For status updates, visit lucyburns.org.
Ballotpedia's coverage of elections held on March 3, 2015, was limited. Select races were covered live, and all results will be added once the merger is complete.
Ohio Redistricting Amendment, Issue 2 (2012)
|Type:||initiated constitutional amendment|
Currently, the Ohio Legislature redraws district maps every ten years due to population shifts.
- See also: 2012 ballot measure election results
The following are official election results:
|Ohio Issue 2|
These results are from the Ohio Secretary of State
Text of the measure
The ballot language of the measure read as follows:
|“||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 as follows: four affiliated with the largest political party, four affiliated with the second largest political party and four not affiliated with either of the two largest political parties. Affirmative votes of 7 of 12 members are needed to select a plan.
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. 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. Change the standards and requirements in the Constitution for drawing legislative and congressional districts.
5. Mandate the General Assembly to appropriate all funds as determined by the Commission including, but not be limited to, compensating:
If approved, the amendment will be effective thirty days after the election.
Shall the amendment be approved?
- Voters First was the main group in favor of the measure. The organization spearheaded the initiative effort. Other organizations, such as We Are Ohio, also helped with the petition drive.
- According to Catherine Turcer, chair of Voters First, at the time of the signature submission deadline on July 4, 2012, "We're celebrating Independence Day the way that you should. Thinking about our forefathers; thinking about the quality of our vote; thinking about what we as voters can do to actually make a difference."
- "When it comes to how Ohio’s districts are created, the current system is not balanced, not transparent and not accountable to We the People."
- "The current system allows politicians to play by their own rules. Every ten years, they get together in backrooms—out of the public eye—and draw district lines to help ensure that their own political party holds on to power."
- "Ohio needs this reform, so neither party can rig the system to their own advantage."
- "The only way to take back control of our government is to change the system."
The following were opponents of the measure:
- The Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
- The Ohio Manufacturers' Association
- The Ohio Judicial Conference
- The Ohio Chamber of Commerce
- The Cincinnati USA Regional chamber stated, "Oppose Ohio Issue 2, Ohio Redistricting: The Ohio redistricting amendment, if passed, will establish a 12-person citizen commission to draw General Assembly and congressional districts following the decennial census. The Chamber opposes Issue 2 and urges a “no” vote because it removes accountability to voters. If passed, Issue 2 would replace elected officials with an unelected, unaccountable, citizen commission with unlimited funds to redraw congressional and General Assembly district lines, while excluding some Ohioans from serving on the commission."
- "This large new government bureaucracy can demand unlimited tax dollars to operate."
- "Commission members set their own salaries."
- "The commission can hire a large permanent staff and dozens of expensive lawyers and political consultants."
- "Vote No on Issue 2. It forces taxpayers to give nearly UNLIMITED FUNDING to an UNELECTED and UNACCOUNTABLE commission."
- The Akron Beacon Journal stated, "...the crucial question involving Issue 2 is: How, exactly, would the redrawing be achieved? Unfortunately, deep in the proposed constitutional amendment’s complexities are flaws so serious they undermine the ultimate goal. More, once embedded in the constitution, those flaws would be most difficult to fix, requiring another amendment and the approval of voters. We recommend a no vote on state Issue 2 on Nov. 6."
- The Cleveland Plain Dealer stated opposition to the measure.
|2012 measure lawsuits|
| Arizona • Arkansas • Colorado • Florida • Maryland |
Michigan • Massachusetts • Minnesota
Missouri • Montana • Nevada
North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma
Oregon • Rhode Island
|By lawsuit type|
|Ballot text |
Motivation of sponsors
Voters First v. 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.
Path to the ballot
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.
- 2012 ballot measures
- Ohio 2012 ballot measures
- List of Ohio ballot measures
- Laws governing the initiative process in Ohio
- Redistricting in Ohio
- ABC On Your Side, "Ohio Redistricting Being Fought Again," March 20, 2012
- Ohio Secretary of State, "Issue 2," accessed September 14, 2012
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- The Columbus Dispatch, "We Are Ohio pushes for redistricting reform," May 21, 2012
- WVXU.org, "Groups file signatures to put map-drawing amendment on fall ballot," July 3, 2012
- Chillcothe Gazette, "Issue 2 proposes sweeping changes to redistricting in Ohio," accessed October 12, 2012
- Community Press, "Chamber announces ballot positions," September 12, 2012
- Akron Beacon Journal, "No on Issue 2," October 6, 2012
- Cleveland Plain Dealer, "Plain Dealer endorsements for the general election," October 8, 2012
- WOUB.org, "Ohio Ballot Board Lengthens Description Of Issue 2," September 14, 2012
- Dayton Daily News, "Supporters of same-sex marriage, redistricting reform need signatures," April 6, 2012
- WTRF.com, "Redistricting plan makes Ohio ballot on 2nd effort," August 6, 2012