Talk:2024 Ohio Issue 1

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Republican-led Ohio Ballot Board was sued because its official summary for Ohio Issue 1, designed to improve redistricting, stated instead that the initiative would require gerrymandering?

Source: the Board's summary "describes the amendment, which is specifically intended to prevent partisan gerrymandering, as specifically requiring it."

https://apnews.com/article/ohio-gerrymandering-redistricting-bd589ead234436f1b113b35d28c71cc7#

- ALT1: ... that advocates for Ohio Issue 1, an initiative to stop partisan gerrymandering, sued the Republican-led Ballot Board for a summary that claimed the 2024 initiative would require gerrymandering? Source: see above. On the parties to the lawsuit itself, see: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/ohio-group-garners-over-700000-signatures-for-ballot-initiative-to-end-gerrymandering/
- ALT2: ... that Ohio Issue 1 was created to end partisan gerrymandering after 5 redistricting maps by the Republican-led legislature were rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court -- and flawed maps were used in 2022? Source: "Courts rejected two congressional maps and five sets of Statehouse maps as gerrymandered. Amid the court disputes, Ohio’s elections were allowed to proceed last year under the flawed maps." https://apnews.com/article/ohio-redistricting-constitutional-amendment-attorney-general-e3e8759ceeabc9538dd4bd49b6c84b52
- Reviewed:
- Comment: I hope the hooks and article are carefully NPOV. Reliable sources usually mention that the legislature and ballot board are Republican-led, since gerrymandering is about partisanship. Fwiw, Issue 1 proponents are described in the press as bipartisan.

Created by ProfGray (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

ProfGray (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Potential improvements to the article

Though I wrote the first version of this article, I do think it could be improved with (1) images, (2) more information about the opposition, which does not seem organized as a political campaign yet, (3) a third-party NPOV ballot summary, though I'm skeptical that anyone outside of Wikipedia has enough incentive to create such a summary. In addition, we expand the background history here, or do so at the Redistricting in Ohio article. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text of the ballot summary etc.

Hi. There's a lawsuit over the ballot summary, so there's a controversy over how to describe the ballot initiative. For this reason, it's valuable for readers to see the competing summaries of the opponents and supporters. While we can try to summarize the summaries in NPOV style, I'd hate to see us get into edit wars when the summaries themselves can be cleanly presented side-by-side. cc: OutlawRun

Checking other articles on Ohio ballot iniatives, 2004 has the text, (2011 was a repeal), 2017 does not have the text (it's a stub), 2018 #1 has the text, 2022 #1 has the text (in effect, 2nd block quote), 2022 #2 has the text, 2023 August #1 has a WP summary, 2023 Nov #1 has the text, 2023 Nov #2 has a WP summary. So, we see that the text appears in 5 Wikipedia articles on Ohio initiatives. Let's discuss. ProfGray (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a difference between showing the whole text of the initiative when the provision is a mere paragraph in length versus multiple pages. If the text is very short and concise on its own, I think it's fine to have the full one, but if it's very lengthy, I think summaries are much better. In the case of comparing the two ballot summaries, I think it is best to highlight the most significant differences and the ones that are the most controversial, as opposed to just pasting the two side by side. This does a better job telling readers which differences are most important and why. OutlawRun (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I do appreciate that you are considering how to best serve our readers. Just to clarify -- the article never had the full text of the initiative -- only the side-by-side disputed summaries and a detailed outline. This is an unusually complicated proposed law and it is more than 30 pages long!

For the ballot summaries in litigation, I am willing, as you suggest, "to highlight the most significant differences and the ones that are the most controversial." However, I'd propose to keep the side-by-side summaries for the readers (and editors) to see for themselves. IINM, their text can appear as "hidden" until the reader clicks on it for viewing. While I do think we can try to explain the important differences in an NPOV way, it seems very likely that readers will want to see the ballot summaries themselves. It's a useful public service for an upcoming election. Would that be okay?

FWIW, I'm working on this as part of a WikiEdu course to improve 2024 election coverage. I've mentioned your concerns to the group and I think we will discuss it next Wednesday. ProfGray (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. OutlawRun, your work on Redistricting in Texas is amazing! Any chance you want to help improve the one on Ohio? For the 2024 ballot question, voters and other interested folks should be curious about the history of (alleged) gerrymandering in the state, evidence about that, and prior 2015 and 2018 initiatives on redistricting. ProfGray (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]