2023 Ohio 4271
Ohio2023Background
- Petitioners challenged the Ohio Redistricting Commission’s September 2021 General Assembly plan as violating Article XI, §§6(A) and 6(B) (partisan-gerrymandering and proportionality). The Court invalidated that plan and four successor plans in League I–V and retained jurisdiction to review any new plan.
- The commission repeatedly missed Court-ordered deadlines; a federal court (Gonidakis) required use of one interim plan for 2022 elections.
- On September 26–29, 2023 the commission adopted a new General Assembly plan and amended it on September 29; the amendment received bipartisan support and made the plan effective through the 2024–2030 election cycles under Article XI, §8(B).
- Petitioners filed motions for leave to file objections instanter to the September 2023 plan, arguing it still violates Article XI, §6(B). Commission members (McColley, LaRe, LaRose) moved to dismiss the cases and to vacate the Court’s prior League orders.
- The Ohio Supreme Court (per curiam majority) granted the motions to dismiss, denied as moot the motions to vacate, and denied petitioners’ motions for leave to file objections—concluding the bipartisan September 2023 plan changed the circumstances underpinning the original complaints and thus warranted relinquishing continuing jurisdiction.
- Justice Brunner (joined by Justices Donnelly and Stewart) dissented, arguing the Court should have retained jurisdiction, allowed petitioners to file objections, and reviewed the new plan on the merits despite its bipartisan adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cases should be dismissed given the September 2023 bipartisan plan | Complaints alleged constitutional defects that remain reviewable; the Court previously retained jurisdiction to review any new plan | September 2023 plan is materially different (bipartisan approval) and effective through 2030; original complaints no longer correspond to current facts | Dismissed: Court relinquished continuing jurisdiction because the bipartisan adoption changed the circumstances supporting the complaints |
| Whether petitioners may file objections instanter to the September 2023 plan | Petitioners asked leave to file objections arguing the new plan still violates Art. XI §6(B) | Respondents opposed leave and moved to dismiss; argued objections are not proper in these proceedings | Denied: Motions for leave to file objections denied as moot/denied because cases were dismissed |
| Whether the Court should vacate its prior League opinions/orders | Petitioners opposed vacatur to preserve rulings and continuing oversight | McColley/LaRe/LaRose sought vacatur of prior orders as unnecessary given the new bipartisan plan | Motions to vacate denied as moot because dismissal renders vacatur unnecessary |
| Scope of the Court’s continuing jurisdiction to review new plans after prior rulings | Plaintiffs: prior orders retained jurisdiction and set deadlines; Court should still review new plan for constitutional compliance | Defendants: Article XI limits jurisdiction to cases arising under Article XI and jurisdiction requires a complaint tied to current plan/facts | Majority: jurisdiction dependent on a live complaint and facts; changed circumstances justified relinquishment. Dissent: Court should keep jurisdiction and review the plan despite delay and bipartisan vote |
Key Cases Cited
- League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., 167 Ohio St.3d 255 (2022) (invalidating the September 2021 plan and retaining jurisdiction for remedial review)
- League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., 168 Ohio St.3d 28 (2022) (invalidating a successor plan for Article XI violations)
- League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., 168 Ohio St.3d 309 (2022) (invalidating another successor plan and directing remedial action)
- League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., 168 Ohio St.3d 374 (2022) (further review and invalidation of a commission plan)
- League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., 168 Ohio St.3d 522 (2022) (fifth invalidation and order to submit a new plan with retained jurisdiction)
- Gonidakis v. LaRose, 599 F.Supp.3d 642 (S.D. Ohio 2022) (federal district court order requiring use of an interim map for 2022 elections)