599 F.Supp.3d 642
S.D. Ohio2022Background
- Ohio’s Redistricting Commission (seven-member body) failed to produce a state-legislative map that the Ohio Supreme Court would uphold, resulting in four rejected Commission maps and ongoing litigation while the primary calendar advanced.
- Ohio law set the 2022 primary for state legislative races on May 3; practical and statutory deadlines make May 3 infeasible and make April 20 (drop-dead) the latest date to adopt a new map to permit an August 2 special-election primary without disrupting the November general election.
- The Commission adopted Map 3 and began implementation (80 of 88 counties loaded it) before the Ohio Supreme Court enjoined it for violating state constitutional proportionality/anti‑partisan‑favoritism requirements; the Commission later adopted Map 4, also rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court.
- Plaintiffs (voters) sued in federal court seeking injunction relief to ensure a lawful primary and offered Map 3 (or Map 4) as a remedy; intervenors (including League of Women Voters and Democratic commissioners) opposed federal imposition of those maps and preferred independent-drafter maps or a court-drawn plan.
- The three-judge federal panel found plaintiffs had standing and that, under Growe/Branch precedent, federal courts must defer to state processes but must intervene as a last resort to protect the federal right to vote; because Ohio had not adopted a usable map by the drop-dead date, the court set May 28 as the last day to defer and announced it would impose Map 3 on May 28 for the 2022 cycle only if the State did not act; the panel moved the legislative primary to August 2 if federal intervention became necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant / Intervenors' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue to preserve a state-mandated primary | Voters’ inability to campaign, associate, and vote in a primary is a concrete, individualized injury | Defendants argued the injury is a generalized grievance shared by all voters | Plaintiffs have standing: individualized vote-related injuries established at PI stage |
| Constitutional right to a primary mandated by state law | If state law guarantees a primary, failing to hold one violates federal constitutional protections (due process/right to vote) | Some argued federal courts should defer and that cancellation or alteration is a state-law issue; others disputed scope of federal remedy | Court (at PI stage) concluded plaintiffs are likely to succeed: federal protection applies where state-mandated election would be entirely forgone or fundamentally unfair |
| When to intervene given Growe/Branch/Purcell (timing/comity) | Federal court should wait as long as possible but must act before drop-dead date to avoid disenfranchisement | Intervenors urged continued deference to state process and more time for state courts/Commission | Court balanced deference and intervention: stayed until May 28 then would implement Map 3 to preserve the August 2 primary if state failed to act |
| Which map to impose as equitable remedy | Plaintiffs sought Map 3 or 4 (Commission‑approved) to minimize disruption; alternatively accept malapportioned 2010 map for one cycle | Intervenors favored maps by independent mapmakers or a court-appointed special master; dissent urged adopting Johnson/McDonald independent plan complying with Ohio Supreme Court rulings | Court chose Map 3 as the least‑disruptive backstop (May 28 implementation if no state action) and set primary for August 2 for 2022 only; concurrence/dissent disagreed on overruling state-court rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- Branch v. Smith, 538 U.S. 254 (U.S. 2003) (federal courts may impose plans when states fail to adopt lawful maps but should defer until a drop-dead date)
- Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1993) (federal courts must defer to ongoing state redistricting efforts and act only when state processes fail to protect voters)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2006) (federal courts should avoid last‑minute changes to election rules to prevent voter and administrative confusion)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1964) (one‑person, one‑vote principle; malapportioned legislative districts violate Equal Protection)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962) (federal courts may adjudicate redistricting claims affecting representational interests)
- Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1982) (when courts must order interim reapportionment, modifications should be limited to curing constitutional defects and respect state policy)
- White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1973) (federal courts should follow state policies and preferences in designing remedies where feasible)