Isn't it simple?
Thought 57 genders was confusing?
Try following the 57+ steps in the flow chart of the left’s redistricting plan.
Courtesy Ohio PoliticsGuru
It’s simpler to build an atom bomb.
Seriously.
Compare it with the flow chart for the Manhattan Project.
Puts things in perspective, huh?
But, if you think that’s bad, you should try reading the actual text of the proposed amendment that is Issue 1 on the November ballot.
"Anybody who says it is complicated, I think has not read it," claimed Maureen O’Connor, the figurehead for the drive to overturn a key part of the Ohio Constitution.
(She’s also the former Ohio Supreme Court chief justice whose repeated attempts to sabotage the lawful redistricting process from the bench were overturned by a federal court and the U.S. Supreme Court.)
Not complicated?
Really?
The far-left scheme to replace the amendments on redistricting overwhelmingly approved by voters includes such massive word-salad gems as:
Section 6. Rules for drawing districts
(E) At any time the boundaries of Ohio Senate districts are changed in any general assembly final redistricting plan adopted pursuant to this article, a senator whose term will not expire within two years of the time the adopted redistricting plan becomes effective shall represent, for the remainder of the term for which the senator was elected, the Senate district that contains the largest portion of the population of the district from which the senator was elected, and the district shall be given the number of the district from which the senator was elected. If more than one senator whose term will not so expire would represent the same district by following the provisions of this section, the commission in the report required under section 5(D) of this article or the Supreme Court of Ohio adopting a final redistricting plan under section 8(D)(3) or (4) of this article shall designate which senator shall represent the district and shall designate which district the other senator or senators shall represent for the balance of their term or terms.
A real page turner, eh? Here’s another:
Section 6. Rules for drawing districts
(B)(3) For the purposes of this section, to correspond closely means that the statewide proportion of districts in each redistricting plan that favors each political party may deviate by no more than three percentage points in either direction, or if this is arithmetically impossible, by the smallest possible proportion that is larger than three percentage points, from the statewide partisan preferences of the voters of Ohio.
If you’re not seeing cross-eyed by now, you might try another:
Section 6. Rules for drawing districts
(B) (1) For purposes of this section, the statewide proportion of districts in each redistricting plan that favors each political party shall be determined by:
(a) Calculating the number of districts in the redistricting plan that would have been won by the candidates representing the First Major Party and the Second Major Party using the two-party vote in each statewide partisan general election contest held in the preceding six years for which precinct-level data is available;
(b) Dividing each of these numbers by the total number of districts in the redistricting plan to obtain the proportion of districts in the redistricting plan that would have been won by candidates representing the First Major Party and the Second Major Party in each election contest; and
(c) Calculating the median of these proportions for each political party.
By this point, you may just want to skim through the next example to get the gist. Reading it closely may prove hazardous to your well being:
Section 7. Impasse procedure
(A) If the commission fails to adopt any final redistricting plan under section 5 of this article by September 19, 2025, or by July 15 of every year ending in one, the following procedures shall be followed to resolve the impasse:
(1) Each commissioner shall have three days to submit no more than one proposed redistricting plan for each redistricting plan that is the subject of impasse for a ranked-choice selection process. Any redistricting plan submitted for the ranked choice selection process shall comply with the criteria in section 6 of this article and shall be made publicly available for comment for seven days.
(2) Within two days of the end of the public comment period, each commissioner shall then rank all the submitted redistricting plans starting with his or her most preferred redistricting plan followed by submitted redistricting plans ranked in decreasing order of preference. The submitted redistricting plan that wins a total vote runoff shall be the final redistricting plan. A total vote runoff process shall be conducted as follows:
(a) If a majority of commissioners rank the same submitted redistricting plan in the first position, that submitted redistricting plan is adopted.
(b) If no submitted redistricting plan garners a majority of first-position rankings, each submitted redistricting plan is allocated the number of points corresponding to the commissioners’ rankings. The method of allocating points for each submitted redistricting plan is to allocate one point for every commissioner’s first-rank vote, and two points for every commissioner’s second-rank vote, with this process continuing until all commissioners’ votes are allocated for each submitted redistricting plan. Each submitted redistricting plan’s points total is the sum of the points from all commissioners, and the submitted redistricting plan with the highest point total is eliminated. The rankings of the other submitted redistricting plans are then adjusted if necessary to reflect that elimination and any changes in the point total. If there is a tie for the highest point total, the submitted redistricting plan to be eliminated shall be chosen through a random process.
(c) This process of eliminating the submitted redistricting plan with the highest point total is repeated until a redistricting plan has the majority of first-position rankings at which point it becomes the adopted final redistricting plan.
Get the picture?
Don’t expect it to make sense – it wasn’t designed for that.
It was designed to elect more Democrats.
It is a plan to fight gerrymandering with more gerrymandering – once you understand that, you understand why it's so difficult to make sense out of anything in the text.
The Ballot Board made that clear when they parsed all the nonsense in the amendment and came up with this succinct description of what Issue 1 would actually accomplish:
Repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering approved by nearly three-quarters of Ohio electors in the statewide elections of 2015 and 2018.
and...
Establish a new taxpayer-funded commission of appointees required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor either of the two largest political parties.
The far-leftists in our state media and the promoters of Issue 1 hit the roof when they saw that language...precisely because it is accurate.
Issue 1 doesn’t remove gerrymandering – it makes it mandatory, as Gov. DeWine and On The Record have clearly explained, here and here.
As the Ballot Board language makes clear, and as On The Record has explained:
Issue 1 effectively throws out all the safeguards against gerrymandering.
Instead, it enshrines something called “proportionality” as the top priority in drawing district maps, above all other considerations.
Proportionality is a way of drawing maps based on past voting proportions, or percentages.
It is used to draw maps in which one party would be favored to win a certain number of districts – and the other party would win the rest.
It is as close as you can come to guaranteeing a certain amount of wins for each party.
The problem is – that is the definition of gerrymandering.
That is what Issue 1 does – it requires gerrymandering.
The only thing that’s clear about Issue 1 is that Democrats are trying to sell their pro-gerrymandering scam as an anti-gerrymandering reform.
That’s why the actual text of the Issue 1 amendment makes no sense. It is designed to confuse the reader and hide what it really does: the opposite of what its supporters claim.
To reiterate, making sense is not their goal.
Electing more Democrats by rigging the system is their only goal.
They will try to accomplish that by placing stealth Democrats on the “independent” redistricting commission that Issue 1 would mandate.
Just look what happened in Michigan, when the state flipped from red to blue after passing a nearly identical redistricting “reform”:
Voters Not Politicians is a Michigan-based lobbying and political advocacy group formed in 2016 to change how the state drew redistricting maps.
Voters ran the successful petition drive to put Prop 2 on the ballot. It tried to portray itself as a bipartisan coalition but the Detroit News discovered: “Seven of 10 board members of the Voters Not Politicians petition committee have given at least a combined $5,649 to Democratic candidates and causes since 2005.” Not one of them had ever contributed to a Republican.
Voters committee President Katie Fahey described herself as an Independent despite the fact she flew from “Grand Rapids to New York for what she thought was going to be an Election Night victory party for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.”
A Democrat’s idea of an Independent is a Democrat.
Proposal 2 created a supposedly “independent” commission of 13 “citizens” – four Democrats, four Republicans, and five independents to approve redistricting maps. Commission candidates could self-identify their political affiliation, meaning there was no other verification required.
Issue 1 has virtually the same procedure: the honor system.
This is how the relevant section of Issue 1 reads:
Section 2(D)(2)(a)
Party affiliation shall be determined based on the applicant’s voting record in party primaries and various other relevant factors including, but not limited to, political contributions, campaign activities, and other reliable indicia of partisan affiliation.
Voting record? There is no voting record. Your vote is private.
There is a record of the primaries in which you voted, but most Ohioans are Independents who can vote in either Republican or Democratic primaries – so that record is useless.
It also means applicants to the redistricting commission can merely claim they are Independents, regardless of their real political beliefs.
The opportunity to stack the commission with stealth Democrats pretending to be Independents will be virtually irresistible to the left.
In fact, that’s obviously the plan: replace your elected representatives on the redistricting commission with stealth activists, accountable to no one.
Issue 1 is so purposefully complex and convoluted it takes some detective work to figure out what it would actually do.
The Ballot Board had the unenviable task of trying to translate the key point of this monstrous word-salad into something voters could understand in plain English.
Leftists complained that the Ballot Board language was purposefully confusing.
Really?
Their real gripe is the Ballot Board language revealed the left’s true intentions by stripping away all the garbled verbiage.
Here are some blatant examples that reveal how the authors of Issue 1 tried to disguise their true intentions. Sections of the amendment language are followed by the paraphrasing done in plain English by the Ballot Board:
Amendment Section 5(A)(3)
“Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall attempt to contact any member or members of the commission or commission staff, professional, or consultants with the intent to influence the redistricting process or redistricting plan outcomes other than through designated public meetings or official commission portals. Any communication received by a commissioner or commission staff, professionals, or consultants in violation of this provision shall be immediately disclosed to the commission as a whole including legal counsel. If the commission determines that the communication is a material violation of this provision and that the identity of the person who made the communication and the subject matter of that communication are of public interest, the commission shall vote on whether to make such information public.”
Ballot Language item 8:
“Limit the right of Ohio citizens to freely express their opinions to members of the commission or to commission staff regarding the redistricting process or proposed redistricting plans, other than through designated meetings, hearings and an online public portal, and would forbid communication with the commission members and staff outside of those contexts.”
Amendment Section 8(F):
“Except for claims brought under this section, no other challenges to an adopted final redistricting plan, including challenges to the decisions of the commission with respect to how best to comply with the criteria in section 6(C), may be brought in any court.”
Ballot Language item 5:
“Prohibit any citizen from filing a lawsuit challenging a redistricting plan in any court, except if the lawsuit challenges the proportionality standard applied by the commission, requirements pertaining to an incumbent elected official’s residence, or the expiration of certain senators’ terms, and then only before the Ohio Supreme Court.”
Amendment Section 10(A):
“Upon the effective date of this article, all redistricting plans used to elect members of the general assembly or the United States House of Representatives are void for any subsequent election.”
Ballot Language item 9:
“Require the commission to immediately create new legislative and congressional districts in 2025 to replace the most recent districts adopted by the citizens of Ohio through their elected representatives.” [Also contributing to this impact are Sections (1)(D), 2(B), 5(B), 7(A), and 9(A)-(B).]
Amendment Section 9(B):
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution or any laws of this state, the general assembly shall make appropriations to the Department of Administrative Services, the bipartisan screening panel, and the commission in amounts adequate for each entity to fulfill its duty under this article, and the general assembly shall further appropriate amounts adequate for funding those entities’ participation, if necessary, in all related litigation. If the general assembly fails to comply with any of its obligations under this paragraph, the Supreme Court of Ohio shall compel it to comply with such obligations forthwith.
(1) For purposes of funding the commission, adequate funding shall mean:
(a) For redistricting in 2025, an amount appropriated by the general assembly no later than December 10, 2024, that is not less than seven million dollars.
(b) For each redistricting cycle after 2025, an amount appropriated no later than January 1 of a year ending in zero that is not less than the amount appropriated under sub-paragraph (B)(1)(a) of this section, adjusted for inflation.
(c) The general assembly shall make separate and timely appropriations to cover all the commission’s expenses in any related litigation.
(2) For purposes of funding the bipartisan screening panel, adequate funding shall mean an amount appropriated no later than December 10, 2024, and January 1 of every subsequent year ending in zero, that is not less than one-eighth of the amount appropriated under sub-paragraph (B)(1)(a) of this section, adjusted for inflation. The general assembly shall make separate, timely, and adequate appropriations to cover all the bipartisan screening panel’s expenses in any related litigation.”
Ballot Language item 10:
“Impose new taxpayer-funded costs on the state of Ohio to pay the commission members, the commission staff and appointed special masters, professionals, and private consultants that the commission is required to hire; and an unlimited amount for legal expenses incurred by the commission in any related litigation.”
Amendment Section 4(C):
A commissioner shall be removed only by the commission and only for cause after notice, a public hearing, and an opportunity for members of the public to comment. Any of the following shall be cause for removal:
(1) Knowing failure to disclose information pursuant to section 3 of this article;
(2) Willful disregard for the provisions in section 5 of this article;
(3) Wanton and willful neglect of duty or gross misconduct or malfeasance in office;
4) Incapacity or inability to perform his or her duties; or
(5) Behavior involving moral turpitude or other acts that undermine the public’s trust in the commission and the redistricting process.
Ballot Language item 4:
“Prevent a commission member from being removed, except by a vote of their fellow commission members, even for incapacity, willful neglect of duty or gross misconduct.”
And yet, O’Connor claims, "Anybody who says it is complicated, I think has not read it."
So, who you gonna believe, her or your lyin’ eyes?
The real problem – the better you understand what’s in the amendment the worse it gets.
Check out what happens if members of the redistricting commission can’t agree on which final map to adopt. This is the method for breaking a tie vote:
“...the submitted redistricting plan to be eliminated shall be chosen through a random process.”
In other words, a coin flip.
They want to ditch a key part our state constitution and replace it with a coin toss.
All that time, money, and effort...all those promises of removing politicians from the process and empowering the people...come down to...a coin toss.
No wonder they are doing everything possible to hide what’s in the amendment.
How do they try sell this cockamamie scam?
The far-left front group for Issue 1 called Citizens Not Politicians claims it wants to ensure “no party or individual can pick voters instead of voters picking candidates as it should be.”
That is the opposite of what it would do.
As On The Record and Gov. DeWine have explained, by using proportionality – that is, gerrymandering – to draw districts, the candidate favored to win your district will be determined more by the redistricting board than the voters.
That’s because the board will determine the percentage of Democrats and Republicans voters in each district. Which will determine the likely winner in the election.
Don’t be surprised.
That’s the modern Democrat tradition.
Picking the candidates for the voters.
That’s what happened in 2016 when Democrats used “superdelegates” to make sure a surging Bernie Sanders did not topple Hillary Clinton, the party bosses’ pre-determined nominee for president.
That’s what happened in 2020 when party bosses threw their support behind Joe Biden, to make sure the other candidates (particularly Bernie) could no longer compete.
And that’s what happened this year, when Kamala Harris was selected to replace President Biden as the party’s nominee for president, without having ever received a single vote from a member of her own party.
So, when leftists try to tell you that Issue 1 will promote democracy, just remember, these are the politicians who insist:
• Men can have babies
• Record spending reduces inflation
• The southern border is secure
• And gerrymandering will stop gerrymandering.
It all shows the Democratic Party for what it really is.
The anti-Democracy Party.
Garth Kant is Senior Press Secretary of the Ohio Senate Majority Caucus