2022 Ohio 342
Ohio2022Background
- On Jan. 12, 2022 the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated the General Assembly district plan the Ohio Redistricting Commission adopted in Sept. 2021 and ordered the commission to adopt a new plan complying with Article XI §§6(A) and 6(B).
- The commission reconvened, staff from legislative parties collaborated regionally, and map-drawers (Republican staffers DiRossi and Springhetti and Democratic consultant Glassburn) exchanged proposals; the commission adopted a revised plan on Jan. 22 by a 5–2 party-line vote.
- The revised plan reclassified several Republican-leaning districts as narrowly Democratic-leaning (many with ~50–51% Democratic vote share) while leaving Republican-leaning districts generally safer (Republican vote shares ≥52.6%).
- Petitioners objected, presenting expert analyses (Drs. Imai, Latner, Rodden) arguing the revised plan (a) was drawn with predominant partisan intent in violation of Article XI §6(A) and (b) failed to closely correspond to statewide partisan preferences in violation of §6(B); the commission defended the map and cited time, constitutional line-drawing constraints, and political geography.
- The majority held petitioners proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Jan. 22 plan violated Article XI §§6(A) and 6(B), invalidated the entire revised plan, ordered the commission to be reconstituted and to adopt a new constitutional plan by Feb. 17–18, 2022, and retained jurisdiction; dissenting justices argued the court lacked authority to invalidate a four-year plan on stand‑alone §6 grounds and would have required only narrow corrections for isolated §3(D)(3) splits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revised plan was drawn primarily to favor a political party (Art. XI §6(A)) | Map-drawers started with the invalidated plan and made minimal partisan-preserving tweaks; map structure (many narrowly Democratic-leaning toss-ups vs. no equally narrow Republican-leaning districts) and statistical outlier analyses show predominant partisan intent to preserve Republican advantage. | Commission argues members and staffs collaborated in good faith under severe time constraints; narrow margins reflect Ohio political geography and efforts to comply with neutral line‑drawing rules, not primary partisan intent. | Majority: Petitioners proved beyond a reasonable doubt the commission violated §6(A); plan invalidated. Dissent: No adequate proof the commission’s primary motivation was partisan. |
| Whether the revised plan attempts to make statewide seat proportions correspond closely to voter preferences (Art. XI §6(B)) | Commission methodology misclassifies many true toss-up districts as Democratic-leaning; alternative methods and simulations (Dr. Imai) show Republicans would still expect a materially larger seat share—plan does not closely correspond to the 54% R / 46% D statewide preference previously identified. | Commission contends the revised plan meets §6(B) within constitutional constraints; exact proportionality is impossible given Ohio’s political geography and other Article XI requirements; alternative plans cited by petitioners contain other constitutional defects. | Majority: Petitioners proved beyond a reasonable doubt the commission failed to attempt to meet §6(B); plan invalidated. Dissent: Revised plan accords with Court’s earlier guidance and §6(B) is satisfied given constraints; majority moved goalposts. |
| Whether the court may invalidate a four-year plan on stand‑alone §6 violations or otherwise commandeer the commission (Article XI §9 limits) | Petitioners maintain §6 violations are enforceable and the court may order reconstitution and a new plan under §9(B) after invalidating a prior plan. | Respondents and several justices argue Article XI §9(D) limits remedies to violations of §§2,3,4,5,7 and that §6 and §1 are directory and not standalone judicially enforceable; court lacks authority to impose deadlines and retain jurisdiction. | Majority: Proceeds to invalidate on §6 grounds, reconstitute commission, set deadline, and retain jurisdiction. Dissent: Court exceeded constitutional limits; §6 and §1(C) are not judicially enforceable as standalone bases to invalidate a four-year plan; only isolated §3(D)(3) flaws should be remanded for correction. |
| Whether alleged procedural and subdivision‑split defects (Art. XI §1(C), §3(D)(3)) require relief | Petitioners alleged violations of §1(C) and §3(D)(3); some petitioners sought additional remedies. | Commission conceded a few isolated §3(D)(3) municipal/township splits; argued any §1(C) defects were directory and not a basis for invalidation. | Majority: Because it sustained §6 objections and invalidated the plan in full, it did not rule on §1(C) or §3(D)(3). Separate opinions: Dissent would have treated §3(D)(3) splits as isolated and ordered amendment under §9(D)(3)(a), and rejected §1(C) as non‑enforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986) (plurality on proving partisan intent in districting)
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) (political-question limits on federal judicial review of partisan gerrymandering)
- State v. Billotto, 104 Ohio St. 13 (1922) (courts may not add to or subtract from plain constitutional text)
- DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 193 (1997) (judicial intervention and limits; referenced for caution about court-imposed mandates)
- DeRolph v. State, 89 Ohio St.3d 1 (2000) (continued discussion of judicial remedies and separation concerns)
- DeRolph v. State, 93 Ohio St.3d 309 (2001) (reconsideration of judicial directives and practical consequences)
- Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) (dissent cited for limits on judicial overreach)