On March 22, 2022 a group of Ohio voters filed a lawsuit against Ohio's Secretary of State, the Speaker of the Ohio House, the President of the Ohio Senate and the Ohio Redistricting Commission challenging the state's remedial congressional plan, which was adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission after the Ohio Supreme Court struck down the General Assembly's original plan in Adams v. DeWine, as violating the Ohio Constitution. Plaintiffs allege the remedial plan contains the same constitutional violations as its predecessor: it was drawn to disproportionately advantage the Republican Party and its candidates in violation of Article XIX, Section 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 it unduly and excessively divides communities and political subdivisions throughout the state in violation of Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(b), which provides the General Assembly "shall not unduly split governmental units." The plaintiffs assert despite the remedial plan having been adopted by the Commission following the General Assembly's failure to pass one by its deadline, it should nonetheless be subject to those provisions' restrictions pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3(B)(2), which states the Commission "shall remedy any legal defects in the previous plan identified by the court" when adopting a remedial plan. They are seeking a judicial declaration that the remedial congressional plan violates Article XIX of the Ohio Constitution, an injunction barring the defendants from implementing or using the plan in future elections beginning with the 2024 election cycle, and a court order requiring the General Assembly or the Commission to adopt a remedial plan that corrects the defects articulated in the Court's prior opinion in time for the 2024 elections.

On March 29, the Court consolidated this case with another challenge to Ohio's remedial congressional plan, Neiman v. LaRose. On July 19, the Court issued an opinion and order striking down the remedial congressional plan as unconstitutional 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 ordered the General Assembly to pass a new congressional plan that complies with the Ohio Constitution within 30 days and, if they fail to do so, requiring the Ohio Redistricting Commission to adopt a congressional plan within 30 days of the General Assembly's failure. The defendants appealed the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on October 14, 2022.

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


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]