CASE SUMMARY

On September 27, 2021, a coalition of civil and voting rights organizations and Ohio voters filed a petition with the Ohio Supreme Court challenging the Ohio Redistricting Commission’s adopted legislative redistricting plans as violating the Ohio Constitution’s partisan gerrymandering prohibition (Art. XI, § 6(A)) and partisan fairness provision (Art. XI., § 6(B)), which prohibit plans from being drawn “primarily to favor or disfavor a political party” and require the statewide proportion of districts whose voters favor each party to correspond closely with the statewide preferences of Ohio voters, respectively. Plaintiffs also alleged that as partisan gerrymanders, the plans also violated the Ohio Constitution’s Freedom of Speech and Assembly Clauses, as well as the requirement that legislative plans comply with all applicable federal and state constitutional and statutory provisions. They sought a judicial declaration the plans were unconstitutional, an injunction barring the plans from use in future elections, and a court order requiring either the adoption of new, lawful plans or remedial corrections to the adopted plans.

  • On December 8, 2021, the Ohio Supreme Court heard consolidated oral arguments for this case, League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm’n, and Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm’n.
  • On January 12, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court held, in a 4-3 decision, that the adopted legislative plans violated both the partisan gerrymandering and proportional representation provisions. The Court rejected the defendants’ argument there wasn’t a “manageable” standard for measuring a plan’s “fairness,” stating that § 6(B) required the commission to attempt to draw a plan which achieved close proportionality, which it failed to do here. Similarly, the Court found the commission didn’t attempt to comply with the § 6(A) standard since the plans’ pro-Republican partisan skew was too excessive to be caused by political geography or neutral redistricting criteria. The Court ordered the commission to reform and adopt revised legislative plans within 10 days. The commission submitted its revised plans to the Court on January 22, 2022.
  • On February 7, 2022, the Court rejected the Commission’s revised legislative plans, finding they still violated the state constitution’s partisan gerrymandering and partisan fairness provisions. The Court ordered the Commission to reform, adopt entirely new legislative plans, and file them with the Secretary of State by February 17, 2022.
  • On February 18, the Commission notified the Court it had reached an impasse and couldn’t adopt new plans by the Court’s deadline. The Court initially asked the Commission to file an explanation by February 23 why it shouldn’t be held in contempt for failing to comply, but the contempt hearing was postponed after the Commission adopted a second set of revised legislative plans on February 24, 2022, and submitted them to the Court.
  • On March 16, 2022, the Court rejected the Commission’s second set of revised legislative plans for still violating the same state constitutional provisions. The Court ordered the Commission to reform, adopt a third set of revised legislative plans by March 28, 2022, and file them with the Court by March 29, which the Commission did.
  • On April 14, 2022, the Court rejected the Commission’s third revised legislative plans for violating the same state constitutional provisions and ordered the Commission to reform and adopt a fourth set of revised legislative plans by May 6, 2022. On May 5, 2022, the Commission voted to resubmit its third set of revised legislative plans to the Court, which it did the following day.
  • On May 25, 2022, the Court again rejected the resubmitted third set of legislative plans for violating the same state constitutional provisions and ordered the Commission to adopt a new plan by June 3, 2022.
  • On May 27, 2022, the federal district court overseeing Gonidakis v. Ohio Redistricting Comm’n, a federal lawsuit that had been filed over Ohio’s legislative redistricting deadlock, issued an order requiring the State to implement its February 24-adopted plans for interim use in the 2022 elections only, after which the State would be required to adopt lawful legislative plans.
  • On September 29, 2023, the Commission unanimously adopted revised legislative plans and submitted them to the Ohio Supreme Court on October 2, 2023. Plaintiffs, soon after, filed motions requesting they be able to file objections to the new plans, and defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.
  • On November 27, 2023, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion and order denying the plaintiffs’ requests to file objections and granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case as moot. The Court explained the Commission’s latest plans were adopted unanimously with bipartisan support and, based on the facts before it, the plaintiffs’ complaints were no longer supported.

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]