Issue 2 violates separation of powers

By Shirley J. CHRISTIAN AND JAMES E. “TED” ROBERTS

Special to The Vindicator

This November, Ohioans will be voting on Issue 2, a proposed constitutional amendment on redistricting. We join the Ohio State Bar Association, the Ohio Judicial Conference and a host of organizations and media outlets in urging people to “Vote No on Issue 2.” For us, there is a singular reason: Issue 2 inappropriately involves Ohio’s judiciary in the most high-stakes political process there is — redistricting.

Why is Issue 2 the wrong solution? Issue 2 would require a group of appellate judges to select a pool of 42 Ohioans from which a 12-member citizen commission responsible for redrawing legislative and congressional district maps would be drawn. This function makes these judges more vulnerable to political influence and undermines the public’s trust and confidence in a fair, impartial and independent judiciary—a sacred and fundamental principle of our constitutional democracy.

Supreme Court

Issue 2 would inappropriately involve the Ohio Supreme Court. Should the 12-member commission be unable to agree on a redistricting proposal, our highest court could be responsible for selecting one of the plans this commission has debated. And if the plan is later challenged, it will be heard in the Supreme Court, the same Supreme Court that selected the very proposal being challenged.

Issue 2 is a proposed constitutional amendment, and constitutional amendments are difficult to change. They can only be changed by another constitutional amendment. This requires a great deal of time and money and could take years to accomplish. That’s why it is so important to get the language of a constitutional amendment right.

Many agree that the current redistricting process is in need of reform. So do we. But, there is a better way than Issue 2. The OSBA believes that the appropriate venue is the Constitutional Modernization Commission. This commission is made up of bi-partisan elected officials and members of the public with the sole purpose being to review our current state Constitution and make recommendations for change. We join the OSBA in urging the commission to make redistricting reform a priority initiative when it convenes early next year.

Impartial judiciary

The judiciary was never intended to be involved in a political process like redistricting. The judiciary is intended to be fair, impartial and independent, and to interpret the laws and Constitution. Their job is to be the umpire, not the player on the field.

Issue 2 is the wrong way to improve Ohio’s redistricting plan. It should be defeated so the people of Ohio have the time to get it right. To learn more, visit www.protectjusticeohio.com.

Atty. Christian practices in Salem and is president of the Mahoning Bar Association; Atty. Roberts practices in Youngstown and is a former member of the Ohio State Bar Association board of governors.