CASE SUMMARY

On September 27, 2021, a coalition of civil and voting rights organizations and Ohio voters filed a lawsuit with the Ohio Supreme Court challenging the Ohio Redistricting Commission's adopted legislative redistricting plans as violating various provisions of the Ohio Constitution. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the legislative plans are partisan gerrymanders primarily designed to favor the Republican Party and disfavor the Democratic Party in violation of Article XI, Section 6, which prohibits legislative plans from being "drawn primarily to favor or disfavor a political party" and provides that the "statewide proportion of districts whose voters . . . favor each political party shall correspond closely to the statewide preferences" of Ohio voters. Additionally, plaintiffs assert that the plans as partisan gerrymanders also violate the plaintiffs' Freedom of Assembly under Article I, Section 3 and Freedom of Speech under Article I, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution. Finally, the plaintiffs claim that the plans as partisan gerrymanders also violate Article XI, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution, which provides that any legislative plan must comply with "all applicable provisions" of the Ohio Constitution, the U.S. Constitution, and federal law. The plaintiffs are seeking a judicial declaration that the commission's legislative plans violate the Ohio Constitution, an injunction barring the defendants from implementing or utilizing the maps in future elections, and for the court to require the Commission to enact new, valid plans that are approved by the court. Oral Arguments for this case were consolidated with League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission and Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Commission and were held on December 8, 2021.

On January 12, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court held, in a 4-3 decision, that the commission's adopted legislative redistricting plans were unconstitutional because they violated the partisan fairness and proportionality requirements under Article XI, Section 6(A) and (B) of the Ohio Constitution. The majority rejected the defendants' argument that there wasn't a manageable standard for measuring a plan's "fairness," stating that Section 6(B) required the commission to "attempt" to draw a plan which achieved close proportionality, which they failed to do. Similarly, the Court also found that the commission did not attempt to comply with the standard given in Section 6(A), noting that the adopted plans' partisan skew towards Republicans was too excessive to be naturally attributable to Ohio's political geography and constitutional map-drawing criteria. The Court declared the state House and state Senate plans invalid and ordered the commission to reform and adopt new, constitutional plans within 10 days of its judgment. The Ohio Redistricting Commission adopted a revised set of legislative plans on January 22, 2022.

On February 7, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion rejecting the Commission's revised legislative plans as unconstitutional, once again finding that they violated the Ohio Constitution's partisan fairness and proportionality requirements. The Court ordered the Commission to reform and adopt an "entirely new" legislative redistricting plan and file it with the Secretary of State by February 17, 2022. On February 18, the Commission notified the Court it had reached an impasse and could not adopt new plans by its deadline. That same day, the Court ordered the defendants to file a response by February 23 explaining why they should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the court's February 7 order. The Commission adopted a third legislative redistricting plan on February 24 and submitted it to the Court, after which the Court postponed the scheduled contempt hearing.

On March 16, the Court issued an opinion rejecting the Commission's second revised legislative plans as, once again, violating the partisan fairness and proportionality provisions of the Ohio Constitution. The Court ordered the commission to reform and work in a bipartisan and transparent manner to draw a third set of revised plans and to file them with the Secretary of State by March 28, 2022, and with the court the following day. The Commission adopted their third revised legislative plans on March 28.

On April 14, the Court issued an opinion rejecting the Commission's third revised legislative plans as violating the same partisan fairness and proportionality constitutional provisions. The Court ordered the Commission to reform and adopt a new set of legislative plans no later than May 6, 2022. On May 5, 2022, the Commission voted to resubmit its third legislative plan to the Court, which it did the following day. The petitioners filed objections to that plan the same day. On May 25, 2022, the Court issued its decision striking down the resubmitted third legislative plan as unconstitutional and ordering the Commission to adopt a new plan by June 3, 2022.

Related Cases: League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission; Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Commission

Similar Cases: Adams v. DeWine; League of Women Voters of Ohio v. DeWine

CASE LIBRARY

Ohio Supreme Court - No. 2021-1210 [together with Nos. 2021-1193 & 2021-1198]

Ohio Organizing Collaborative v. Ohio Redistricting Commission
Tweet This