In a year of sweeping Republican victories, a series of ballot measures aimed at implementing key electoral reforms suffered unexpected defeats in several states. Initiatives to limit partisan gerrymandering, establish open primaries, and expand ranked-choice voting – all of which have gained bipartisan momentum in recent years – failed to garner sufficient support from voters.
Ohio’s Issue 1: Independent Redistricting Commission Rejected
Perhaps the most surprising result came in Ohio, where Issue 1, a proposal to create a 15-person independent redistricting commission, was decisively rejected by voters. The measure would have stripped state lawmakers of their power to draw electoral districts, a process that has been heavily criticized for enabling extreme partisan gerrymandering.
Advocates for Issue 1 had reason to be optimistic heading into election day. The measure had broad support from major newspapers and civic groups, and proponents had raised nearly eight times more in campaign funds than opponents. A recent poll also showed that 69% of Ohio voters opposed gerrymandering.
You could functionally argue that every person who voted on Issue 1 was voting to end gerrymandering. But the disinformation campaign of the opposition, as well as the shockingly false descriptions that voters saw on their ballots, is what made our reform lose.
Jen Miller, Executive Director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio
So what went wrong? Advocates point to extremely misleading language crafted by the Republican-controlled Ohio Ballot Board. The official ballot wording claimed the commission would be “required to gerrymander” districts in favor of the two largest parties – the exact opposite of the measure’s intent. This language likely confused many voters who thought they were voting against gerrymandering by rejecting Issue 1.
Open Primaries and Ranked-Choice Voting Lose Ground
Ohio was not the only state where electoral reforms came up short. Voters in seven states – Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota – rejected ballot measures to replace party primaries with nonpartisan “top-two” or “top-four” primaries. Several of these initiatives would have also implemented ranked-choice voting for general elections.
In Idaho, Proposition 1 would have established an open primary where the top four vote-getters advance to the general election, with voters then ranking their choices. It was defeated by a resounding 40-point margin. According to Luke Mayville, a spokesperson for the pro-reform group Idahoans for Open Primaries, “It proved to be much easier than we thought for opponents to paint the entire effort as partisan, in spite of our best efforts to persuade the public that these are nonpartisan ideas.”
Arizona saw dueling ballot measures, with Proposition 140 pushing for open primaries while the legislature-backed Proposition 133 sought to amend the state constitution to preserve the current party primary system. Some observers saw Prop 133 mainly as an attempt to confuse voters and undermine the open primary initiative.
Organized Opposition and Partisan Headwinds
Advocates of electoral reform acknowledge that they faced stiff headwinds this cycle. Deb Otis of FairVote noted that “the presidential election was looming heavily over voters” and suggested that with so many complex issues on the ballot, “maybe voters defaulted to a ‘no’ position on new concepts.”
Beyond the broader political climate, reformers also had to contend with increasingly coordinated opposition to their efforts. Groups like the Stop RCV Coalition, linked to influential conservative activist Leonard Leo, worked to stoke uncertainty about reforms like ranked-choice voting and emphasized the out-of-state funding behind many ballot initiatives.
I think when you have that problem in a ballot measure campaign, spending more money actually can start to hurt you because people start saying, ‘Oh yeah, there’s another one of those slick campaign commercials.’
Trent England, Stop RCV Coalition
Despite the setbacks, advocates remain determined to keep pushing for reforms. Otis argued that “the path to reform is not a straight line” and stressed the importance of better communicating the benefits of changes like ranked-choice voting to both voters and elected officials.
As the 2024 elections approach, the fight over how Americans cast their ballots and choose their representatives seems poised to intensify. With partisan tensions running high and trust in elections being actively undermined, the stakes for electoral reform efforts could not be greater. While change may not come as swiftly as some had hoped, it’s clear the battle is far from over.
