In the swing state of Ohio, voters will soon decide the fate of State Issue 1, a proposal to establish a 15-member citizens' redistricting commission to draw the state's political maps.

Backers of the measure said it is intended to reduce gerrymandering, or changing voting-district boundaries to favor one political party. But a key controversy surrounds the ballot language, which now includes the word "gerrymander." The change was permitted by Ohio's Supreme Court.

Annette Tucker Sutherland, chair of the Shaker Heights Chapter of the League of Women Voters, which supports the measure, argued the wording misrepresents the proposal's true intent.

"I'm out here trying to urge everybody to ban gerrymandering in Ohio," Sutherland emphasized. "I never in my life thought I'd be telling people, 'Don't read carefully what's on the ballot and then vote.'"

Supporters like Sutherland want to change how the voting district maps are drawn. Under the current system, state lawmakers draw the lines, often favoring the party in power. Issue 1 would shift the responsibility to a 15-member citizens' commission, aiming to take politics out of the process, although some opponents question whether the new approach could truly eliminate political influence.

Gov. Mike DeWine, along with other critics of the measure, argued it could have the opposite effect. DeWine believes Issue 1 would introduce more politics into the redistricting process rather than remove them.

"State Issue 1 sounds great but it is the ultimate in gerrymandering," DeWine alleged. "I think people are sick of having politics as part of it. State Issue 1 demands that politics be included in this. It's not right."

At the heart of the debate is who gets to draw Ohio's legislative and congressional district maps. Issue 1 would place this power in the hands of a commission made up of Ohioans with no political ties.

Reporting by Ohio News Connection in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.




get more stories like this via email

Arkansas Secretary of State Cole Jester is facing legal action from the League of Women Voters of Arkansas.

The organization filed a federal lawsuit over five bills it said are unconstitutional and restrict the work of canvassers.

Kristin Foster, special projects coordinator for the league, said the ballot initiative process allows citizens to propose statutes or constitutional amendments and collect signatures to place the proposals on a ballot. She added recent bills passed by lawmakers take away such rights.

"They have put so many restrictions on, and they are so layered and complex, that the ability to just get a petition out in the field and let people sign it is nearly impossible," Foster contended.

In a written statement, Jester argued the petition system is filled with fraud and bad actors. There have been only five criminal convictions related to election fraud in Arkansas over the last 20 years, according to the Heritage Foundation.

The lawsuit challenges restrictions including a ban on paying canvassers per signature and the requirement that canvassers are residents of the state.

David Couch, legal counsel for the league, said lawmakers have been adding restrictions since 2013.

"You have to show a photo ID to sign a petition. There's no need to do this because every signature on the petition, when you turn it in to the Secretary of State, is matched against the voter registration logs," Couch pointed out. "You have to read the entire ballot to the person before they sign the petition. These laws are not to prevent fraud."

The complaint also noted voters rejected proposed election restrictions in 2020 and 2022.

Foster added the over 300 volunteers who work for the league all played a role in getting the lawsuit filed.

"The entire lawsuit has really been driven by volunteers, people who participated in ballot initiatives, to the folks working on the actual suit," Foster explained. "We are very much a volunteer-driven organization and that makes it challenging when they're putting laws in place that threaten people with criminal action if they make a very simple mistake."

Groups working for human rights causes in Iowa warn proposed cuts being debated in Congress would trickle down to the people least able to sustain them.

The Trump administration has proposed $880 billion in cuts over the next decade to Medicaid and other services, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Progress Iowa Executive Director Mazie Stilwell said those cuts would fall most squarely on average Iowans, many of them kids, who don't have a voice in the process.

"There is so much fear right now, and it's fear from everyday working Iowans who know there's no one fighting for them," said Stilwell. "It's the Iowans who know that when push comes to shove, and when programs are put on the chopping block, they're the ones who are going to suffer."

The Trump administration has said it is working to downsize the federal government and cut expenses.

About 270,000 Iowans receive SNAP or federal food assistance, and more than 700,000 get their health coverage from Medicaid.

Stilwell contended that Iowans aren't the only ones afraid of potential social service cuts, but politicians are too.

She said she suspects that's one reason they aren't showing up at town hall meetings, that have long been the hallmark of grassroots democracy in the state.

"What we've seen is these members of Congress running away from their constituents," said Stilwell. "They are refusing to answer their questions. They are trying to make a mockery of their constituents and their efforts."

Stilwell said in light of the just-passed income tax filing deadline, Iowans want to know their money is being used to represent their interests - and not to fund tax cuts or corporate interests.

Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Zach Nunn, both Republicans, voted in favor of the measure that would social service programs.

Adrian Fontes, Arizona's Secretary of State, argued there is nothing wrong with American elections but some leaders in Washington, D.C., disagree.

The U.S. Senate will consider the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act this week. It would require people to show documents in person, like a passport or birth certificate, to register to vote. Republican proponents said it is needed to keep noncitizens from voting.

Fontes countered it is an exceedingly rare occurrence and he has yet to see proof of widespread voter fraud or abuse.

"This 'documented proof of citizenship' issue, where is the data that shows that we have a significant and severe problem with nonqualified voters, voting? Where is the data?" Fontes asked. "This is another example of the tail wagging the dog."

The measure faces a long shot in the Senate. At the same time, one of President Donald Trump's latest executive orders would overhaul major facets of the nation's election system, in part by restricting people's ability to register by mail or online. Voting rights advocates said the president does not have the legal authority to do it.

Liz Avore, senior policy adviser for the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, said many states have taken Trump's executive order as a call to action, as 24 states so far this year have considered legislation to impose or expand proof of citizenship requirements. Since 2013, Arizona voters have had to provide documents proving their citizenship to vote in state and local elections. Avore suggested it was not the administration's intent to change federal law.

"The goal of the executive order was and is to send clear marching orders to the states, and also to Congress, to tell them exactly what President Trump wants them to be doing," Avore contended. "The states are listening."

Democratic attorneys general in 19 states, including Arizona, have a filed a lawsuit, arguing the Trump executive order "sows confusion and sets the stage for chaos" in state election systems.


get more stories like this via email