Connect with us

Ohio

Who is funding Ohio’s redistricting amendment?

Published

on

Who is funding Ohio’s redistricting amendment?


COLUMBUS, Ohio — The campaign aiming to end gerrymandering in Ohio has raised more than $23 million, according to a newly released campaign finance disclosure form. That money mainly came from groups outside of Ohio.

Cash continues to pour in to support a proposal on the November ballot. Ohio voters will decide how the state draws district maps.

Citizens Not Politicians collected enough signatures to get their amendment on the ballot, one that spokesperson Chris Davey said is meant to stop partisan gerrymandering.

“Democrats, Republicans — politicians — for years, have been rigging the game in Ohio,” Davey said. “This is a nonpartisan issue.”

Advertisement

Click here to read more about the fight for redistricting reform.

Currently, Ohio lawmakers draw the maps — ones that directly impact them and their colleagues.

The Ohio Redistricting Commission (ORC) is made up of seven spots. Two will always go to Republicans and two to Democrats in the Statehouse. The three remaining seats include the governor, secretary of state and auditor.

This led to the Ohio Redistricting Mess of 2022, where a bipartisan Ohio Supreme Court struck down seven different passed maps, citing that the GOP members of the commission were drawing lines to unfairly benefit their party.

The proposal creates the 15-member Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission (OCRC), made up of Republican, Democratic and independent citizens who broadly represent the different geographic areas and demographics of the state.

Advertisement

It bans current or former politicians, political party officials, lobbyists and large political donors from sitting on the commission.

It requires fair and impartial districts by making it unconstitutional to draw voting districts that discriminate against or favor any political party or individual politician. It also mandates the commission to operate under an open and independent process.

A newly released campaign finance report proves that people around the state and country are backing the change.

“Our support is coming from a broad coalition of Republicans, independents and Democrats who want to get the politicians out of the process because they’ve demonstrated repeatedly that they are either unwilling or unable to pass fair maps,” Davey said.

CNP raised more than $23 million since the beginning of 2024.

Advertisement

Gov. Mike DeWine, who is opposing the amendment, warned that this isn’t the grassroots movement Davey is portraying.

“Voters ought to know that this is being funded by people outside Ohio, primarily,” DeWine said.

DeWine is adamantly opposed to the anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment that will be on the November ballot, saying he plans to create another proposal that voters should “trust.” It is worth noting that DeWine and his colleagues have nothing to gain and power to lose if CNP is successful.

Gov. DeWine says he opposes anti-gerrymandering proposal on November ballot, wants to put forth new proposal

Advertisement

Gov. DeWine says he opposes anti-gerrymandering proposal on November ballot, wants to put forth new proposal

Breakdown

Of the $23 million raised, 85% has come from out of state.

Below are the states (including D.C.) that provided at least a million:

Advertisement
  1. Washington, D.C.: $11.1 million
  2. Ohio: $3.6 million
  3. Virginia: $3.4 million
  4. California: $2.1 million
  5. New York: $1.6 million
  6. Massachusetts: $1 million

Numbers are rounded.

The largest contributors of money are progressive or nonpartisan groups in the Washington, D.C. area, funding about 60% of the campaign so far. The Virginia donations came from Arlington, which can be referred to as the D.C. area.

The Sixteen Thirty Fund has given the largest chunk of money — $6 million.

Groups make up 98% of the funding, while 2% comes from individual donors. To be clear, individual donors donate to the larger groups.

Senate President Matt Huffman (R-Lima) said that people should question why funders from the “so-called” anti-gerrymandering are mainly liberal groups.

“They’re not interested in moderate Republicans or conservative Democrats,” Huffman said back in March. “They’re interested in making sure their far-left agenda gets passed.”

Advertisement

It’s hypocritical for lawmakers to criticize the acceptance of out-of-state money since each side of the past several proposals was all primarily funded by non-Ohio groups, Davey argued.

In August of 2023, the GOP-backed amendment to make it more difficult to change the Ohio Constitution, which failed spectacularly, raised $4.8 million. An Illinois billionaire donated $4 million, which is 83%.

Election to stop out-of-state special interests funded by out-of-state special interests

In November of 2023, the GOP-backed campaign to stop abortion from being enshrined into the Constitution was also primarily funded by out-of-state groups.

Supporters of Ohio abortion rights amendment far outraising opponents

Advertisement

“If you look at the people and organizations who have supported us financially, it’s diverse,” he said. “It includes people all across the political spectrum because this is not red vs blue, it’s not Republican vs Democrat.”

Of the nearly 800 donors, the majority gave between $5 and $25, my analysis found. The most common amount to donate was $6.20. Of the individual contributions, the majority came from Ohioans.

CNP has spent millions on digital and TV ads, which should be hitting the airwaves soon, Davey said.

Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.





Source link

Advertisement

Ohio

Lorain woman killed, three children injured in Ohio Turnpike crash in Elyria (UPDATED)

Published

on

Lorain woman killed, three children injured in Ohio Turnpike crash in Elyria (UPDATED)


Advertisement

`
const PAYWALL_HTML2 = `

Subscribe For Unlimited Access

Advertisement

You have exceeded the number of free articles available each month.

Thank you for supporting quality local journalism

Our award-winning coverage would not be possible without you.

Sign in here

Advertisement


if you are already a subscriber for unlimited access to breaking news, sports, photos, videos and our e-edition on your phone, tablet or desktop.

Click here
 for our new subscriber specials.

`.trim();
const PAYWALL_HTML3 = `

Advertisement
To continue reading SUBSCRIBE.
Already a subscriber? LOG IN.

`
const PAYWALL_HTML4 = “
function ensureCss() {
if (!document.head) return;

const existing = document.querySelector(‘link[data-paywall-css=”1″]’);
if (existing) return;

const link = document.createElement(‘link’);
link.rel=”stylesheet”;
link.type=”text/css”;
link.href = CSS_HREF;
link.setAttribute(‘data-paywall-css’, ‘1’);
document.head.appendChild(link);
}

function hasSubInfo(el) {
// Only replace once the widget already contains .subInfo
return !!(el && el.querySelector(‘.subInfo’));
}

function applyTo(el) {
if (!el || el.dataset.paywallReplaced === ‘1’) return;
if (!hasSubInfo(el)) return; //



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Ohio

Licking County real estate transfers for June 1-5, 2026, hit $865,000

Published

on

Licking County real estate transfers for June 1-5, 2026, hit 5,000



Real estate transfers in Licking County, Ohio, range from $85,000 to $865,000

The following are property transfers recorded in Licking County from June 1-5, 2026.

Advertisement

First name indicates the seller; second name represents the buyer

Buckeye Lake

  • 502 Providence Lane; Cohagen, Christopher C and Lori A; Adams, Jeffrey L and Boyce-Adams, Jo Anna; 6/1/2026; $511,000
  • 131 Cranberry Lane; Smart, Amy and Kidwell, Kevin K; Sew and Minor, Christian; 6/1/2026; $262,000

Etna Township

  • 116 Cameron Drive SW; Ray, Erica L; Darjee, Sanjay and Laxmi and Dil; 6/2/2026; $412,000  
  • 119 Kraner St. SW; Adkins, Zane and Amy; Culbertson, Brenton Howard; 6/1/2026; $368,500
  • 160 Dusky Willow Drive; Willow Reserve LLC; Martin, Alaina K; 6/2/2026; $290,940

Granville

  • 119 Derwyn Del Way; Lifer, David C and Julia H; Martin, Michael and Lisa; 6/1/2026; $865,000
  • 39 Victoria Drive; Acton, Wendy S and Paul J; Cannon, Matthew Evan and Zywica, Natalie Nicole; 6/2/2026; $835,000

Granville Township

  • 49 Alberry Drive; Halliday, Lucas and Breayne; Howe, Jason and Kathryn; 6/2/2026; $570,000

Harrison Township

  • 102 Whirlaway Loop; Rice, Dawn (Trustee); Bope, Maria and Shane; 6/2/2026; $420,000

Heath

  • 1306 Kacey Court; Fischer Homes Columbus II LLC; Owens, Blake Andrew and Taylor Marie; 6/2/2026; $437,779
  • 805 Fieldson Drive; Flowers, Ingrit; Harder, Noah C; 6/2/2026; $250,000

Hebron

  • 802 Cumberland Meadows Circle; Lines, Marlene S; Gerhart, Jamie A and Ralph W Jr; 6/2/2026; $232,000

Johnstown

  • 101 Bigelow Drive; McGovern, Matthew S and Jennifer L; Sanford, Jessica; 6/2/2026; $442,500

Liberty Township

  • 5844 Nichols Lane Road NW; La Jeunesse, Garth E and Debra; Nesselroad, William Heath and Annie; 6/1/2026; $629,000
  • 7211 Northridge Road NW; Devault, Robert E Jr and Joann; Esbenshade, Travis M and Lowe, Shelby M; 6/1/2026; $495,000

Newark

  • 2110 Overlook Way; D.R. Horton-Indiana LLC; Tarsha, Michele A; 6/1/2026; $433,335
  • 1162 Taylor Ave.; Heath Fluid LLC; Anglada, Gabriel P and Salina T; 6/1/2026; $200,000
  • 32 Postal Ave. W.; Palmisano, Phil; Moore, Dominic Michael and Miksich, Paige Elizabeth; 6/1/2026; $198,900
  • 75 Gay St.; Velez, Marcos A; Camell, Campbell; 6/1/2026; $155,000
  • 655 Evans St.; TNL; McRada Properties LLC; 6/1/2026; $145,000
  • 63 Wallace St.; FDA Peachtree LLC; Burns, Amber L; 6/2/2026; $86,500
  • 404 10th St.; Synergy Group Properties LLC; Busy Boys Restoration LLC; 6/2/2026; $85,000

Reynoldsburg

  • 8447 Rodebaugh Road; Collins, Carol J; Thorpe, Kimberley Lynn and Henry, Steven; 6/2/2026; $340,000



Source link

Continue Reading

Ohio

Court orders Ohio restrictions on kids’ use of social media restored

Published

on

Court orders Ohio restrictions on kids’ use of social media restored


COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Ohio’s law requiring children under 16 to get parental consent to use social media apps must be restored, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

The decision comes as a blow to NetChoice, which has won court victories against identical digital identification laws in other states, including Arkansas, Louisiana and Georgia. The trade group representing TikTok, Snapchat, Meta and other major tech companies said the Ohio decision went against “clear national consensus” and that it intended to keep fighting.

“An unconstitutional law protects no one, and we remain focused on ensuring the First Amendment rights of Ohioans are protected,” said Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center.

Netchoice brought suit against Ohio’s law in 2024, arguing that it was overly broad, vague and represented an unconstitutional impediment to free speech.

Advertisement

The Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit’s panel disagreed. In a 2-1 decision, it found that the law was not unconstitutional and sent it back to a lower court to have a block on the law’s enforcement vacated.

“At bottom, the Act imposes a parental consent requirement,” Judge Eric Clay wrote in the lead opinion. “That requirement constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children’s unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them.”

Judge Alice Batchelder concurred, writing that “a statute is not vague just because it has a wide berth.”

Known as the Social Media Parental Notification Act, the Ohio law was part of an $86.1 billion state budget bill that Republican Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed into law in July 2023.

The administration pushed the measure as a way to protect children’s mental health, with then-Lt. Gov. Jon Husted, now a U.S. senator, saying at the time that social media was “intentionally addictive” and harmful to kids.

Advertisement

The law requires companies to get parental permission for social media and gaming apps and to provide their privacy guidelines so families know what content would be censored or moderated on their child’s profile.

Sign up for Morning Wire:
Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Advertisement

Republican Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson called Thursday’s ruling “a win for Ohio families.”

“The court agreed that parents –- not social media companies –- should get a say in what kids see online,” he said in a statement. “We have an obligation to keep our children safe, and today, the most dangerous place for our kids is the internet. This decision gives parents the tools to be involved and provide oversight.”





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending