## Facts

- An initiative petition proposed an Ohio constitutional amendment restructuring redistricting by creating a 12-member Ohio Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission and revising multiple provisions of Article XI.
- The proposal set out a detailed, multi-step process for selecting commission members involving applications to the Secretary of State, random selection of appellate judges, screening into politically balanced pools, limited strikes by legislative leaders, and selection by lot and appointment.
- The proposal required the commission to adopt district plans under specified mandatory criteria, including compliance with federal and state law and constraints aimed at preventing undue partisan or incumbent favoritism.
- Under Ohio Constitution Article XVI, Section 1 and R.C. 3505.062(B), the Ohio Ballot Board prescribed condensed ballot language intended to enable voters to understand the proposal.
- The Board’s statement described creation of a 12-member commission but did not describe the selection method and did not reference the mandatory redistricting criteria.
- The statement also indicated the commission’s “funding and staff” would be subject to approval by the General Assembly.
- The sponsors and statutory committee members filed an original action in mandamus in the Supreme Court of Ohio, seeking an order requiring the Board to reconvene and adopt ballot language that properly described the amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Ballot Board’s ballot language complied with Ohio Constitution Article XVI, Section 1 and R.C. 3505.062(B) by properly and non-misleadingly identifying the substance of the proposed constitutional amendment.
2. Whether the statement’s omissions and its description of legislative control over funding and staff were material and misleading such that mandamus relief was warranted.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio (per curiam) granted a writ of mandamus.
- The Court held the ballot language was defective and invalid because it contained material omissions and a factual inaccuracy that had the effect of misleading voters and failed to properly identify the amendment’s substance.
- The Court ordered the Ballot Board to reconvene forthwith and draft new ballot language consistent with the constitutional and statutory requirements, but did not supply replacement language itself.

## Legal Principles

- Ballot language for a statewide constitutional amendment must properly identify the substance of the proposal and be written in language that is neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice.
- The Ballot Board has discretion to condense proposed text and is not held to technical perfection, but it may not produce a summary that is misleading.
- A ballot statement is invalid if it omits material parts of the proposal, particularly central structural features or operative standards that would affect a reasonable voter’s understanding.
- A ballot statement is invalid if it includes factual inaccuracies that materially misdescribe the proposal’s operation or allocate authority in a way the amendment does not.
- Mandamus lies where relators show a clear legal right to a compliant ballot statement and a corresponding clear legal duty on the Ballot Board to provide one.

## Conclusion

The court required the Ohio Ballot Board to rewrite the ballot language for a proposed redistricting amendment because the Board’s summary omitted core features (commission-selection structure and mandatory redistricting criteria) and misstated legislative control over commission funding and staff, creating a misleading description of the amendment.


State ex rel. Voters First v. Ohio Ballot Bd., 133 Ohio St. 3d 257, 978 N.E.2d 119 (Ohio 2012)