2022 Ohio 1727
Ohio2022Background
- Between Sept. 2021 and Mar. 2022 the Ohio Redistricting Commission adopted four General Assembly district plans; this court invalidated each for violating Article XI, §§6(A) and 6(B) and repeatedly ordered the commission to adopt a new, constitutional plan.
- In League IV the court directed the commission to adopt an entirely new plan by May 6, 2022; a federal district court (Gonidakis) later indicated it would impose Map 3 for the 2022 cycle if no lawful plan was in place by May 28.
- Map 3 (the commission’s Feb. 24 plan) had already been held unconstitutional by this court in League III for violating Article XI §6 criteria.
- On May 5 the commission readopted Map 3, limited its stated effectiveness to the 2022 election, and petitioners filed objections on May 6.
- The Ohio Supreme Court (majority) sustained petitioners’ objections, held the readopted Map 3 invalid (including because the commission cannot limit a map to a single election), ordered the commission reconstituted, and directed it to file a new constitutional plan with the secretary of state and this court by 9:00 a.m. / 12:00 p.m. on June 3, 2022, with expedited objection/response deadlines.
- Separate concurring and dissenting opinions dispute: (1) the commission’s bad-faith refusal to follow this court (concurring); and (2) the majority’s constitutional authority to invalidate a plan based on Section 6 and to impose timing/remedies (dissents).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the commission’s readoption of Map 3 | Readoption repeats an unconstitutional plan that violates Article XI §§6(A) & 6(B); it’s invalid in full | Commission says Map 3 is the only viable map for 2022; readoption was necessary for election administration | Court: Readoption invalid; commission must reconstitute and adopt a new constitutional plan |
| Can the commission limit a map’s effect to only 2022 | Petitioners: Constitution fixes map terms (4 or 10 years); commission cannot truncate the map to one election | Commission attempted to limit use to 2022 for administrative reasons | Court: Commission cannot limit a map to one election; readopted Map 3 invalid in its entirety |
| Scope of this court’s remedial authority under Article XI, §9 | Petitioners: Court may order commission to adopt a new plan and retain jurisdiction to review compliance with Article XI | Respondents: Court lacks authority to invalidate a plan solely for alleged Section 6 (subjective) violations and cannot prescribe timelines beyond Article XI | Court (majority): Within its Article XI authority, the court may order reconstitution and require a new plan complying with Article XI §§6(A) & 6(B); retained jurisdiction to review new plan (dissent disagrees) |
| Timing/remedy — ordering a new plan and deadlines | Petitioners: Immediate remedy and prompt deadlines are necessary to protect voting rights and enforce constitutional compliance | Respondents: Deadlines are arbitrary; court lacks power to impose specific timeframes or require an "entirely new" plan | Court: Ordered new-plan filing by June 3 and set expedited objection/response schedule; denied other requested relief (dissenters argue timing/orders exceed court's authority) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cent. Ohio Transit Auth. v. Transport Workers Union of Am., Local 208, 37 Ohio St.3d 56 (1988) (courts should avoid interfering with the legislative function and refrain from exercising legislative prerogatives)