Ohio Issue 1, Congressional Redistricting Procedures Amendment (May 2018)

Elections in Ohio, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 9
• Early voting: Oct. 10 - Nov. 5
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: No
• Voter ID: Non-photo ID required
• Poll times: 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • Congressional special elections • Governor • Attorney General • Secretary of State • State executive offices • State Senate • State House • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • Municipal • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

Ohio Issue 1 (May)
Election date May 8, 2018
Topic Redistricting measures
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of Ohio measuresOhio Issue 1 - MayOhio Issue 1Submit

Ohio Issue 1, the Congressional Redistricting Procedures Amendment, was on the ballot in Ohio as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on May 8, 2018. The measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported changing the vote requirements to pass congressional redistricting maps and the standards used in congressional redistricting in Ohio. To learn more about the changes that Issue 1 made, see the measure design section (click here).

A "no" vote opposed new congressional redistricting procedures and standards, thus allowing the Ohio General Assembly to continue adopting congressional redistricting plans through a simple majority vote.

Election results

Ohio Question 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		1,178,468	74.89%
No		395,088	25.11%

Election results from Ohio Secretary of State

Overview

Going into the election, what was the congressional redistricting system in Ohio?

As of 2018, the Ohio General Assembly was responsible for adopting the state’s congressional redistricting plan, subject to the governor’s veto or citizen-initiated veto referendum. Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Adopting a congressional redistricting plan required a simple majority vote in both chambers of the state General Assembly. The last time the state General Assembly adopted congressional maps was in 2011, which followed the 2010 U.S. Census. Republicans controlled the state Senate, state House, and governor’s office, thus holding a trifecta in state government. Republicans adopted a congressional redistricting plan with the support of 4 of 50 legislative Democrats (8 percent).

What did Issue 1 change about congressional redistricting?

Issue 1 enacted the following process for congressional redistricting in Ohio:

• The state legislature would adopt a 10-year congressional redistricting plan with 60 percent of members in each chamber voting in favor and 50 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of Democrats (or whichever two parties have the most members in the legislature) voting in favor.
• Should the state legislature fail to meet these vote requirements, then the seven-member Ohio Redistricting Commission, established via Issue 1 in 2015, would get a chance to adopt a 10-year congressional redistricting plan, with support from at least two members of the minority party.
• Should the commission fail to adopt a plan, the legislature would get a second opportunity to adopt a 10-year plan, but with a lesser requirement of one-third of the members from the two major parties supporting the proposal.
• Failure at this stage would result in the legislature adopting a plan through a simple majority vote, with no bipartisan vote requirement but stricter criteria, and with the plan lasting two general election cycles (four years), rather than 10 years.

Issue 1 took effect on January 1, 2021, and applied to congressional redistricting following the 2020 U.S. Census.

How did other states conduct congressional redistricting?

As of 2018, Ohio was one of 37 states where state legislatures are responsible for adopting congressional district maps. Of those 37, Connecticut and Maine required a two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber in order to approve a redistricting plan. Issue 1 made Ohio the first state to require a certain level of support from the two major parties to approve a congressional redistricting plan in the state legislature. Six states had independent commissions or politician commissions, which all reserve a number of commission seats for minority party members or individuals appointed by minority party legislative leaders. Seven states had only one congressional district.

How did Issue 1 get on the ballot?

Issue 1 resulted from negotiations between state Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, and the leaders of a committee involved in a redistricting initiative campaign. Keary McCarthy, executive director of the Ohio Mayor’s Alliance, described Issue 1 as "an agreement where both sides had some discomfort." The state Senate passed Issue 1 in a bipartisan vote of 31-0. In the state House, more than 80 percent of Democrats and Republicans supported the measure. The Fair Districts = Fair Elections Coalition, which was backing an initiative to transfer congressional redistricting powers from the legislature to a commission restructured in 2015, had collected 200,000 signatures when negotiations led to an amendment. Jim Siegel and Bennett Leckrone, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, said that the campaign's signature drive provided an incentive for legislators to compromise and approve Issue 1. House Speaker Cliff Rosenberger (R-91) described Issue 1 as an historic compromise, stating, "We are showing across the nation, that here at least in Ohio, we still know what it means to compromise, to work across the aisle, to have adult conversations and actually do something for the citizens of our state." Michael Li, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice said that Issue 1 was "a bit of a tradeoff." He stated, "The legislature passed safeguards against one party using its control of the redistricting process to totally shellac the other, but it doesn’t mean that lawmakers couldn’t cut other kinds of bipartisan deals."

How was redistricting addressed across the U.S. in 2018?

In 2018, voters decided six ballot measures in five states designed to change how congressional districts, state legislative districts, or both types are drawn following the decennial U.S. Census. As of 2018, six was the highest number of redistricting-related ballot measures in a single year since 1982, when nine measures were on the ballot. Joshua Silver, CEO of the organization Represent.Us, described the measures as "the best reform map we’ve seen in decades." The ballot measures followed the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous dismissal of the case Gill v. Whitford, which addressed the claim of partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin. In June 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate standing. Therefore, the justices did not address the broader question of whether partisan gerrymandering claims can be brought to trial under the U.S. Constitution. The following measures were on the ballot in 2018:

Measure	Description	Status
Colorado Amendment Y	Create an independent commission for congressional districts	Approved a
Colorado Amendment Z	Create an independent commission for state legislative districts	Approved a
Michigan Proposal 2	Create an independent commission for congressional and state legislative districts	Approved a
Missouri Amendment 1	Create the position of state demographer to draw state legislative districts	Approved a
Ohio Issue 1	Change state legislative requirements to approve maps of congressional districts	Approved a
Utah Proposition 4	Create an independent commission for to recommend congressional and state legislative districts	Approved a

Measure design

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the amendment, Issue 1, that enacted congressional redistricting procedures and standards in Ohio.

Adopting Congressional Redistricting Plans: process for adopting congressional redistricting plans

Issue 1 enacted procedures that have the redistricting process begin in the Ohio General Assembly, then proceed to the Ohio Redistricting Commission if the General Assembly fails to pass a plan, and then back to the Ohio General Assembly if the commission fails to pass a plan. An overview of the process is outlined in the flowchart below and by the proceeding text:

Issue 1 also allowed members of the public to submit congressional redistricting plans.

First: Ohio General Assembly

The measure requires redistricting to begin in the Ohio General Assembly, where legislators would have a chance to pass a congressional redistricting plan that would last 10 years. To pass a redistricting plan, a 60 percent vote would be required in each legislative chamber along with a 50 percent vote of the two largest political parties in each chamber. The plan would be passed as a bill, meaning the governor could veto the plan—and the legislature could override the veto—or citizens could initiate a veto referendum against the plan. The plan would need to be passed by September 30 of the year ending in the numeral one, such as 2021.

Second: Ohio Redistricting Commission

Should the Ohio General Assembly fail to pass a plan or should the governor veto the plan, the Ohio Redistricting Commission would have a chance to pass a congressional redistricting plan that would last 10 years. The commission-approved plan would not be a bill, meaning the plan could not be vetoed or put on the ballot through a voter referendum. Issue 1 of 2015 created the seven-member Ohio Redistricting Commission to draw state legislative districts, but not congressional districts. The commission was designed to include the governor, auditor, secretary of state, one person appointed by the speaker of the House, one person appointed by the minority leader in the House, one person appointed by the president of the Senate, and one person appointed by the minority leader in the Senate. The amendment would require that four members of the commission, including two commissioners from each of the two largest political parties represented in the legislature, approve the plan to enact the plan. The plan would need to be passed by October 31 of the year ending in the numeral one, such as 2021.

The amendment also prohibited members of the U.S. Congress from serving on the Ohio Redistricting Commission when developing or adopting a congressional redistricting plan.

Third: Ohio General Assembly

Should the Ohio Redistricting Commission fail to pass a plan, then the responsibility returns to the Ohio General Assembly, which would have until November 30 of the year ending in the numeral one, such as 2021, to pass a plan. To pass a 10-year redistricting plan, a 60 percent vote in each chamber and a one-third vote, rather than a 50 percent vote, of the two largest political parties in each chamber would be required. The plan would be passed as a bill.

Fourth: Ohio General Assembly

Should the Ohio General Assembly fail to pass a plan with a 60 percent vote in each chamber or a one-third vote of members from the two largest parties, the General Assembly would be permitted to approve a plan by a simple majority vote and without any specific party-vote requirements. The plan, however, would not last 10 years; rather, the plan would last two general election cycles (four years) and need to meet additional standards. The plan would be passed as a bill.

The additional standards would include:

• the plan cannot unduly favor or disfavor a political party or incumbents;
• the plan cannot unduly divide counties, townships, or municipal corporations;
• legislators must attempt to draw districts that are compact; and
• legislators must provide a written justification of how the above three standards were met.

If the Ohio General Assembly passes a plan with a simple majority vote, the process would restart, using the same procedures noted above, four years later. No matter how that plan is passed, the amendment would provide for that plan to be in effect for the remaining six years.

Redistricting Criteria: criteria to be considered when drawing district maps

Issue 1 was designed to require congressional redistricting plans to:

• be in compliance with the state and federal constitution;
• be in compliance with federal laws protecting the voting rights of racial minorities;
• create districts that are compact;
• create districts that are composed of contiguous area and district boundaries that are single nonintersecting continuous line;

The measure also limited how counties and municipalities can be divided between districts, including:

• In counties with a population exceeding the number of residents to be in a congressional district, the first of the following two steps that applies to the county must be taken by the mapmakers:
  • If a municipality located in a county contains a population exceeding the number of residents to be in a congressional district, then mapmakers would be required to include a significant portion of the municipality in the district and would be allowed to include other municipalities in the county whose residents have similar interests.
  • If a municipality located in a county contains between 100,000 residents and the number of residents in a congressional district, mapmakers would be prohibited from splitting the municipality. If a county includes two or more municipalities with that number of residents, then mapmakers would be prohibited from splitting the largest municipality.
• Of the 88 counties in Ohio, 65 would need to be contained entirely within a district, 18 could be split not more than once, and five could be split not more than twice.
• If a district includes only part of an area of a particular county, then the part of that district would need to be contiguous within the county's boundaries.
• No two congressional districts would be permitted to share portions of counties, except for counties with populations over 400,000.
• Mapmakers would be required to attempt to include at least one whole county in each congressional district.

Legal Challenges to Congressional Redistricting Plans: jurisdiction over lawsuits and responding to judicial orders

Issue 1 provided the Ohio Supreme Court with exclusive, original jurisdiction over all cases arising from challenges under the amendment's provisions.

If the state supreme court determined that any part of a congressional redistricting plan was invalid, the measure would require the General Assembly to pass a plan within 30 days after the last day on which an appeal could be filed or, if the order is not appealable, within 30 days after the day on which the order is issued.

Should the General Assembly fail to pass a redistricting plan in accordance with the court's order within 30 days, the Ohio Redistricting Commission would be tasked with passing a plan within 30 days after the legislature's 30 days end.

Effective Date: when the ballot measure would take effect

Issue 1 took effect on January 1, 2021, and applied to congressional redistricting following the 2020 U.S. Census.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

Issue 1 To amend the version of Section 1 of Article XI that is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2021, and to enact Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Article XIX of the Constitution of the State of Ohio to establish a process for congressional redistricting. A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass. The proposed amendment would: End the partisan process for drawing congressional districts, and replace it with a process with the goals of promoting bipartisanship, keeping local communities together, and having district boundaries that are more compact. Ensure a transparent process by requiring public hearings and allowing public submission of proposed plans. Require the General Assembly or the Ohio Redistricting Commission to adopt new congressional districts by a bipartisan vote for the plan to be effective for the full 10-year period. Require that if a plan is adopted by the General Assembly without significant bipartisan support, it cannot be effective for the entire 10-year period and must comply with explicit antigerrymandering requirements. If passed, the amendment will become effective immediately.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Ohio Constitution

The measure amended Section 1 of Article XI of the Ohio Constitution. The measure added a new Article XIX. The following underlined text was added and struck-through text was deleted:

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

Section 1 of Article XI (A) The Ohio redistricting commission shall be responsible for the redistricting of this state for the general assembly. The commission shall consist of the following seven members: (1) The governor; (2) The auditor of state; (3) The secretary of state; (4) One person appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives; (5) One person appointed by the legislative leader of the largest political party in the house of representatives of which the speaker of the house of representatives is not a member; (6) One person appointed by the president of the senate; and (7) One person appointed by the legislative leader of the largest political party in the senate of which the president of the senate is not a member. No appointed member of the commission shall be a current member of congress. The legislative leaders in the senate and the house of representatives of each of the two largest political parties represented in the general assembly, acting jointly by political party. shall appoint a member of the commission to serve as a co-chairperson of the commission. (B) (1) Unless otherwise specified in this article or in Article XIX of this constitution, a simple majority of the commission members shall be required for any action by the commission. (2) (a) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(2)(b) of this section, a majority vote of the members of the commission including at least one member of the commission who is a member of each of the two largest political parties represented in the general assembly, shall be required to do any of the following: (i) Adopt rules of the commission; (ii) Hire staff for the commission; (iii) Expend funds. (b) If the commission is unable to agree, by the vote required under division (B)(2)(a) of this section. on the manner in which funds should be expended, each co-chairperson of the commission shall have the authority to expend one-half of the funds that have been appropriated to the commission. (3) The affirmative vote of four members of the commission, including at least two members of the commission who represent each of the two largest political parties represented in the general assembly shall be required to adopt any general assembly district plan. For the purpose purposes of this division and of Section 1 of Article XIX of this constitution, a member of the commission shall be considered to represent a political party if the member was appointed to the commission by a member of that political party or if, in the case of the governor, the auditor of state, or the secretary of state, the member is a member of that political party. (C) At the first meeting of the commission, which the governor shall convene only in a year ending in the numeral one, except as provided in Sections 8 and 9 of this article and in Sections 1 and 3 of Article XIX of this constitution, the commission shall set a schedule for the adoption of procedural rules for the operation of the commission. The commission shall release to the public a proposed general assembly district plan for the boundaries for each of the ninety-nine house of representatives districts and the thirty-three senate districts. The commission shall draft the proposed plan in the manner prescribed in this article. Before adopting, but after introducing, a proposed plan, the commission shall conduct a minimum of three public hearings across the state to present the proposed plan and shall seek public input regarding the proposed plan. All meetings of the commission shall be open to the public. Meetings shall be broadcast by electronic means of transmission using a medium readily accessible by the general public. The commission shall adopt a final general assembly district plan not later than the first day of September of a year ending in the numeral one. After the commission adopts a final plan, the commission shall promptly file the plan with the secretary of state. Upon filing with the secretary of state, the plan shall become effective. Four weeks after the adoption of a general assembly district plan or a congressional district plan, whichever is later, the commission shall be automatically dissolved. (D) The general assembly shall be responsible for making the appropriations it determines necessary in order for the commission to perform its duties under this article and Article XIX of this constitution. Article XIX Section 1. (A) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the general assembly shall be responsible for the redistricting of this state for congress based on the prescribed number of congressional districts apportioned to the state pursuant to Section 2 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States. Not later than the last day of September of a year ending in the numeral one, the general assembly shall pass a congressional district plan in the form of a bill by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the members of each house of the general assembly, including the affirmative vote of at least one-half of the members of each of the two largest political parties represented in that house. A congressional district plan that is passed under this division and becomes law shall remain effective until the next year ending in the numeral one, except as provided in Section 3 of this article. (B) If a congressional district plan is not passed not later than the last day of September of a year ending in the numeral one and filed with the secretary of state in accordance with Section 16 of Article II of this constitution, then the Ohio redistricting commission described in Article XI of this constitution shall adopt a congressional district plan not later than the last day of October of that year by the affirmative vote of four members of the commission, including at least two members of the commission who represent each of the two largest political parties represented in the general assembly. The plan shall take effect upon filing with the secretary of state and shall remain effective until the next year ending in the numeral one, except as provided in Section 3 of this article. (C) (1) If the Ohio redistricting commission does not adopt a plan not later than the last day of October of a year ending in the numeral one, then the general assembly shall pass a congressional district plan in the form of a bill not later than the last day of November of that year. (2) If the general assembly passes a congressional district plan under division (C)(1) of this section by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the members of each house of the general assembly, including the affirmative vote of at least one-third of the members of each of the two largest political parties represented in that house, and the plan becomes law, the plan shall remain effective until the next year ending in the numeral one, except as provided in Section 3 of this article. (3) If the general assembly passes a congressional district plan under division (C)(1) of this section by a simple majority of the members of each house of the general assembly, and not by the vote described in division (C)(2) of this section, all of the following shall apply: (a) The general assembly shall not pass a plan that unduly favors or disfavors a political party or its incumbents. (b) The general assembly shall not unduly split governmental units, giving preference to keeping whole, in the order named, counties, then townships and municipal corporations. (c) Division (B)(2) of Section 2 of this article shall not apply to the plan. The general assembly shall attempt to draw districts that are compact. (d) The general assembly shall include in the plan an explanation of the plan's compliance with divisions (C)(3)(a) to (c) of this section. (e) If the plan becomes law, the plan shall remain effective until two general elections for the United States house of representatives have occurred under the plan, except as provided in Section 3 of this article. (D) Not later than the last day of September of the year after the year in which a plan expires under division (C)(3)(e) of this section, the general assembly shall pass a congressional district plan in the form of a bill by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the members of each house of the general assembly, including the affirmative vote of at least one-half of the members of each of the two largest political parties represented in that house. A congressional district plan that is passed under this division and becomes law shall remain effective until the next year ending in the numeral one, except as provided in Section 3 of this article. (E) If a congressional district plan is not passed not later than the last day of September of the year after the year in which a plan expires under division (C)(3)(e) of this section and filed with the secretary of state in accordance with Section 16 of Article II of this constitution, then the Ohio redistricting commission described in Article XI of this constitution shall be reconstituted and reconvene and shall adopt a congressional district plan not later than the last day of October of that year by the affirmative vote of four members of the commission, including at least two members of the commission who represent each of the two largest political parties represented in the general assembly. A congressional district plan adopted under this division shall take effect upon filing with the secretary of state and shall remain effective until the next year ending in the numeral one, except as provided in Section 3 of this article. A congressional district plan passed under this division shall be drawn using the federal decennial census data or other data on which the previous redistricting was based. (F) (1) If the Ohio redistricting commission does not adopt a congressional district plan not later than the last day of October of the year after the year in which a plan expires under division (C)(3)(e) of this section, then the general assembly shall pass a congressional district plan in the form of a bill not later than the last day of November of that year. A congressional district plan adopted under this division shall be drawn using the federal decennial census data or other data on which the previous redistricting was based. (2) If the general assembly passes a congressional district plan under division (F)(1) of this section by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the members of each house, including the affirmative vote of at least one-third of the members of each of the two largest political parties represented in that house, and the plan becomes law, it shall remain effective until the next year ending in the numeral one, except as provided in Section 3 of this article. (3) If the general assembly passes a congressional district plan under division (F)(1) of this section by a simple majority vote of the members of each house of the general assembly, and not by the vote described in division (F)(2) of this section, all of the following shall apply: (a) The general assembly shall not pass a plan that unduly favors or disfavors a political party or its incumbents. (b) The general assembly shall not unduly split governmental units, giving preference to keeping whole, in the order named, counties, then townships and municipal corporations. (c) Division (B)(2) of Section 2 of this article shall not apply to the plan. The general assembly shall attempt to draw districts that are compact. (d) The general assembly shall include in the plan an explanation of the plan's compliance with divisions (F)(3)(a) to (c) of this section. (e) If the plan becomes law, the plan shall remain effective until the next year ending in the numeral one, except as provided in Section 3 of this article. (G) Before the general assembly passes a congressional district plan under any division of this section, a joint committee of the general assembly shall hold at least two public committee hearings concerning a proposed plan. Before the Ohio redistricting commission adopts a congressional district plan under any division of this section, the commission shall hold at least two public hearings concerning a proposed plan. (H) The general assembly and the Ohio redistricting commission shall facilitate and allow for the submission of proposed congressional district plans by members of the public. The general assembly shall provide by law the manner in which members of the public may do so. (I) For purposes of filing a congressional district plan with the governor or the secretary of state under this article, a congressional district plan shall include both a legal description of the boundaries of the congressional districts and all electronic data necessary to create a congressional district map for the purpose of holding congressional elections. (J) When a congressional district plan ceases to be effective under this article, the district boundaries described in that plan shall continue in operation for the purpose of holding elections until a new congressional district plan takes effect in accordance with this article. If a vacancy occurs in a district that was created under the previous district plan, the election to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term shall be held using the previous district plan. Section 2. (A) (1) Each congressional district shall be entitled to a single representative in the United States house of representatives in each congress. (2) The whole population of the state, as determined by the federal decennial census or, if the federal decennial census is unavailable, another basis as directed by the general assembly, shall be divided by the number of congressional districts apportioned to the state pursuant to Section 2 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States, and the quotient shall be the congressional ratio of representation for the next ten years. (3) Notwithstanding the fact that boundaries of counties, municipal corporations, and townships within a district may be changed, district boundaries shall be created by using the data from the most recent federal decennial census or from the basis directed by the general assembly, as applicable. (B) A congressional district plan shall comply with all of the following requirements: (1) The plan shall comply with all applicable provisions of the constitutions of Ohio and the United States and of federal law, including federal laws protecting racial minority voting rights. (2) Every congressional district shall be compact. (3) Every congressional district shall be composed of contiguous territory, and the boundary of each district shall be a single nonintersecting continuous line. (4) Except as otherwise required by federal law, in a county that contains a population that exceeds the congressional ratio of representation, the authority drawing the districts shall take the first of the following actions that applies to that county: (a) If a municipal corporation or township located in that county contains a population that exceeds the congressional ratio of representation, the authority shall attempt to include a significant portion of that municipal corporation or township in a single district and may include in that district other municipal corporations or townships that are located in that county and whose residents have similar interests as the residents of the municipal corporation or township that contains a population that exceeds the congressional ratio of representation. In determining whether the population of a municipal corporation or township exceeds the congressional ratio of representation for the purpose of this division, if the territory of that municipal corporation or township completely surrounds the territory of another municipal corporation or township, the territory of the surrounded municipal corporation or township shall be considered part of the territory of the surrounding municipal corporation or township. (b) If one municipal corporation or township in that county contains a population of not less than one hundred thousand and not more than the congressional ratio of representation, that municipal corporation or township shall not be split. If that county contains two or more such municipal corporations or townships, only the most populous of those municipal corporations or townships shall not be split. (5) Of the eighty-eight counties in this state, sixty-five counties shall be contained entirely within a district, eighteen counties may be split not more than once, and five counties may be split not more than twice. The authority drawing the districts may determine which counties may be split. (6) If a congressional district includes only part of the territory of a particular county, the part of that congressional district that lies in that particular county shall be contiguous within the boundaries of the county. (7) No two congressional districts shall share portions of the territory of more than one county, except for a county whose population exceeds four hundred thousand. (8) The authority drawing the districts shall attempt to include at least one whole county in each congressional district. This division does not apply to a congressional district that is contained entirely within one county or that cannot be drawn in that manner while complying with federal law. (C) (1) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(2) of this section, for purposes of this article, a county, municipal corporation, or township is considered to be split if, based on the census data used for the purpose of redistricting, any contiguous portion of its territory is not contained entirely within one district. (2) If a municipal corporation or township has territory in more than one county, the contiguous portion of that municipal corporation or township that lies in each county shall be considered to be a separate municipal corporation or township for purposes of this section. Section 3. (A) The supreme court of Ohio shall have exclusive, original jurisdiction in all cases arising under this article. (B) (1) In the event that any section of this constitution relating to congressional redistricting, any congressional district plan, or any congressional district or group of congressional districts is challenged and is determined to be invalid by an unappealed final order of a court of competent jurisdiction then, notwithstanding any other provisions of this constitution, the general assembly shall pass a congressional district plan in accordance with the provisions of this constitution that are then valid, to be used until the next time for redistricting under this article in accordance with the provisions of this constitution that are then valid. The general assembly shall pass that plan not later than the thirtieth day after the last day on which an appeal of the court order could have been filed or, if the order is not appealable, the thirtieth day after the day on which the order is issued. A congressional district plan passed under this division shall remedy any legal defects in the previous plan identified by the court but shall include no changes to the previous plan other than those made in order to remedy those defects. (2) If a new congressional district plan is not passed in accordance with division (B)(1) of this section and filed with the secretary of state in accordance with Section 16 of Article II of this constitution, the Ohio redistricting commission shall be reconstituted and reconvene and shall adopt a congressional district plan in accordance with the provisions of this constitution that are then valid, to be used until the next time for redistricting under this article in accordance with the provisions of this constitution that are then valid. The commission shall adopt that plan not later than the thirtieth day after the deadline described in division (B)(1) of this section. A congressional district plan adopted under this division shall remedy any legal defects in the previous plan identified by the court but shall include no other changes to the previous plan other than those made in order to remedy those defects.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Ohio Ballot Board wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 15, and the FRE is 20. The word count for the ballot title is 119, and the estimated reading time is 31 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here. In Ohio, there were two ballot measures in 2017. The measures had an average FKGL score of 11 years.

Support

The Coalition for Redistricting Reform, also known as Yes on Issue 1, led the campaign in support of Issue 1.

Sen. Matt Huffman (R-12) and Sen. Vernon Sykes (D-28) sponsored the amendment in the Ohio State Legislature.

Officials

• U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-3)
• U.S. Rep. Steve Stivers (R-15)
• Senate President Larry Obhof (R-22)
• Senate Minority Leader Kenny Yuko (D-25)
• House Speaker Kirk Schuring (R-29)
• House Minority Leader Fred Strahorn (D-38)

Former officials

• Gov. Ted Strickland (D)
• Gov. Bob Taft (R)

Parties

• Ohio Democratic Party
• Ohio Republican Party

Organizations

• League of Women Voters of Ohio
• Ohio AFL-CIO
• Common Cause Ohio
• Ohio Chamber of Commerce
• Ohio Council of Churches
• Ohio Education Association
• Ohio Farm Bureau
• NAACP Ohio Chapter
• Represent.Us

Arguments

Catherine Turcer, executive director of Common Cause Ohio, stated:

“

Issue 1 includes bipartisan mapmaking and prevents the worst aspects of gerrymandering with rules that keep 65 Ohio counties together. Greater transparency and public hearings take congressional mapmaking out of the backrooms and will discourage the kind of shenanigans that have plagued previous efforts to draw district lines. Issue 1 also gives mapmaking tools to the public so that Ohioans can better participate in the mapmaking process. If bipartisan mapmaking breaks down, the rules actually get tougher: 1) the plan cannot unduly (dis)favor a political party or its incumbents; 2) the plan may not unduly split governmental units; 3) the legislature must attempt to draw compact districts, and 4) the legislature must provide a written justification for the new congressional map. If adopted, Ohio will become a leader in creating meaningful, bipartisan redistricting reform.

”

Bob Taft (R) and Ted Strickland (D), former governors of the state of Ohio, co-wrote an opinion article in The Columbus Dispatch, which stated:

“

Issue 1 creates strong incentives for the parties to compromise and it guards against unchecked, one-sided partisan gerrymandering. And in doing so, it will fix one of the biggest problems plaguing our politics.

”

Sen. Vernon Sykes (D-28), a legislative sponsor of the amendment, said:

“

[Issue 1] provides a sufficient, significant amount of checks and balances against the partisan gerrymandering that brought us to our current map.

”

Sen. Matt Huffman (R-12), a legislative sponsor of the amendment, stated:

“

This plan ends the process of stretching districts far across the state, while maintaining the importance of the historic Voting Rights Act.

”

Senate President Larry Obhof (R-22), who voted for the amendment, said:

“

This plan establishes a responsible map making process that requires bipartisan support and keeps communities together.

”

Opposition

There was no organized opposition, such as political action committees, to Issue 1.

Arguments

Rep. Nino Vitale (R-85), one of 10 members of the state House to vote against referring Issue 1, said:

“

[Issue 1] creates a situation where districts will likely be drawn every 4 years. One of the reasons we do a census every 10 years is so that we can assess the population and decide how the representation will be drawn. Under this proposal, we have no new population data, so the drawing is done, not on facts, but on the will of a few politicians. I don’t trust them to do the right thing. It has worked using real data from the census for many years. Using data is a non-partisan way to determine how the lines should be drawn. [The minority party support requirements] make it nearly impossible for a proposal to pass the General Assembly. If one party suspects that the plan favors one party over another, the bill will never pass and the parties will never agree, almost guaranteeing that the plan [will] go to the unelected commission. This is the entire plan. Get it in the hands of a select few that will do what the swamp politicians want. That’s not good representative government. The Ohio Redistricting Commission, if it met tomorrow, would consist of: the Governor, Auditor, Secretary of State, one person appointed by the Speaker, one appointed by the House minority leader, one appointed by the Senate President, and one appointed by the Senate minority leader. They would make all the decisions. People fear tyranny of the majority, what about tyranny of the minority!

”

Mike Brickner, senior policy director at the ACLU of Ohio, said the organization neither supported nor opposed Issue 1. Brickner did offer a critique of Issue 1, saying:

“

In the event that bipartisan compromise cannot be reached, the rules allow for more power to be wielded by the majority party. The moment we codify methods which allow one party – the majority party – to make the rules, we lose any chance of fair and just representation. We applaud the parts of the initiative which ensure public oversight and community input, but the process could easily disintegrate back to a wholly partisan power grab, which is never in the voter’s best interest.

”

Stephen Wolf, an elections staff writer for the progressive website Daily Kos, stated:

“

Eliminating gerrymandering doesn't just require ending one party's unilateral control over the process, as much as that helps. Who gets to draw the lines and the criteria that guide those mapmakers is also of tremendous importance. In a vacuum, this compromise proposal is better than the status quo of GOP legislators having total control over the process. But we aren’t in a vacuum. Republican legislators shrewdly accepted that momentum was building against partisan gerrymandering, and this compromise is quite simply a way to blunt that momentum while preserving as much of their advantage as possible under a false veneer of bipartisanship.

”

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$221,685.95
Opposition:	$0.00

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Ohio ballot measures

There was one ballot measure committee registered in support of Issue 1—the Coalition for Redistricting Reform. The committee received $221,686, with the largest contributions from Strong Communities Ohio ($56,977) and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee PAC ($50,000). The committee spent $194,186.

There were no ballot measure committees registered in opposition to the measure.

Support

The contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative were as follows:

Committees in support of Ohio Issue 1 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Coalition for Redistricting Reform $221,227.31 $458.64 $193,727.31 Total $221,227.31 $458.64 $193,727.31

Totals in support Total raised: $221,685.95 Total spent: $194,185.95

Donors

The following were the donors who contributed $10,000 or more to the support committee:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Strong Communities Ohio	$56,977.31	$0.00	$56,977.31
National Democratic Redistricting Committee PAC	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00
Ohioans for a Healthy Economy	$15,000.00	$0.00	$15,000.00
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company	$15,000.00	$0.00	$15,000.00
Wolfe Enterprises, Inc.	$10,000.00	$0.00	$10,000.00
Huntington Bancshares Inc. PAC	$10,000.00	$0.00	$10,000.00
Morgan Stanley	$10,000.00	$0.00	$10,000.00
National Education Association	$10,000.00	$0.00	$10,000.00
Nationwide Children's Hospital	$10,000.00	$0.00	$10,000.00

Reporting dates

In Ohio, committees advocating for or against a measure on the May 8, 2018, ballot filed four campaign finance reports in 2018. The filing dates for reports were as follows:

Campaign finance reporting dates for May 2018 ballot
Date	Report	Period
1/31/2018	Annual Report for 2017	1/01/2017 - 12/31/2017
4/26/2018	Pre-Primary Report	1/01/2018 - 4/18/2018
6/15/2018	Post-Primary Report	4/19/2018 - 6/08/2018
7/31/2018	Semiannual Report for 2018	6/09/2018 - 6/30/2018

Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• Akron Beacon Journal said: "Ohio lawmakers achieved something remarkable in early February. Democrats and Republicans joined to craft a proposed constitutional amendment that would improve vastly the way U.S. House districts are redrawn. The proposal would make exceedingly difficult the extreme partisan gerrymandering that afflicts the current districts, most evident here in Summit County, the outcomes practically rigged, whatever the political climate, 12 districts set for Republicans and four for Democrats."
• The Athens News said: "While not perfect (what law is?), this amendment to the Ohio constitution would take a big step toward eliminating the curse of gerrymandering that disenfranchises so many voters every year in our state’s congressional elections."
• The Canton Repository said: "Issue 1 isn’t only a matter of today’s majority party ceding some power to today’s minority; it is the legislature giving more power to Ohio voters, which is where it belongs."
• The Cincinnati Enquirer said: "If Ohio voters change the way districts are drawn, they can send a message to other states as well. A true bipartisan solution to an important legislative issue: heavens knows that would be welcome, given our current political environment."
• Cleveland Plain Dealer said: "Issue 1 isn't perfect. But in this ultimate of political exercises, the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. Issue 1 is good - and Ohio's voters should support it."
• The Columbus Dispatch said: "Gerrymandering has been practiced for all of Ohio’s history by whichever party was in power. But in recent decades, the enhanced precision of computer-aided mapping has made the practice so ruthlessly efficient and the outcome so extreme that reasonable people, even officeholders currently in the majority, saw the need for change. Issue 1 isn’t just a matter of today’s majority party ceding some power to today’s minority; it is the legislature giving more power to Ohio voters, which is where it belongs."
• The Courier said: "Most voters need a good reason to vote. By creating more competitive, fairer districts more people may be inclined to run for office, creating competition for offices that are otherwise handed to the incumbent, regardless of party. More people may turn out to vote, as well."
• Crain's Cleveland Business said: "The overwhelming bipartisan support for a measure on the most partisan of subjects was unusual, and it was a fair indicator that what's now known as Issue 1 is a good first step toward introducing more balance to the drawing of Ohio's political map. We encourage a "yes" vote on the amendment."
• The Lima News said: "The proposed Constitutional Amendment would end the partisan process for drawing congressional districts, and replace it with one whose goals are promoting bipartisanship, keeping local communities together, and having district boundaries that are more compact."
• Morning Journal said: "Is Issue 1 a foolproof means of preventing gerrymandering? Of course not. There is no such thing. But it is a revolutionary, honest, meaningful step in that direction. As such, voters ought to applaud it — and vote “yes” for it."
• Record-Courier said: "While this solution may not be perfect, it replaces a system with no rules and horrible results with a plan that could greatly improve Ohio’s democratic process. We strongly endorse Issue 1."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards opposing Issue 1. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Redistricting in Ohio

See also: Redistricting in Ohio

In Ohio, the Ohio State Legislature is responsible for drawing congressional district boundaries. These lines are subject to the governor's veto power.

Prior to 1967, the state legislature was also responsible for drawing state legislative district boundaries. In 1967, however, voters in Ohio approved a ballot measure to create, among other changes, a five-member commission responsible for state legislative redistricting. In 2015, voters approved a constitutional amendment, titled Issue 1, to increase the size of the commission from five members to seven members.

Issue 1 of 2015

Ohio Bipartisan Redistricting Commission Amendment, Issue 1 (2015)

The 2018 ballot measure would have the Ohio Redistricting Commission conduct congressional redistricting if the Ohio General Assembly fails to pass a plan with a 60 percent vote of legislators in each chamber and a 50 percent vote of the two largest political parties in each chamber by September 30 of the year ending in the numeral one, such as 2021.

In 2015, voters approved Issue 1, which renamed the state legislative redistricting commission and increased its size from five members to seven members. At least two new members were to be selected by legislative leaders representing the minority party. Prior to Issue 1, only one seat was reserved for a member selected by a minority party leader. Issue 1's commission was designed to include the governor, auditor, secretary of state, one person appointed by the speaker of the House, one person appointed by the minority leader in the House, one person appointed by the president of the Senate, and one person appointed by the minority leader in the Senate.

Redistricting initiative of 2018

Voting on Redistricting Measures
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local School redistricting Annexation and merging

See also: Ohio Bipartisan Congressional Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018)

The organization Fair Districts = Fair Elections Coalition, which included the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and the Ohio Education Association, proposed an initiative to require the bipartisan redistricting commission created by Issue 1 of 2015 to draw and approve U.S. congressional districts in Ohio. The commission would have also been required to draw congressional districts based on specific criteria, including contiguousness, compactness, a minimum number of municipal splits, and maximizing the statewide proportion of districts corresponding with partisan preference of voters in state and federal elections during the previous 10 years.

After the Ohio General Assembly referred the 2018 constitutional amendment to the ballot, the Fair Districts = Fair Elections Coalition decided to back the amendment. The coalition said proponents continued to collect signatures, however, as "insurance in case the May ballot measure isn't successful." The deadline to submit 306,591 valid signatures was July 4, 2018.

The Fair Districts = Fair Elections Coalition reported collecting more than 200,000 signatures for the initiative on February 5, 2018. The coalition stated, "SJR 5 would never have passed if it weren't for the nudge of more than 200,000 signatures."

Congressional districts in 2018

See also: Redistricting in Ohio after the 2010 census

Congressional districts used in elections between 2012 and 2018 were developed by the Ohio General Assembly following the 2010 census. The following was a map of Ohio's 16 congressional districts in 2018:

Ohio's Congressional Districts

Methods of redistricting in U.S.

In general, a state's redistricting authority can be classified as one of the following:

1. Legislature-dominant: In a legislature-dominant state, the legislature retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. Maps enacted by the legislature may or may not be subject to gubernatorial veto. Advisory commissions may also be involved in the redistricting process, although the legislature is not bound to adopt an advisory commission's recommendations.
2. Commission: In a commission state, an extra-legislative commission retains the ultimate authority to draft and enact district maps. A non-politician commission is one whose members cannot hold elective office. A politician commission is one whose members can hold elective office.
3. Hybrid: In a hybrid state, the legislature shares redistricting authority with a commission.

Procedures for congressional redistricting in U.S.

Most states are required to draw new congressional district lines every 10 years following completion of United States Census (those states comprising one congressional district are not required to redistrict). In 37 of these states, state legislatures were primarily responsible for redistricting as of May 2018. In four states, independent commissions drew congressional district lines. In two states, politician commissions drew the lines. The remaining states comprised one congressional district each, rendering redistricting unnecessary. See the map below for further details.

Election policy on the ballot in 2018

Electoral system
Electoral systems by state
Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
Academic studies on RCV
Election dates
Election agencies
Election terms
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

Voters considered ballot measures addressing election policy in 15 states in 2018.

Redistricting:

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot

• Ohio Issue 1, Congressional Redistricting Procedures Amendment (May 2018) a - The Ohio State Legislature, through a bipartisan vote, referred Issue 1 to the ballot for the election on May 8, 2018. The measure was written to change the vote requirements to pass congressional redistricting maps and the standards used in congressional redistricting in Ohio. Voters approved Issue 1.

• Colorado Amendment Y, Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment (2018) a - The amendment was written to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's congressional districts. Democrats and Republicans in the Colorado State Legislature voted to refer the measure. It was approved.

• Colorado Amendment Z, Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment (2018) a - The amendment was written to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's state House and state Senate. Democrats and Republicans in the legislature voted to refer the amendment. It was approved.

• Michigan Proposal 2, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018) a - The organization Voters Not Politicians collected more than the required 315,654 signatures for the initiative. The initiative was designed to transfer the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the Michigan State Legislature to an independent redistricting commission. It was approved.

• Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - The PAC Clean Missouri collected signatures to get the initiated amendment on the ballot. The measure made changes to the state's lobbying laws, campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates, and legislative redistricting process. The position of nonpartisan state demographer was created. Amendment 1 made the demographer responsible for drawing legislative redistricting maps and presenting them to the House and Senate apportionment commissions.

• Utah Proposition 4, Independent Advisory Commission on Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - The measure created a seven-member independent redistricting commission to draft maps for congressional and state legislative districts. The committee Utahns for Responsive Government collected more than the required 113,143 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot.

Voting requirements and ballot access:

• Arkansas Issue 2, Voter ID Amendment (2018) a - Issue 2 was designed to require individuals to present a valid photo ID to cast non-provisional ballots in person or absentee. The Arkansas State Legislature referred the measure to the ballot, with Republicans and four of 30 Democrats voting to put Issue 2 on the ballot. It was approved.

• Florida Amendment 4, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018) a - The committee Floridians for a Fair Democracy collected more than the required 766,200 signatures to get Amendment 4 placed on the ballot. The measure was designed to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation. It was approved.

• Louisiana Amendment 1, Felons Disqualified to Run for Office for Five Years Amendment (2018) a - This measure was put on the ballot by the state legislature. Louisiana voters approved Amendment 9 in 1998 to prevent convicted felons from seeking or holding public office for 15 years following the completion of their sentences. Amendment 9 was struck down by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2016. It was approved.

• Maryland Question 2, Election-Day Voter Registration Amendment (2018) a - Legislative Democrats voted to place the amendment the ballot. The measure was designed to authorize a process for registering qualified individuals to vote at a precinct polling place on election day. It was approved.

• Michigan Proposal 3, Voting Policies in State Constitution Initiative (2018) a - Promote the Vote collected more than 315,654 valid signatures to get the initiative placed on the ballot. Proposal 3 was designed to add several voting policies to the Michigan Constitution, including straight-ticket voting, automatic voter registration, no-excuse absentee voting, and same-day voter registration. It was approved.

• Montana LR-129, Ballot Collection Measure (2018) a - The Montana State Legislature voted to place the measure on the ballot, through the support of 80 of 91 Republicans and one of 59 Democrats. The measure was written to ban persons from collecting the election ballots of other people, with exceptions for certain individuals. It was approved.

• Nevada Question 5, Automatic Voter Registration via DMV Initiative (2018) a - The measure was designed to provide for the automatic voter registration of eligible citizens when receiving certain services from the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The Nevada Election Administration Committee, a project of iVote, collected more than the required 55,234 signatures to get Question 5 placed on the ballot. It was approved.

• North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) a - This amendment was referred to the ballot by the state legislature along party lines with Republicans voting in favor of it and Democrats voting against it. It created a constitutional requirement that voters present a photo ID to vote in person. It was approved.

• North Dakota Measure 2, Citizen Requirement for Voting Amendment Initiative (2018) a - North Dakotans for Citizen Voting collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure was designed to clarify that only a U.S. citizen can vote in federal, state, and local elections in North Dakota. It was approved.

Arkansas Issue 3, a legislative term limits initiative, was certified for the ballot but was blocked by an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling. The measure would have imposed term limits of six years for members of the Arkansas House of Representatives and eight years for members of the Arkansas Senate. The ruling came too late to remove the measure from the ballot, but the supreme court ordered election officials to not count or certify votes for Issue 3.

Campaign finance, political spending, and ethics:

• Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (2018) d - Proponents collected more than the required 136,328 valid signatures and met the state's distribution requirement to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure would have established that if any candidate for state office directs (by loan or contribution) more than one million dollars in support of his or her own campaign, then every candidate for the same office in the same primary or general election may accept five times the aggregate amount of campaign contributions normally allowed. It was defeated.

• Massachusetts Question 2, Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative (2018) a - This citizen initiative was designed to establish a 15-member citizens' commission to advocate for certain amendments to the United States Constitution regarding political spending and corporate personhood. It was approved.

• Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - Besides the redistricting provisions of Amendment 1 described above, Missouri Amendment one also made changes to the state's lobbying laws and campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates.

• North Dakota Measure 1, Ethics Commission, Foreign Political Contribution Ban, and Conflicts of Interest Initiative (2018) a - North Dakotans for Public Integrity collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. Measure 1 established an ethics commission, ban foreign political contributions, and enact provisions related to lobbying and conflicts of interest. It was approved.

• South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process Amendment (2018) d - The committee Represent South Dakota collected more than the required 27,741 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot. The measure was designed to revise campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a government accountability board, and enact new laws governing the initiative and referendum process. It was defeated.

• South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative (2018) a - This citizen initiative banned out-of-state contributions to committees supporting or opposing ballot measures within South Dakota. Rep. Mark Mickelson (R-13), speaker of the South Dakota House of Representatives, sponsored the initiative. It was approved.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Ohio Constitution

In Ohio, a constitutional amendment must be passed by a 60 percent vote in each house of the Ohio State Legislature during one legislative session.

Sen. Matt Huffman (R-12) introduced the amendment as Senate Joint Resolution 5 (SJR 5) on January 16, 2018. On February 5, 2018, the Senate Government Oversight and Reform Committee made changes to SJR 5 following negotiations between Republicans, Democrats, and organizations involved in a redistricting initiative campaign.

The full Ohio State Senate took up the proposal later on February 5, 2018, passing the measure in a bipartisan vote of 31 to 0 with two members not voting. On February 6, 2018, the Ohio House of Representatives voted 83-10 on the amendment with six members not voting. As SJR 5 received a 60 percent vote in each house of the state legislature, the constitutional amendment was referred to the ballot.

Vote in the Ohio State Senate February 5, 2018
Requirement: Three-fifths (60 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 20  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	31	0	2
Total percent	93.94%	0.00%	6.06%
Democrat	8	0	1
Republican	23	0	1

Vote in the Ohio House of Representatives February 6, 2018
Requirement: Three-fifths (60 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 60  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	83	10	6
Total percent	83.84%	10.10%	6.06%
Democrat	27	4	2
Republican	56	6	4

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Ohio

Poll times

In Ohio, all polling places are open from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Voters who are in line at 7:30 p.m. are permitted to vote.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To register to vote in Ohio, an applicant must be a United States citizen, a resident of Ohio for at least 30 days before the election, and at least 18 years old by the day of the election. Individuals who are incarcerated for a felony conviction, have been declared by a court to be incompetent for voting purposes, or have been permanently disenfranchised may not register to vote.

Applicants may register to vote online, in person, or by mail. The Ohio Voter Registration and Information Update Form is available online and can be requested by mail. In-person voter registration is available at various locations including the secretary of state and board of elections offices, Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles offices, public libraries and high schools, and other state agencies. A full list of locations is available here.

The deadline to register to vote is 30 days before the next election. An Ohio driver’s license number, state ID card number, or the last four digits of a SSN is required in order to register to vote or update a voter registration.

Automatic registration

Ohio does not practice automatic voter registration.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Ohio has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Ohio does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

Prospective voters must be residents of Ohio for at least 30 days before the election.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Ohio does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Verifying your registration

The Ohio Secretary of State’s Office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.

Voter ID requirements

Ohio requires voters to present photo identification while voting.

The following list of accepted ID was current as of April 2023. Click here for the Ohio Secretary of State page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.

“

Ohio driver's license; State of Ohio ID card; Interim ID form issued by the Ohio BMV; A US passport; A US passport card; US military ID card; Ohio National Guard ID card; or US Department of Veterans Affairs ID card All photo IDs must have the following: An expiration date that has not passed; A photograph of the voter; The voter’s name, which must substantially conform to the voter’s name as it appears in the Poll List or in the Poll Book

”

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Redistricting measures on the ballot
• 2018 legislative sessions

Ohio

• Ohio ballot measures
• Ohio ballot measure laws
• Redistricting in Ohio

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Senate Joint Resolution 5
• Ohio Ballot Board Primary Issues Report

Support

• Coalition for Redistricting Reform
• Yes on Issue 1 Facebook
• Yes on Issue 1 Twitter

Opposition

Email links to editor@ballotpedia.org.