CASE SUMMARY

On March 22, 2022, a coalition of civil rights organizations and Ohio voters filed a petition with the Ohio Supreme Court challenging the Ohio Redistricting Commission’s remedial congressional plan, which was adopted after the General Assembly’s congressional plan was struck down in Adams v. DeWine, as violating the Ohio Constitution. Plaintiffs alleged the Commission’s congressional plan, like the General Assembly’s before it, violated Article XIX, § 1(C)(3)(a), which prohibits the General Assembly from passing a plan that “unduly favors or disfavors a political party or its incumbents,” and Article XIX, § 1(C)(3)(b), which states the General Assembly “shall not unduly split governmental units.” Although these provisions refer to the General Assembly, plaintiffs argued they should still apply to the Commission’s plan because it was adopted pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court’s order to enact a new plan that “remedied any legal defects in the previous plan identified by the court.” They sought a judicial declaration the Commission’s plan was unconstitutional, an injunction barring the plan from use in future elections, and a court order requiring the General Assembly or Commission to pass or adopt a new plan remedying the defects identified in the Adams decision in time for the 2024 election.

  • On March 29, 2022, the Court consolidated this case with another challenge to the Commission’s remedial congressional plan, Huffman v. Neiman.
  • On July 19, 2022, the Court struck down the Commission’s congressional plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in violation of Article XIX, § 1(C)(3)(a) and issued an order requiring the General Assembly to pass a new, constitutional plan within 30 days and, if they failed to do so, requiring the Ohio Redistricting Commission to adopt a congressional plan within 30 days of the General Assembly’s failure.
  • On October 14, 2022, defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court appealing whether the Ohio Supreme Court’s enforcement and interpretation of the Ohio Constitution’s congressional redistricting provisions complied with the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause.
  • On June 30, 2023, SCOTUS granted certiorari, vacated the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its recent decision involving the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause, Moore v. Harper.
  • On August 23, 2023, the Ohio Supreme Court requested additional briefing from the parties regarding the impact of SCOTUS’s ruling and what additional proceedings should be held.
  • On September 5, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an application for dismissal which the Ohio Supreme Court granted on September 7, 2023, thereby ending the case.

Related Cases: Neiman v. LaRose; League of Women Voters of Ohio v. DeWine; Adams v. DeWine

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

CASE LIBRARY

Ohio Supreme Court - No. 2022-0303 [together with No. 2022-0298]

U.S. Supreme Court - No. 22-362

Ohio Supreme Court - No. 2022-0303 [together with No. 2022-0298] [Remand]