League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 1235

Background

The Ohio Redistricting Commission adopted a "third revised plan" on March 28, 2022 after this Court had invalidated three prior General Assembly plans for violating Article XI.
Following League III, the commission hired two independent map drawers (Dr. Michael McDonald and Dr. Douglas Johnson), adopted public "ground rules," livestreamed map-drawing, and held daily meetings.
On the final day, Republican commissioners moved to adopt a plan that was a near-minor modification of the previously invalidated second revised plan (prepared by Republican-caucus staff) rather than the near-complete independent-drawers’ plan; Democratic commissioners were provided only minutes to review before voting.
Petitioners challenged the third revised plan as violating Article XI, Sections 6(A) (no plan drawn primarily to favor/disfavor a party) and 6(B) (statewide proportionality), submitting expert analyses.
The Supreme Court held the third revised plan invalid for violations of Sections 6(A) and 6(B), declined to adopt any alternative plan itself (citing Article XI limits), ordered the commission reconstituted, and set a May 6, 2022 filing deadline for a new plan.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the third revised plan violate Article XI §6(A) (no plan drawn primarily to favor/disfavor a party)?	Process and product show partisan intent: maps drawn/modified by majority-party staff, Democrats excluded from drafting/review, plan largely recycled from invalidated predecessor; partisan effects reinforce intent.	Commission improved proportionality and followed a public process (hired independent drawers); timing constraints justified actions.	Held: Yes. Court found beyond a reasonable doubt intent to favor Republicans and disfavor Democrats; plan invalid under §6(A).
Does the third revised plan violate Article XI §6(B) (statewide proportionality)?	Many districts labeled "Democratic-leaning" (50–52%) are actually competitive; excluding those from proportionality reveals large asymmetry favoring Republicans (not close correspondence to 54/46 statewide preference).	The plan meets the 54/46 seat ratio; comparisons to independent-drawers’ plan show similar outcomes under hypothetical swings.	Held: Yes. The Court treated the 23 sub-52% Democratic-leaning seats as competitive and excluded them, concluding the noncompetitive allocation does not closely correspond to statewide preferences.
May this Court adopt or validate an alternative plan (e.g., independent map drawers’ plan) as relief?	Petitioners asked the Court to impose an alternative plan to avoid federal intervention and electoral disruption.	Respondents argued (and the Court recognized) Article XI forbids the Court from ordering adoption or implementation of a plan not approved by the commission.	Held: No. The Court concluded it lacks constitutional authority under Article XI, §9(D) to order adoption or implementation of a particular plan; it declined to validate or impose an alternative plan.
May the Court impose additional remedies (contempt, immediate enforcement, or presumptive validation)?	Petitioners sought contempt and other extraordinary relief to enforce prior directions or to secure an adopted map.	Respondents contended the Court lacked power to direct commission operations or hold it in contempt for legislative-function decisions.	Held: Court denied contempt and other extraordinary remedies; it invalidated the plan, reconstituted the commission, and set expedited deadlines for a new plan while retaining jurisdiction.

Key Cases Cited

Scott v. Germano, 381 U.S. 407 (1965) (encouragement of state remedial action in reapportionment disputes).
Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (1993) (federal courts should defer when states are addressing redistricting).
Toledo v. State, 154 Ohio St.3d 41 (2018) (requirements for contempt enforcement; orders must be clear and definite).
Denovchek v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (1988) (contempt power and standards).
DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 419 (1997) (judiciary not to supervise or participate in legislative/executive processes).
Egan v. Natl. Distillers & Chem. Corp., 25 Ohio St.3d 176 (1986) (court will not issue advisory opinions).
Planned Parenthood Assn. of Cincinnati, Inc. v. Project Jericho, 52 Ohio St.3d 56 (1990) (contempt and enforcement principles).
Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55 (1971) (contempt criteria).
Bostock v. Clayton Cty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) (observational citation on form of judicial opinions).