2022 Ohio 789
Ohio2022Background
- Ohio Redistricting Commission adopted three successive General Assembly plans; this is the third review after this Court invalidated the first two (League I and League II) for failing Article XI standards.
- The commission missed the Court’s February 17 deadline to adopt a new plan, then adopted a "second revised plan" on February 24 by a 4–3 party-line vote (Republican majority).
- Democratic commissioners (Sykes, Russo) allege they were excluded from map-drafting; Republicans (Huffman, Cupp) relied on legislative caucus map-drawers and staff.
- Petitioners challenged the second revised plan under Article XI, Sections 6(A) (no plan drawn primarily to favor/disfavor a party) and 6(B) (statewide partisan proportionality), and sought alternative relief (validation/adoption of alternative maps).
- The Court reviewed contested expert evidence on partisan symmetry, competitiveness, and effects of uniform swings; it treated challenger objections as requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second revised plan was drawn primarily to favor/disfavor a political party (Art. XI §6(A)) | Plan was produced by Republican-controlled process and yields a one-sided allocation of toss-up districts, showing primary intent to favor Republicans | Commission followed its procedural authority; simple-majority adoption is permitted; no evidence of primary partisan intent | Court: Petitioners proved beyond a reasonable doubt the plan violated §6(A); plan invalidated |
| Whether statewide seat proportions correspond closely to voter preferences (Art. XI §6(B)) | Numerous Democratic-leaning toss-up districts (50–52% vote share) are competitive and should be excluded from proportionality; excluding them yields gross disproportionality favoring Republicans | Plan attains 54/46 seat split matching statewide preference; competitive districts are legitimate and reflect Ohio geography | Court: Districts with Democratic vote shares under 52% are competitive and must be excluded; after exclusion plan is grossly disproportional and violates §6(B) |
| Whether the commission complied with Article XI drafting process (Section 1(C)) and minority participation | Minority commissioners were excluded from drafting; staff of Republican leaders controlled map-drawing, violating the commission’s duty to "draft" | Constitution and commission rules permit introduction/adoption by majority and use of staff; Section 8 impasse procedure contemplates majority-drafted plans lasting four years | Court: Process was one-sided and supports inference of partisan intent under §6(A); ordered reconstitution and new drafting in public (did not separately decide §1(C)) |
| Remedies available and limits on Court authority under Article XI §9 | Petitioners sought validation/adoption of alternative plans, appointment of special master, injunctions delaying election tasks | Respondents argued court lacks authority to adopt or impose particular plans; impasse/default rules in Article XI constrain relief; Secretary of State may act while plan remains presumptively valid | Court: Invalidated entire second revised plan, ordered reconstitution and a new plan by specified deadlines; denied requests to adopt alternate plans or other extraconstitutional remedies; retained jurisdiction for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (plurality) (evidence of single-party control is probative of partisan intent)
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019) (discussion of justiciability and partisan-gerrymandering metrics)
- League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) (incumbency protection can be used neutrally but may be abused)
- Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) (legitimate districting objectives can include avoiding incumbent contests)
- Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004) (discussion of partisan considerations and judicially manageable standards)
- Scott v. Germano, 381 U.S. 407 (1965) (state courts have sometimes fashioned remedial plans when political actors fail)
- National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582 (1949) (limits on judicial extension of powers; deference to text when construing constitutional grants of authority)