may file a petition within 10 days of the Commission’s issuance of its report on a new redistricting plan. If multiple petitions are filed, they will be consolidated into one case. The Commission itself is the only entity allowed to defend its redistricting plans, and the Court uses an expedited process to review challenges, ensuring prompt resolution.

The clear rules for what constitutes a fair map and clear requirements for a transparent process with clear record from the commission’s work will ensure that Ohioans get a fair shake in court and in all final district plans. 

A bipartisan screening panel selects special masters to assist in reviewing the redistricting plan if a challenge is filed. The special masters issue a report on whether the Commission abused its discretion in approving the plan. If the Ohio Supreme Court finds the plan violates constitutional standards, the Commission is required to revise the plan accordingly. In cases where the Commission fails to make necessary revisions, the special masters are empowered to make minimal adjustments to bring the plan into compliance. This judicial review process ensures that the Commission’s work remains accountable to constitutional requirements while providing citizens with a clear pathway to challenge redistricting decisions.

FACT: ISSUE 1 KEEPS COMMUNITIES TOGETHER

Issue 1 emphasizes the importance of preserving communities of interest when drawing district boundaries. The text of Issue 1 defines a community of interest as a group of people with shared representational needs, which can be based on factors such as common ethnic, racial, social, cultural, geographic, environmental, socioeconomic, or historic identities. The amendment prioritizes holding these communities together as much as possible to ensure fair representation. Municipalities, townships, and school districts may be treated as communities of interest if they demonstrate broadly shared needs that are stronger than other overlapping groups. Importantly, Issue 1 specifies that communities of interest cannot be defined by shared political identities or relationships with political parties or candidates. When deciding which overlapping communities to prioritize, the Commission must focus on those that would benefit most from remaining within a single district.

FACT: FOREIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO BALLOT CAMPAIGNS WERE PROHIBITED BEFORE THIS SUMMER’S SPECIAL SESSION, AND OUR CAMPAIGN DOES NOT ACCEPT FOREIGN MONEY

Foreign contributions are already prohibited under Ohio law. Our campaign has not and will not accept contributions from foreign nationals. This has always been the law in Ohio, and we fully comply with it.

FACT: OUR SUPPORT REFLECTS A BROAD COALITION ACROSS POLITICAL BACKGROUNDS

We have received small dollar donations from Ohioans of all walks of life. Our nonpartisan, grassroots coalition includes Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, as well as small business owners, veterans, faith leaders, and strong conservatives. The Citizens Not Politicians Amendment qualified for the ballot in some of Ohio’s reddest counties, proving the widespread support for ending gerrymandering. The interest in supporting this reform comes from Ohioans and national groups alike, all unified by the belief that gerrymandering is unfair and undermines democracy.

FACT: ISSUE 1 PRIORITIZES COMPLIANCE WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT BEFORE ALL OTHER CRITERIA, WILL EMPOWER BLACK VOTERS AND COMMUNITIES

Issue 1 is supported by every major civil rights organization in Ohio, including the NAACP, Ohio Unity Coalition, and Ohio Organizing Collaborative. Under our current system,  Black Ohio voters do not have a clear path to fixing the gerrymandered  6th Ohio U.S. Congressional District in court. To counter lies from the politicians designed to divide the Black community, some of the most prominent civil rights leaders in Ohio issued statements of support and appeared in a new ad calling on all Ohioans to vote yes on Issue 1 to end gerrymandering. That ad is available here.

FACT: ISSUE 1 PROTECTS AND PROVIDES PATH FOR EXPANDED BLACK REPRESENTATION

A recent study by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice found Ohio’s Black voting-age population is largely preserved or improved under most simulated maps, ensuring continued ability to elect Black-preferred candidates. In Ohio’s 11th District (Cleveland), simulations show minimal change, with 62.6% of maps decreasing Black voter share by less than 1%. Districts 3, 11, and 13 (Columbus, Cleveland, Akron) are all expected to see little to no reduction in the percentage of Black voters, maintaining or improving their influence. The reform strengthens existing rules, ensuring compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and curbing partisan gerrymandering. This reform offers Black voters better opportunities to shape fair districts and safeguard their voting power.

FACT: OHIO’S ISSUE 1 LEARNS FROM AND IMPROVES UPON MICHIGAN’S SUCCESSFUL REDISTRICTING REFORMS

While opponents of Issue 1 have brought up Michigan’s redistricting process to attack the amendment, the reality is that Michigan’s independent redistricting commission has already shown success in reducing partisan gerrymandering and increasing competition in elections. When a problem was identified in Michigan, it was promptly fixed to the satisfaction of all parties – unlike in Ohio, where politicians just ignore court rulings. 

Studies have shown that states with citizen-led redistricting commissions, like Michigan, have seen more competitive elections and reduced incumbent advantage. However, Ohio’s Issue 1 is better than Michigan’s redistricting policy in 3 key ways: 

1. Explicit VRA compliance in Ohio’s Issue 1.  Ohio’s Issue 1 has clearer, more explicit criteria for compliance with the Voting Rights Act and stricter bans on partisan gerrymandering, ensuring a fair and accountable process. 
2. Ohio process insures commissioners understand Ohio communities, Michigan has a lottery. While Michigan relies more on randomness, Ohio’s Issue 1 establishes a structured, multi-partisan selection process involving bipartisan judges, ensuring balanced representation. 
3. Issue 1 requires any experts hired to have VRA compliance expertise and experience. Issue 1 also provides more detailed guidelines for hiring experts and consultants with a focus on Voting Rights Act compliance, whereas Michigan’s process offers fewer specifics on how outside help is managed.

Ohioans can be confident that Issue 1 builds on the successes of Michigan’s reform while introducing even stronger measures for fairness and transparency.