Leaders who represent the two Democratic members of the Ohio Ballot Board are claiming they are being misrepresented in a legal battle over the ballot summary for this fall’s Issue 1.
The group behind the redistricting amendment, Citizens Not Politicians, is suing the Ohio Ballot Board over the Republican-written language it adopted for voters to see on ballots.
They said it doesn't fairly represent the amendment, is partisan, and is unconstitutional. The amendment would create a 15-member commission of Republicans, Democrats and independents to draw lawmakers’ district lines, replacing.
LISTEN: Untangled: Why are we voting on redistricting again?
The two Democrats on the Republican-dominated Ballot Board, Rep. Terrence Upchurch (D-Cleveland) and Sen. Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo), voted against the language, which came from Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who chairs the Ballot Board.
The Democrats said LaRose and Attorney General Dave Yost, both Republicans, are misrepresenting their opinions. And they are upset that they aren’t being given the opportunity to hire outside counsel to represent them, since their point of view is different than the majority on the panel.
“The attorney general, without any consultation with the minority members on the Ballot Board, has provided a response to the Ohio Supreme Court," said House Minority Leader Allison Russo (D-Upper Arlington). “That directly conflicts with where the standing of the minority members are.”
And Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio (D-Lakewood) said the Democrats asked for but were denied the opportunity to hire outside counsel to represent their interests in this lawsuit. Both Democrats on the ballot board support the Citizens Not Politicians amendment, and the Republicans oppose it.
RELATED: Redistricting amendment backers accuse Ohio Secretary of State of 'manipulating' ballot wording
Antonio said Republicans, who are in charge of the response to the lawsuit, are shutting the voice of minority members out of the legal process.
“Clearly in this case this calls for our members, my members to be represented by outside counsel because they diverge in their vote and in their standing in this case. They are in a different place because of their ‘no’ votes," Antonio said.
The other side of the story
But LaRose said his job is not to represent individuals on the board but the board itself.
“The Ohio Ballot Board was named in that lawsuit and our individual names were on there, not in our personal capacity but in our capacity as the Ballot Board," LaRose said. "The majority of the ballot board voted in favor of that language and so that’s the argument that we are making.”
LaRose said he doesn't know if it would be common practice to include the dissenting opinions of the Democrats on that board. He said that's a legal question for Yost.
In a written statement, Steve Irwin, a spokesman for Yost, said, “The Ballot Board is like any other Board in Ohio. The (Attorney General’s office) represents the whole board and defends the Board’s vote. No individual member of any board is entitled to counsel. This is not unusual. It’s the way the law works."
But Antonio said it is common practice for the state to provide funds to allow dissenting members on boards to have their view represented. And she referenced the need for the amendment itself.
“Here is the perfect example of why politicians need to be out of this type of process," Antonio said.
The Ohio Supreme Court is likely to rule soon on the case, as ballots need to be prepared for military and overseas voters.
