CASE SUMMARY

On November 30, 2021, a coalition of civil rights groups and Ohio voters led by the League of Women Voters of Ohio filed a lawsuit with the Ohio Supreme Court challenging the state's enacted congressional redistricting plan as violating the Ohio Constitution. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged the congressional plan was a partisan gerrymander that unduly favored the Republican Party and its candidates in violation of Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(a), which broadly prohibits any plan from "unduly favor[ing] or disfavor[ing] a political party or its incumbents." Additionally, plaintiffs asserted the plan also excessively and unnecessarily splitted counties and political subdivisions in violation of Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(b). They sought a judicial declaration that the enacted congressional plan violated Article XIX of the Ohio Constitution, an injunction barring the defendants from using the plan in any future elections, and a court order requiring the Ohio Redistricting Commission to adopt a new congressional plan or, at minimum, to amend the enacted plan to correct the alleged violations.

On December 17, 2021, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an order consolidating this case with another challenge to Ohio's enacted congressional plan, Adams v. DeWine. The Court heard oral arguments in these consolidated actions on December 28, 2021.

On January 14, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision invalidating the enacted congressional plan on the grounds it unduly favored the Republican Party and disfavored the Democratic Party in violation of Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(a). The Court also held that the plan unduly split Hamilton, Cuyahoga, and Summit Counties in violation of Section 1(C)(3)(b). Having found it unconstitutional, the Court ordered the General Assembly to craft and enact a new, constitutional congressional plan in accordance with Article XIX, which establishes a deadline of 30 days from the date of the court's judgment. The General Assembly missed this deadline, and so the Ohio Redistricting Commission assumed congressional redistricting authority and adopted a new plan on March 2, 2022.

On March 7, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the Court's January 14 order, asserting the Commission's revised congressional plan was still an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. On March 18, the Court issued an order denying the motion to enforce as procedurally improper, as well as their request to file an amended complaint, explaining the Court issued its final judgment in the case on January 14 and did not have jurisdiction to review a remedial plan passed or adopted under Article XIX, Section 3(A) or 3(B) of the Ohio Constitution. The Court expressly stated their order did not preclude the filing of a new original action challenging the March 2, 2022 plan.

Related Case: Adams v. DeWine

Similar Cases: League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm'n; Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm'n; Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Comm'n

CASE LIBRARY

Ohio Supreme Court - No. 2021-1449 [together with No. 2021-1428]

• Complaint - 11/30/21
• Exhibits to Complaint (Vol. I of III) - 11/30/21
• Exhibits to Complaint (Vol. II of III) - 11/30/21
• Exhibits to Complaint (Vol. III of III) - 11/30/21
• Relators' Motion for Scheduling Order - 11/30/21
• Motion to Dismiss, and to Stay Case, and to Stay Discovery of the Ohio Redistricting Commission, et al. - 12/2/21
• Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Respondents Huffman and Cupp - 12/2/21
• Relators' Notice of Filing of Subpoena - 12/3/21
• Relators' Response to Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, to Stay the Case, and to Stay the Discovery - 12/3/21
• First Amended Complaint - 12/3/21
• Exhibits to First Amended Complaint (Vol. I of III) - 12/3/21
• Exhibits to First Amended Complaint (Vol. II of III) - 12/3/21
• Exhibits to First Amended Complaint (Vol. III of III) - 12/3/21
• Relators' Motion to Compel Expedited Discovery - 12/3/21
• Order - 12/3/21
• Governor Mike DeWine's, Auditor Keith Faber's, and Secretary of State Frank LaRose's Response to Relators' Motion to Compel - 12/6/21
• Affidavit of Alexander Thomson; Relators' Evidence: Government Materials - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Alexander Thomson; Exhibits Appendix A: Hearing Transcripts (Vol. I-II) - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Alexander Thomson; Exhibits Appendix B: Other Government Materials - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Alexander Thomson; Exhibits Appendix C: SB 258 (Vol. I-III) - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur - 12/10/21
• Affidavit and Expert Report of Kosuke Imai - 12/10/21
• Affidavit and Expert Report of Lisa Handley - 12/10/21
• Presentation of Evidence by Respondents Huffman and Cupp - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Freda J. Levenson; Relators' Evidence: Discovery and Deposition Files - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Freda Levenson; Exhibits Appendix A: Depositions (Vol. I-II) - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Freda Levenson; Exhibits Appendix B: Documents Produced in Discovery (Vol. I-III) - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Freda Levenson; Exhibits Appendix C: Written Discovery - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Freda Levenson; Exhibits Appendix D: General Assembly Redistricting Depositions (Vol. I of IV) - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Freda Levenson; Exhibits Appendix D: General Assembly Redistricting Depositions (Vol. II of IV) - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Freda Levenson; Exhibits Appendix D: General Assembly Redistricting Depositions (Vol. III of IV) - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Freda Levenson; Exhibits Appendix D: General Assembly Redistricting Depositions (Vol. IV of IV) - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Freda Levenson; Exhibits Appendix E: A. Philip Randolph Institute v. Smith Depositions (Vol. I-III) - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Michelle Depass; Exhibits Appendix A: Historical Records - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Michelle Depass; Exhibits Appendix B: Reports - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Michelle Depass; Exhibits Appendix C: News Articles - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Freda Levenson; Evidence of Relators: Reports & Affidavits - 12/10/21
• Affidavit of Freda J. Levenson; Exhibits Appendix: Reports & Affidavits - 12/10/21
• Brief of Amicus Curiae Ohio Environmental Council in Support of Relators - 12/13/21
• Relators' Merits Brief - 12/13/21
• Supplement to Relators' Merits Brief (Vol. I-II) - 12/13/21
• Answer of Secretary of State Frank LaRose to the First Amended Complaint - 12/13/21
• Relators' Motion for Oral Argument - 12/13/21
• Order - 12/14/21
• Secretary of State Frank LaRose's Response to Relators' Motion for Oral Argument - 12/15/21
• Response to Relators' Motion for Oral Argument - 12/15/21
• Order - 12/17/21
• Brief of Secretary of State Frank LaRose - 12/17/21
• Merits Brief of Respondents Huffman and Cupp - 12/17/21
• Relators' Reply in Support of Merits Brief - 12/20/21
• Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Respondents Huffman and Cupp to Relators' Amended Complaint - 12/23/21
• Opinion - 1/14/22
• Petitioners' Motion to Enforce the Court's January 14, 2022 Order - 3/7/22
• Evidence to Motion to Enforce Court's Order (Affidavit of Dr. Christopher Warshaw) - 3/7/22
• Petitioners' Evidence to Motion to Enforce Court's Order (Affidavit of Dr. Kosuke Imai) - 3/7/22
• Order - 3/8/22
• Order - 3/18/22