Remember the Frank LaRose of working across the aisle, seeking to solve problems, finding common ground with opponents? He had been fading away, especially as the secretary of state looked to gain favor and advance in a Trumpian Republican Party.
Now he has disappeared entirely. At least, that was the clear impression as LaRose presided at the most recent gathering of the Ohio Ballot Board. If, a year ago, he engineered a rank distortion of ballot language for the issue concerning abortion rights, this performance amounted to a whole other dimension of misrepresentation, deception, even dishonesty.
The episode invites the question: Who has sold himself more cheaply, LaRose or JD Vance?
And all in pursuit of a partisan triumph, LaRose and his fellow Republicans aiming to defeat the Citizens Not Politicians effort to overhaul how Ohio draws congressional and state legislative districts – replacing self-interested lawmakers with a 15-member independent commission.
The state constitution holds that the ballot board must not ‘mislead, deceive or defraud’ voters with its ballot language. Hard to see how in this instance the Republican majority cleared the bar. If nothing else, the spirit of the law has been violated, the language more argument than explanation.
Consider the heading: ‘to create an appointed commission not elected by or subject to removal by the voters of the state.’ That sounds ominous – until you recall that those elected and subject to removal by voters are the very lawmakers and officeholders who have brought extreme gerrymandering to Ohio.
The ballot language asserts that the proposal would ‘repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three-quarters of Ohio electors participating in the statewide elections of 2015 and 2018.’ That seems awful. The truth is that the proposal would strengthen protections against gerrymandering, reflecting the first purpose of the reforms voters overwhelmingly approved nine and six years ago.
Why did those reforms fall short? Because LaRose and other politicians ignored the wishes of voters, making plain the need for an independent commission.
The language claims the commission would be ‘required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts … according to a formula based on partisan outcomes.’ Once more, the proposal seeks the opposite – to get away from extreme gerrymandering.
Those ‘partisan outcomes’? That refers to actual statewide elections. The proposal calls, as did the earlier reforms, for districts to correspond closely to the way Ohioans vote, in other words, no gerrymandering to deliver Republican supermajorities when the party captures roughly 54% of the vote.
Elsewhere, voters will find the ballot language delivers a confusing description of how members of the independent commission are selected. That’s not because the process of reaching five Republicans, five Democrats and five independents is so difficult. Other states have navigated a similar path. The language also contends that Ohioans will be limited in their ability to engage in the redistricting process. Hardly. The proposal rates as a leap forward in transparency.
Days before the ballot board met, Gov. Mike DeWine previewed this critique. The governor warned that ‘proportionality would be king.’ How so? He argues that emphasizing close correspondence to previous statewide election results will negate other priorities such as district compactness and keeping together communities of interest, leading to nothing less than ‘gerrymandering in the extreme.’
The governor predicted that if Ohioans approve the proposal, they would come to regret their decision. As it is, that hasn’t been the experience of other states. Neither have such states found the approach flawless. For instance, Michigan has struggled with getting Black representation right. Washington encountered politicians still pursuing their angles.
Some experts worry the proposal here may be too precise in requiring the commission to land within plus or minus 3 percentage points to achieve close correspondence. They raise concerns about proportionality working if Ohio becomes a deeper shade of red. All this amounts to stating the obvious: No plan is perfect.
The question before Ohio voters in November is whether the independent commission plan would be markedly better than what we have.
In that way, as many have noted, the Republican majority on the ballot board made the case. In their desperation to preserve a system that cemented huge (and unearned) Republican majorities, they crafted language in defiance of their obligation under the law, once again showing little respect for the state’s long-established process for citizen initiatives.
DeWine insists that he had a duty to speak out in opposition. Fair enough. Yet where was his voice when he joined other Republicans in command of redistricting to engage in extreme gerrymandering while ignoring the Ohio Supreme Court and the mandate of voters?
He and Frank LaRose were effectively silent. So, the politicians had their chance. Now citizens deserve a try.