2022 Ohio 89
Ohio2022Background
- After the 2020 census Ohio lost a congressional seat (16 -> 15). The General Assembly failed to obtain a bipartisan 3/5 supermajority by Sept. 30 and the Redistricting Commission did not adopt a plan by Oct. 31. The legislature enacted S.B. 258 by simple majority and the governor signed it on Nov. 20, 2021.
- Article XIX of the Ohio Constitution (effective Jan. 1, 2021) creates a three-step redistricting process and imposes constraints when a plan is enacted by simple majority: it shall not "unduly favor or disfavor a political party or its incumbents," shall not "unduly split governmental units," and the legislature must "attempt to draw districts that are compact." The Ohio Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over Article XIX disputes.
- Petitioners (voters, League of Women Voters, A. Philip Randolph Institute) sued within ten days, alleging S.B. 258 violates Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(a) (undue partisan favoritism) and 1(C)(3)(b) (undue splitting of governmental units). The Court heard extensive expert evidence and oral argument.
- Majority factual findings: multiple experts showed S.B. 258 is a statistical outlier that will likely elect 11–12 Republican seats despite statewide Republican vote share near ~53%; simulated Article XIX–compliant maps produced far fewer Republican seats; the enacted plan "packs and cracks" Democrats in Hamilton, Franklin, Cuyahoga, and Summit Counties producing noncompact and irregular districts.
- Holding (majority): the plan is invalid in its entirety because it unduly favors Republicans and unduly splits Hamilton, Cuyahoga, and Summit Counties; the General Assembly must pass a new Article XIX–compliant plan within 30 days (or the reconstituted Commission must do so).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article XIX, §1(C)(3)(a) provides a judicially manageable standard to prohibit a plan that "unduly favors or disfavors a political party or its incumbents" | The enacted plan unduly favors Republicans beyond what neutral criteria and Ohio political geography warrant; experts' analyses and simulations show the plan is a partisan outlier | The clause is vague/nonjusticiable or, at minimum, does not demand proportionality; legislature reasonably pursued competitive districts using a defensible competitiveness metric and dataset | Majority: §1(C)(3)(a) is judicially enforceable; S.B. 258 unduly favors Republicans and disfavors Democrats beyond neutral criteria and political geography (plan invalid). Dissent: plaintiffs failed to meet burden; legislature permissibly prioritized competitiveness over proportionality and complied with Article XIX criteria. |
| Whether Article XIX, §1(C)(3)(b) prohibits "undue" splitting of governmental units when the plan complies with §2(B) splitting limits | The plan unduly splits Hamilton, Cuyahoga, and Summit to achieve partisan advantage (packing/cracking), not to satisfy neutral criteria | Compliance with §2(B) (permitted number of county splits, keeping many cities whole) and the plan splits the minimum number of counties necessary; splitting choices were reasonable and driven by Article XIX constraints | Majority: §1(C)(3)(b) is independent of §2(B) and forbids splits that are excessive/unwarranted by neutral criteria; the cited county splits are undue and contributed to partisan bias. Dissent: plan complies with §2(B) and splits are explainable by neutral constraints; no undue splitting shown. |
| Proper remedy where plan is invalid under Article XIX | Invalidate plan; require General Assembly to adopt a new compliant plan within the Article XIX §3(B)(1) 30-day deadline, or reconstituted Commission act under §3(B)(2) | N/A (defendants argued compliance/no invalidity) | Court: invalidate entire plan as defects are systemic; order General Assembly to pass a remedial plan within 30 days (else Commission must). |
| Standard and burden of proof in an Article XIX challenge | Petitioners urged application of rigorous judicial review using statistical proof showing plan is an outlier and unlawful | Respondents urged deference to legislative choices, arguing plaintiffs had not carried burden beyond reasonable doubt and that political questions and baseline choices (e.g., dataset, "competitiveness" definition) weigh against judicial intervention | Court: assumed the highest standard (beyond reasonable doubt) but found petitioners’ evidence met it; majority applied Article XIX text, neutral criteria in §2, and simulations as benchmarks; dissent would have deferred to the legislature and rejected plaintiffs’ showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (plurality opinion discussing manageability of partisan-gerrymandering standards)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (judicial duty to say what the law is)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (legislative apportionment is subject to judicial review; one-person, one-vote principle)
- Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (population equality as paramount apportionment objective)
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (racial-gerrymandering framework; communities of interest concept referenced)
- Wilson v. Kasich, 134 Ohio St.3d 221 (Ohio precedent on redistricting burdens and evidence; emphasized limits of Article XI as prior framework)
- Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers v. State Bd. of Edn., 111 Ohio St.3d 568 (legislation entitled to strong presumption of constitutionality)
- State ex rel. Bishop v. Mt. Orab Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 139 Ohio St. 427 (courts determine whether a statute transcends legislative power)