Wilson v. Kasich
981 N.E.2d 814
Ohio2012Background
- The Ohio Apportionment Board, consisting of the governor, auditor, secretary of state, one house speaker ally, and one Senate leader ally, drew the 2011 General Assembly districts; the board voted to approve amended plans and adopted the final map with party-line votes.
- Relators filed in January 2012 challenging the 2011 plan under Article XI and seeking declaratory/injunctive relief restricting its use for elections.
- The court initially dismissed some claims and sought supplemental briefing on jurisdiction, neutrality, burden of proof, and harmonization of Article XI sections.
- The court held the apportionment plan is presumptively constitutional and relators bear the burden to prove constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court analyzed Sections 3, 7, and 10 of Article XI, emphasizing the board’s broad discretion but requiring adherence to constitutional constraints; it reaffirmed that Section 7(D) is coequal with 7(A)-(C) and not to be used to override explicit population requirements.
- Dissenting opinions argue the majority gave Section 10 priority over Section 7 and that several county divisions violated Section 7(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is before the court with incomplete board naming? | Relators contend lack of all board members as parties undermines jurisdiction. | Board lack of party status does not deprive court of jurisdiction; Article XI grants exclusive original jurisdiction. | Merits properly before the court; jurisdiction acknowledged. |
| Does Article XI mandate political neutrality in reapportionment? | Relators argue neutrality required to prevent partisan gerrymandering. | Constitution does not mandate neutrality; partisan factors allowed after constitutional criteria are met. | No strict neutrality required; politics cannot trump constitutional constraints. |
| What is the burden of proof to challenge an apportionment plan? | Relators must prove plan unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. | Presumption of validity applies; relators must show beyond reasonable doubt. | Burden on challengers is beyond a reasonable doubt; plan presumed valid absent proof otherwise. |
| How do Sections 3, 7, and 10 harmonize when in tension? | Relators argue 7(A)-(C) must govern; 10 cannot override core limits. | Section 7 is coequal with 10; when irreconcilable, board chooses properly within this framework. | 7(A)-(C) are coequal with 7(D); in tension, the board may choose among coequal provisions. |
| Did the board violate Section 7(A) by splitting counties unnecessarily? | Relators show specific counties split not required by Section 3. | Discretion to minimize splits, but Section 7(D) can justify boundary choices. | Relators proved violations of Section 7(A); remapping requested. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Skaggs v. Brunner, 120 Ohio St.3d 506 (2008) (presumption of regularity; burden on challenger to show unconstitutionality beyond doubt)
- State ex rel. Speeth v. Carney, 163 Ohio St. 159 (1955) (presumption officers acted lawfully; high burden for challenge)
- Voinovich v. Ferguson, 63 Ohio St.3d 198 (1992) (apportionment plan reviewed under substantial deference; upholds broad discretion)
- Herbert v. Bricker, 139 Ohio St. 499 (1942) (gerrymandering prevention; apportionment in impartial hands)