An amicus brief filed this week in state Supreme Court by the good-government group Citizens Union backs the ballot language as proposed by the state Board of Elections that would change the state’s redistricting process.

The ballot language is being challenged in court under the theory that it is overly confusing and misleading.

Groups like Common Cause agree, pointing to the ballot language describing the proposal as creating an “independent” body to oversee the drawing of new legislative boundaries, but is actually appointed by the state Legislature.

But the fight over the ballot language is splitting good-government groups. Citizens Union and the League of Women Voters argue that the ballot language is an accurate representation of what the the constitutional amendment would do: Remove the process from the Legislature’s hands and put it under the control of a new entity.

“The proposed constitutional amendment is a comprehensive piece of legislation with several interrelated elements that work together to create reform,” Citizens Union wrote in its brief. “The Petitioners chose to focus the court’s attention on just one provision, the establishment of an independent redistricting commission, ignoring two crucial components of the amendment, a provision that makes it unconstitutional to draw district lines to favor incumbents, a particular candidate or a political party, and a provision that establishes a wide range of procedures to ensure an open public process for arriving at a redistricting plan and an expedited legal review for its citizens.”

Disagreement over the redistricting amendment has been brewing since March 2012, when Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state Legislature struck a deal: Cuomo did not veto lines drawn by state lawmakers, and they agreed to adopt a constitutional amendment to change the process ahead of the next round, 2022.

Voters will have the amendment before them in November.

Court arguments challenging the language are due to be held on Friday in Albany.

Complaints over loaded language in ballot referendums are nothing new.

Just last year, good-government advocates and gambling opponents complained that the language for an amendment to expand casino gambling in New York was overly rosy of the benefits of approval. The amendment was approved.

Final Amicus Brief Leib v Walsh (2) by Nick Reisman