8 hours ago, ColDayMan said:

Ohio Chamber weighs in on Issue 1, amendment removing politicos from redistricting

 

The Ohio Chamber of Commerce is opposed to Issue 1, a constitutional amendment that would remove elected officials from redistricting, the process of redrawing district maps for the state House, state Senate and U.S. House.

 

Issue 1 sets up a commission of 15 citizens chosen by retired judges to redraw the maps with the goal of preventing the political party with the most power in Columbus from seizing more power than its political support warrants, a practice known as gerrymandering. The citizen panel will be evenly divided between Democrats, Republicans and independents and require the consent of at least two of each group in order to approve a map. It also requires that new maps be drawn for the 2026 elections.

 

In a statement, Ohio Chamber CEO Steve Stivers, a former Republican congressman, said the decision came after the chamber’s board met and heard from a committee reviewing the issue.

 

“Our concern is, if passed, the consequence could result in raising the cost of doing business in Ohio, making our state less competitive for business, and impacting critical issues our members care deeply about, including minimum wage, legal reform, tort reform and forced unionization,” Stivers said. “The chamber is not endorsing the status quo; the current system is flawed and should be fixed through bipartisan efforts.”

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2024/09/26/ohio-chamber-issue-1-redistrict-gerrymandering.html

 

Maureen O'Connor, a Republican, is one of the leaders of the Issue 1 effort, which was drafted by a very bipartisan group.  In other words, Steve Stivers should be endorsing this bipartisan effort.

Edited September 27, 2024Sep 27 by Foraker

I would hope this means Joe will recuse himself from any future redistricting cases that come before the Ohio Supreme Court.

 

Ohio Supreme Court justice says Democrats want redistricting reform because they ‘can’t win’

Sep. 27, 2024

By Jake Zuckerman, [email protected]

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A Republican state Supreme Court justice running for his first full term said he views a proposed constitutional amendment as Democrats’ play to change the rules because they can’t win under the current system.

 

Justice Joe Deters, who was appointed to the Ohio Supreme Court by GOP Gov. Mike DeWine and is now up for his first statewide election, made the comments Wednesday on talk radio. He compared the redistricting reform effort in Ohio to other concepts occasionally floated by Democrats like adding new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court or letting the popular vote decide presidential elections instead of the electoral college.

 

...

 

It’s somewhat unusual to hear Supreme Court justices discuss a recent ruling, and criticize an amendment that could likely come up again before the court, especially in such partisan terms.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2024/09/ohio-supreme-court-justice-says-democrats-want-redistricting-reform-because-they-cant-win.html

On 9/26/2024 at 4:34 PM, ColDayMan said:

Ohio Chamber weighs in on Issue 1, amendment removing politicos from redistricting

 

The Ohio Chamber of Commerce is opposed to Issue 1, a constitutional amendment that would remove elected officials from redistricting, the process of redrawing district maps for the state House, state Senate and U.S. House.

 

Issue 1 sets up a commission of 15 citizens chosen by retired judges to redraw the maps with the goal of preventing the political party with the most power in Columbus from seizing more power than its political support warrants, a practice known as gerrymandering. The citizen panel will be evenly divided between Democrats, Republicans and independents and require the consent of at least two of each group in order to approve a map. It also requires that new maps be drawn for the 2026 elections.

 

In a statement, Ohio Chamber CEO Steve Stivers, a former Republican congressman, said the decision came after the chamber’s board met and heard from a committee reviewing the issue.

 

“Our concern is, if passed, the consequence could result in raising the cost of doing business in Ohio, making our state less competitive for business, and impacting critical issues our members care deeply about, including minimum wage, legal reform, tort reform and forced unionization,” Stivers said. “The chamber is not endorsing the status quo; the current system is flawed and should be fixed through bipartisan efforts.”

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2024/09/26/ohio-chamber-issue-1-redistrict-gerrymandering.html

 

 

Single party rule almost invariably leads to public corruption. Public corruption is bad for business. 

 

It's a pretty simple equation that I would think the Chamber of Commerce would understand then and be able to work it out for themselves... Business leaders are chasing the near-term shiny object of lower taxes and deregulation are committing fiduciary malpractice.

 

And to be clear, this isn't a partisan critique of Republicans, it's a critique of supporting a system that perpetuates single party rule. The result is the same whether that system results in Republican rule or Democratic rule.

Edited September 28, 2024Sep 28 by Luke_S

Ohio Libertarian Party endorses Issue 1

 

 

Has there been any polling on Issue 1? I haven't heard anything and with Republicans straight up lying and claiming it supports gerrymandering rather than getting rid of it, there are bound to be people confused about what it does. 

There will still be gerrymandering if issue 1 passes. It will just be done by an unelected commission whose members can never be removed.

 

Edited October 9, 2024Oct 9 by LibertyBlvd

33 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Has there been any polling on Issue 1? I haven't heard anything and with Republicans straight up lying and claiming it supports gerrymandering rather than getting rid of it, there are bound to be people confused about what it does. 

 

Closest to direct polling on issue 1 that I've seen.

 

Cleveland.com - 69% of Ohio voters oppose gerrymandering ahead of Issue 1 vote, Baldwin Wallace poll finds

 

Though Lauren Copeland, Director of BW's Community Research Institute, qualified the survey results, “It remains to be seen if the level of antipathy toward gerrymandering translates to support for Issue 1 with the controversial wording of the final ballot language. Rather than reflecting the intent of the amendment to establish a citizen-led independent redistricting process, the language is misleading. Elected politicians in Ohio from both parties have a long history of trying to hold onto the power that gerrymandering confers.”

1 hour ago, LibertyBlvd said:

There will still be gerrymandering if issue 1 passes. It will just be done by an unelected commission whose members can never be removed.

 

Issue 1 will reduce gerrymandering and the "unelected commission" cannot include active politicians or officers of political parties -- overall, imho, that will be an improvement over the current situation.

38 minutes ago, Foraker said:

Issue 1 will reduce gerrymandering and the "unelected commission" cannot include active politicians or officers of political parties -- overall, imho, that will be an improvement over the current situation.

 

Anyone against Issue 1 just wants to ensure a Republican supermajority so they can continue their grift without accountability. No serious person who wants better government is against Issue 1.

4 hours ago, Luke_S said:

 

Closest to direct polling on issue 1 that I've seen.

 

Cleveland.com - 69% of Ohio voters oppose gerrymandering ahead of Issue 1 vote, Baldwin Wallace poll finds

 

Though Lauren Copeland, Director of BW's Community Research Institute, qualified the survey results, “It remains to be seen if the level of antipathy toward gerrymandering translates to support for Issue 1 with the controversial wording of the final ballot language. Rather than reflecting the intent of the amendment to establish a citizen-led independent redistricting process, the language is misleading. Elected politicians in Ohio from both parties have a long history of trying to hold onto the power that gerrymandering confers.”

 

I just saw this article which states that 60% of Ohio voters plan to vote Yes on 1 to end gerrymandering.

 

I guess the other 9% of Ohioans who oppose gerrymandering fell for the Republican Party's mailers that said "NO on 1: Stop Gerrymandering".

11 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

I just saw this article which states that 60% of Ohio voters plan to vote Yes on 1 to end gerrymandering.

 

I guess the other 9% of Ohioans who oppose gerrymandering fell for the Republican Party's mailers that said "NO on 1: Stop Gerrymandering".

 

How, then, is the intent of Issue 1 met without triggering a federal lawsuit about the dilution of minority electoral strength?

 

The problem with the initiative process is voters can support something that "sounds good" without a care in the world about how it is going to be implemented, let alone unintended consequences.    Ohio voters could pass an initiative banning lake effect snow.   Good luck making that happen...

 

 

19 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

How, then, is the intent of Issue 1 met without triggering a federal lawsuit about the dilution of minority electoral strength?

 

Anyone can file a lawsuit, that is true.  But I wouldn't bet on that being a winning issue.  Consider:

https://apnews.com/article/mississippi-legislative-redistricting-naacp-lawsuit-124eafcfcc2c1b3defed3b7988355eb6

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/24/politics/supreme-court-georgia-minority-vote-dilution/index.html

5 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

Anyone can file a lawsuit, that is true.  But I wouldn't bet on that being a winning issue.  Consider:

https://apnews.com/article/mississippi-legislative-redistricting-naacp-lawsuit-124eafcfcc2c1b3defed3b7988355eb6

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/24/politics/supreme-court-georgia-minority-vote-dilution/index.html

 

He doesn't care about this. He just wants a GOP supermajority at all times. He knows they'll lose their supermajority, so he's voting against it.

15 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

He doesn't care about this. He just wants a GOP supermajority at all times. He knows they'll lose their supermajority, so he's voting against it.

 

Well of course I want that, but the issue here is it potentially leads to a real mess and/or some outlandish gerrymandering in the other direction.  

 

Or the "supermajority" stays.   Outside of some concentrated geographical areas, the state is very Republican.

Edited October 9, 2024Oct 9 by E Rocc

9 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Well of course I want that, but the issue here is it potentially leads to a real mess and/or some outlandish gerrymandering in the other direction.  

 

Or the "supermajority" stays.   Outside of some concentrated geographical areas, the state is very Republican.

The process makes it essentially impossible for Dems to gerrymander in their favor. You need to read the actual text of the proposal.

 

The GOP supermajority isn't going to stay either. There's dozens of examples available that resist any of the strawman arguments you keep bring it up.

46 minutes ago, Dev said:

The process makes it essentially impossible for Dems to gerrymander in their favor. You need to read the actual text of the proposal.

 

he really doesn't care. It's all about complete power for the GOP. He does not care what the amendment actually does.

6 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Has there been any polling on Issue 1? I haven't heard anything and with Republicans straight up lying and claiming it supports gerrymandering rather than getting rid of it, there are bound to be people confused about what it does. 

I saw one poll where 80% of respondents were going to vote yes on issue 1.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

some outlandish gerrymandering in the other direction.  

 

Why would a panel of 4 Republicans, 4 Independents, and 4 Democrats draw districts that are extremely gerrymandered in favor of Democrats?

 

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

How, then, is the intent of Issue 1 met without triggering a federal lawsuit about the dilution of minority electoral strength?

 

Seems like they've already thought of that. Per the Columbus Dispatch:

 

Quote

 

Commission members would have to follow certain rules:

• Craft districts that comply with federal laws, including a ban on disenfranchising minority voters.
• Create maps that closely correspond to recent statewide election results. That means if Republicans are winning statewide races by about 60% of the vote, they would be favored to win in about 60% of the districts.
• Not consider where current lawmakers live.
• Count prisoners at their home addresses instead of where they are incarcerated.
• Keep "communities of interest" together. These could be cities or counties, but they could also be neighborhoods with similar "ethnic, racial, social, cultural, geographic, environmental, socioeconomic or historic" identities or concerns. There is no ban on splitting cities or limit on how often they can be divided.

 

 

54 minutes ago, stpats44113 said:

I saw one poll where 80% of respondents were going to vote yes on issue 1.

That would be absolutely wild. The Michigan version passed with 61% and I'm sure the misinformation campaign is much better this time in Ohio than it was back then. Although maybe the whole thing gets drowned out by the big ad spends for President and Brown's seat.

Local politicians say the Brown campaign has pushed up TV ad rates a ton because the spend is a million dollars a week in Columbus. 

10 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

How, then, is the intent of Issue 1 met without triggering a federal lawsuit about the dilution of minority electoral strength?

 

The problem with the initiative process is voters can support something that "sounds good" without a care in the world about how it is going to be implemented, let alone unintended consequences.    Ohio voters could pass an initiative banning lake effect snow.   Good luck making that happen...

 

 

 

How, specifically, would ending gerrymandering promote the "dilution of minority electoral strength"? 

Also, do you really think anyone believes that Republicans, of all people, care whatsoever about protecting minority electoral strength? Their gerrymandering specifically puts them in a limited number of districts for a reason. And the current system disenfranchises more than just minority voters. 

 

So is that why your party is outright lying so hard about how Issue 1 actually promotes gerrymandering instead of ending it? Seems like you and your party know that the voters know exactly what it does, and the *intended* consequences is that they lose their stranglehold over state government. 

 

 

6 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

How, specifically, would ending gerrymandering promote the "dilution of minority electoral strength"? 

 

 

Deleted the posturing.

 

Because it wouldn't end it.   It would simply be done differently, if the specific intent is to not dilute same.

 

How are you going to create a minority majority district in eastern Cuyahoga County that isn't at least 70% Democratic?

54 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Deleted the posturing.

 

Because it wouldn't end it.   It would simply be done differently, if the specific intent is to not dilute same.

 

How are you going to create a minority majority district in eastern Cuyahoga County that isn't at least 70% Democratic?

 

You pretend like there weren't alternative maps proposed to the redistricting commission that achieved a more representative and balanced map without violating federal law. One of those maps were drawn by experts in that field. 

 

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that it can't be done, because its been proven that it can. 

44 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

You pretend like there weren't alternative maps proposed to the redistricting commission that achieved a more representative and balanced map without violating federal law. One of those maps were drawn by experts in that field. 

 

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that it can't be done, because its been proven that it can. 

It seems like it will pass easily given the strength of the pro- campaign and big money. I guess if it doesn’t work out there will just be another initiative to end the commission. I would have rather our elected officials just do their job no matter how many times a Court sets a map aside. That way they are still accountable to the people who elect them and conversely could be targeted by voters and the same lobbies when the people find necessary. The wild card in this - besides being comprised of 15 political insiders - is who will these so-called 5 “Independents” be? In DC most “Independents” caucus almost 100% with one party. So the battle for both parties - and their lobbies and dark money who always love commissions - will be battling over who the “chosen” 5 Independents are. Something about “selected” vs “elected” seems off. But i guess we will just let the people see how this experiment plays out once implemented.

5 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Deleted the posturing.

 

Because it wouldn't end it.   It would simply be done differently, if the specific intent is to not dilute same.

 

How are you going to create a minority majority district in eastern Cuyahoga County that isn't at least 70% Democratic?

 

What is your evidence it wouldn't end? Michigan has a similar law and it greatly improved the situation there. 

The intention is for districts to be fair and as representative as possible to the overall makeup of the state. That doesn't mean that majority red or majority blue districts disappear completely, because they won't. It does mean, however, that the majority of the districts are actually competitive. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Willo said:

It seems like it will pass easily given the strength of the pro- campaign and big money. I guess if it doesn’t work out there will just be another initiative to end the commission. I would have rather our elected officials just do their job no matter how many times a Court sets a map aside. That way they are still accountable to the people who elect them and conversely could be targeted by voters and the same lobbies when the people find necessary. The wild card in this - besides being comprised of 15 political insiders - is who will these so-called 5 “Independents” be? In DC most “Independents” caucus almost 100% with one party. So the battle for both parties - and their lobbies and dark money who always love commissions - will be battling over who the “chosen” 5 Independents are. Something about “selected” vs “elected” seems off. But i guess we will just let the people see how this experiment plays out once implemented.

 

The only way to protect fair districts and force the state legislature to adhere to that process is to put it into the state constitution. State voters already voted to end gerrymandering, but because it wasn't in the constitution, Ohio Republicans simply ignored it because they were the ones who got to make up the rules. Now the rules are not being left up to them. 

7 hours ago, Luke_S said:

 

You pretend like there weren't alternative maps proposed to the redistricting commission that achieved a more representative and balanced map without violating federal law. One of those maps were drawn by experts in that field. 

 

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that it can't be done, because its been proven that it can. 

 

Watch what happens. In a case like this "experts" is a matter of opinion.

41 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Watch what happens. In a case like this "experts" is a matter of opinion.

I look forward to watching how this works in practice.  I fully expect more competitive districts, but continued Republican dominance.

 

One of the experts pushing for this change is former Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, a Republican. Ohio Supreme Court justice beginning in 2003, became Chief Justice in 2011 and served in that role until the end of 2022.  Probably a more widely-respected legal expert than anyone else on this forum.  (@YABO713 and any other lawyers want to weigh in?)

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Watch what happens. In a case like this "experts" is a matter of opinion.

 

I did. They produced fairer maps. And you have, again, failed to provide evidence for why fairer maps couldn't be drawn. 

Edited October 10, 2024Oct 10 by Luke_S

Shall we make it voting predictions on Issue 1? If the ballot language accurately reflected what the amendment does, it would get 75-80% of the vote. With the lies on the ballot and the lies from Republican politicians about it, I’m predicting it will “only” get 60-65% of the vote and therefore will comfortably pass. Thank goodness for the existence of citizen initiatives in Ohio. It’s extremely hard to get them done, but at least it’s possible. 
 

Remember - Yes on 1 to end gerrymandering in Ohio for good!

On 10/10/2024 at 9:23 AM, Willo said:

The wild card in this - besides being comprised of 15 political insiders - is who will these so-called 5 “Independents” be? In DC most “Independents” caucus almost 100% with one party. So the battle for both parties - and their lobbies and dark money who always love commissions - will be battling over who the “chosen” 5 Independents are. Something about “selected” vs “elected” seems off. But i guess we will just let the people see how this experiment plays out once implemented.

No, this is not a wild card, as it is specifically defined in the full text of the amendment. If someone wants to be on the commission, they have to submit their partisan political record, such as voting history, campaign activities and political donations. Primary ballot data is publicly available, as is donations, but just in case that's not enough, applications are submitted under penalty of perjury, so if someone is caught lying about being unaffiliated they would certainly be looking at legal action. Additionally, the screening panel is made up of 4 retired judges, 2 from each party, so I'm not sure why they would conspire to pick people who are not truly independent, especially given that they have to select an odd number of unaffiliated voters. 

This issue is so heavily covered by local media across the state that you could have found this information in the time it took you write this post.

7 hours ago, Dev said:

No, this is not a wild card, as it is specifically defined in the full text of the amendment. If someone wants to be on the commission, they have to submit their partisan political record, such as voting history, campaign activities and political donations. Primary ballot data is publicly available, as is donations, but just in case that's not enough, applications are submitted under penalty of perjury, so if someone is caught lying about being unaffiliated they would certainly be looking at legal action. Additionally, the screening panel is made up of 4 retired judges, 2 from each party, so I'm not sure why they would conspire to pick people who are not truly independent, especially given that they have to select an odd number of unaffiliated voters. 

This issue is so heavily covered by local media across the state that you could have found this information in the time it took you write this post.

no need for personal attacks

Advocates Agree That End of Gerrymandering Would be Positive Step for Ohio

 

Ohio voter advocates say gerrymandering robs voters of power, and fair maps mean more bipartisanship from lawmakers and district maps that are actually logical and representative.

 

Throughout the two years that Ohio spent watching the Ohio Redistricting Commission adopt and revise six Ohio Statehouse maps and two congressional maps, there were attempts to bring levity to the process.

 

One such attempt was naming the sometimes meandering, oftentimes abstract-looking districts that came about as part of the what the elected officials on the commission said was following the rules of compactness, population requirements and other legal determinants of redistricting.

 

In a new report released by the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the 1st congressional district in southwestern Ohio is described as an “angry elephant.”

 

But the idea that the districts are shaped in such a way as to leave room for artistic interpretation doesn’t spell fun times for voters, according to voting advocates and redistricting experts.

 

“In addition to diluting political power, this type of division makes it difficult for voters to know in which district they live, for whom they vote and who represents them,” the LWV report stated.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/advocates-agree-that-end-of-gerrymandering-would-be-positive-step-for-ohio-ocj1/

All the GOP bellyaching over this vote could have been avoided had they done what was asked of them, and what the courts demanded of them.

 

All the GOP crying over these referendums just proves how really indicative that they are out of step with what voters actually want. Further proof of the cumulative effect of GOP gerrymandering.

13 hours ago, TheCOV said:

All the GOP bellyaching over this vote could have been avoided had they done what was asked of them, and what the courts demanded of them.

 

All the GOP crying over these referendums just proves how really indicative that they are out of step with what voters actually want. Further proof of the cumulative effect of GOP gerrymandering.

I was getting a bunch of TV ads last night during the ALCS game.   They were all anti-Issue 1 and claiming that Democrats were going to "turn the state blue."    As if...

In case anyone in your life needs it, here is an excellent, detailed explainer of the Issue 1 amendment and how voting yes will eliminate partisan gerrymandering. 
 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1A3sMt0j8HnA7Sbp4Ro4Mq1rvWcxbtOyAo0WhcSsT9lY/mobilebasic

 

https://x.com/rachelcoyleohio/status/1846181738013225448?s=46

 

Few Disagree That Ohio Is Gerrymandered — The Question Is What To Do About It

 

Supporters and opponents of State Issue 1 – a constitutional amendment aimed at ending gerrymandering in Ohio – clashed in a spirited and at times contentious Columbus Metropolitan Club forum on Wednesday.

 

Two Republicans who are long-time antagonists on the redistricting issue  – former Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Ohio Auditor Keith Faber – disagreed sharply several times in the lunchtime forum at Vue Columbus in the Brewery District. O’Connor supports the “Yes on 1” campaign, while Faber opposes it.

 

The other panelists, Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan for Center Justice in Washington, D.C., and Bradley Smith, a Capital University law professor and former member of the Federal Elections Commission, also tangled on several aspects of the anti-gerrymandering amendment voters will decide Nov. 5.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/few-disagree-that-ohio-is-gerrymandered-the-question-is-what-to-do-about-it-aj1/

 

Most of you will hate this one:

https://nypost.com/2024/10/20/opinion/ohios-issue-1-the-lefts-sneaky-redistrict-power-grab-your-states-next/

 

Ohio’s Issue 1: the left’s sneaky redistrict power grab — your state’s next

By 

Vivek Ramaswamy

most of us won't read it because Vivek Ramaswamy is a snake oil salesman.

The anti-Issue 1 Ohio Works made its first financial disclosure late Thursday. Its top donations include:

 

* $1 million from an Ohio Chamber of Commerce-tied group

* $250,000 from Jim Jordan

* $100,000 from Jimmy and Dee Haslam

 

https://signalcleveland.org/ohio-issue-1-backers-outspend-those-trying-to-defeat-it/

16 minutes ago, KJP said:

The anti-Issue 1 Ohio Works made its first financial disclosure late Thursday. Its top donations include:

 

* $1 million from an Ohio Chamber of Commerce-tied group

* $250,000 from Jim Jordan

* $100,000 from Jimmy and Dee Haslam

 

https://signalcleveland.org/ohio-issue-1-backers-outspend-those-trying-to-defeat-it/

So the Haslams are against Issue 1? That's another nail in the coffin for my support of the Browns. The oligarchy is ruining this country.

Advocates Urge Black Ohioans to Vote Yes on Issue 1

 

Civil rights groups throughout the state have endorsed the proposed Ohio Issue 1 redistricting reform, and argued in favor of it during a town hall held last week.

 

The impact of Issue 1 on Black communities has been up for debate in the last few weeks, with Republican officials saying the measure would break up communities and keep Black voters from having the power they should have, whereas Democrats and supporters of Issue 1 say the current system already closes out Black voters from positions of power, and the Ohio General Assembly as it stands has not shown an interest in improving the lives of those Black communities.

 

“It’s so disheartening that the politicians have not only committed the egregious act of gerrymandering, but their actions have now disenfranchised thousands of voters for years now,” said Petee Talley, a retired AFL-CIO state officer and leader in the Ohio Unity Coalition, a state affiliate for the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/advocates-urge-black-ohioans-to-vote-yes-on-issue-1-ocj1/

Latest polling from BGSU and YouGov shows that as Ohio voters have learned about Issue 1 it's support has dropped, however a clear majority of Ohioans surveyed support adopting Issue 1. 

 

 

The sample was split in half (500-500) for questions nine and 10, which examine voter preferences relating to Ohio Issue 1. The margin of error for those two questions is +/- 5.14 percentage points.

 

...

 

While in September nearly 3 in 10 likely voters had heard nothing about Issue 1, now just 10 percent have heard nothing about it.

 

As in September, Issue 1’s proponents have the advantage, but that edge has narrowed over the past month. The proportion planning to vote yes on Issue 1 has dropped from 60 percent in September to approximately 56.5 percent in October.

 

 

 

https://www.bgsu.edu/arts-and-sciences/democracy-and-public-policy-research-network/bgsu-poll.html

 

Edited October 31, 2024Oct 31 by Luke_S

Another data point hopefully pointing towards the passage of Issue 1.

 

Ohio Issue 1 backers outraise, outbid campaign attempting to kill it

The Statehouse News Bureau | By Sarah Donaldson

Published November 1, 2024

 

Still, the Oct. 24 filings with Secretary of State Frank LaRose show Issue 1 is commanding some serious cash and attention. Citizens Not Politicians—the coalition behind the constitutional amendment proposing a 15-member independent commission take over the political mapmaking process—outraised Ohio Works, which wants to kill the effort, by nearly double.

 

From July 1 to Oct. 16, the official Citizens Not Politicians committee recorded $10.9 million in contributions. Citizens Not Politicians reported spending even more than that, with no cash on hand, although a spokesperson said they continue to fundraise.

 

...

 

Ohio Works saw far fewer small donors. Only 10 individuals gave less than $200, versus the more than 1,500 donors who gave less than $200 to Citizens Not Politicians.

 

https://www.ideastream.org/2024-11-01/ohio-issue-1-backers-outraise-outbid-campaign-attempting-to-kill-it

Ohioans have rejected Issue 1 – the constitutional amendment attempting to ban gerrymandering, according to News 5 election partner Decision Desk HQ. 

 

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/issue-1-fails-as-ohioans-vote-to-keep-redistricting-in-the-hands-of-lawmakers

9 hours ago, KJP said:

Ohioans have rejected Issue 1 – the constitutional amendment attempting to ban gerrymandering, according to News 5 election partner Decision Desk HQ. 

 

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/issue-1-fails-as-ohioans-vote-to-keep-redistricting-in-the-hands-of-lawmakers

 

I'm stunned, and I strongly opposed it.

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

I'm stunned, and I strongly opposed it.

 

Not at all surprising given the language used on the ballot to describe it.

5 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

Not at all surprising given the language used on the ballot to describe it.

 

I did see some ads late in the game touting the idea that a similar measure in Michigan did lead to a reduction in minority representation.  Edit:  found it.

 

https://www.ideastream.org/2024-09-10/some-black-former-lawmakers-oppose-issue-1-breaking-with-most-other-ohio-democrats

Edited November 6, 2024Nov 6 by E Rocc

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

I did see some ads late in the game touting the idea that a similar measure in Michigan did lead to a reduction in minority representation.  Edit:  found it.

 

https://www.ideastream.org/2024-09-10/some-black-former-lawmakers-oppose-issue-1-breaking-with-most-other-ohio-democrats

As much as I appreciate doing all we can to support minority rights, that's not the most important issue and not one that was particularly addressed by the proposed amendment.  Do we want competitive districts that encourage democracy -- debate, negotiation, compromise -- or do we want to continue to allow gerrymandered districts that encourage extremism and preserve the power of the incumbent party? 

 

The Courts have already prohibited using race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines. And the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Louisiana gerrymandering case this next year and will likely go further and make it illegal to even consider race when drawing districts.

 

If that guardrail is removed, on what basis would you think that Ohio Republicants would try to preserve minority representation?

13 hours ago, Foraker said:

As much as I appreciate doing all we can to support minority rights, that's not the most important issue and not one that was particularly addressed by the proposed amendment.  Do we want competitive districts that encourage democracy -- debate, negotiation, compromise -- or do we want to continue to allow gerrymandered districts that encourage extremism and preserve the power of the incumbent party? 

 

The Courts have already prohibited using race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines. And the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Louisiana gerrymandering case this next year and will likely go further and make it illegal to even consider race when drawing districts.

 

If that guardrail is removed, on what basis would you think that Ohio Republicants would try to preserve minority representation?

 

That case, if decided that way, would effectively gut the Voting Rights Act.  So yes, that changes everything.