Quilter v. Voinovich

QUILTER, al., Barney Plaintiffs, et

v.

George VOINOVICH, V. al.,

et Defendants.

No. 5:91 CV 2219. Court,

United States District Ohio,

N.D. E.D.

Jan. Timothy Scanlon, F. Scanlon Gearing- &

er, Akron, Ohio, Gilliam, Armistead Jr., W. Wightman, Faruki, Ann Ireland, Gilliam & Dayton, Ohio, plaintiffs. for Timothy Scanlon, F. Scanlon Gearing- & er, Akron, Ohio, Atkins, Sr., Thomas I. Brooklyn, N.Y., Gilliam, Jr., Armistead W. Wightman, Ann Sanom, Faruki, Laura A. Ireland, Gilliam Ohio, & Dayton, plain- for tiff William L. Mallory. Collier, III,

Orla Ellis Norton Victor Goodman, DeLeone, James F. Mark D. Tucker, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, Columbus, Ohio, M. Charles Rosenberg, Maynard Buck, III, A. Jeremy Gilman, Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants. JONES, PECK, Before Judge, Circuit Judge, DOWD, Senior Circuit District Judge.

OPINION AND ORDER PECK, JOHN W. Judge. Senior Circuit three-judge This district court was con- vened to hear Plaintiffs’ constitutional statutory challenges Apportion- to the 1991 ment Plan Assembly Ohio General (the Plan). Barney Quilter, Plaintiff representative state designee Speaker of the Ohio Representa- House of tives, and Plaintiff Ferguson, Thomas Auditor, Ohio’s were the mem- Democratic (the Apportionment bers of the 1991 Board Board). remaining Plaintiffs are Dem- ocratic legislators, electors and some state of whom are protected of a members class Voting Rights under the Act. Plaintiffs prerequi- or (a) voting qualification No uses impermissibly Plan the allege that standard, or practice, voting or to site and dilutes districts to draw race applied by imposed or shall be procedure the of of in violation strength § voting in a political subdivision 1973, and or Act, any State 42 U.S.C. § Voting Rights or a denial in results amendments which fifteenth manner and fourteenth the of any citizen right of Addi- of the abridgement Constitution. States the United to of on account state pendant a to vote States the United Plaintiffs assert tionally, of the the color, Article XI inor contravention violates or Plan race the that claim 4(f)(2) specific provides in section [42 set forth guarantees which Constitution Ohio sub- provided in 1973b(f)(2)], as guidelines. U.S.C. § (b). section Voinovich, Governor George Defendants (a) is estab- of subsection (b) A violation II, Taft, Ohio, Ohio’s Robert of the State of totality the of if, the on based Aronoff, lished Stanley State, and Secretary of politi- the circumstances, shown that it is Senate, the were the of Ohio President or leading nomination to processes cal Appor- of the members Republican political subdivi- or in the State Tilling election James Defendant Board. tionment participation open to equally are not sion that contend Defendants Plan. the drafted protect- of citizens 1982, of a class by in members Act, amended as Voting Rights the (a) its members in that by that, ed subsection wherev- required case law and federal than other mem- opportunity have less majority-minority they create possible, er in participate to of the electorate bers in which i.e., legislative districts districts, repre- elect process and to political the comprise the minority group aof members to The extent choice. of their sentatives majority. class have protected of a which members fully appear more reasons which For or the State in to office elected been Voting the hereinafter, that conclude we circumstance is one political subdivision not precedent do and federal Rights Act Provided, That considered: may be which requirement. While per se a dictate such right a establishes nothing in this section appro- be an may such of creation class protected aof members to have circumstances, certain remedy under priate propor- their equal to in numbers elected requi- the to make failed here Defendants population. in tion the a violation demonstrate findings which site the focus on not Thus, the statute does Act, thereby permit- Voting Rights the chal- the behind or motivation purpose remedy. a ting such the re- but procedure, or lenged practice A practice procedure. or LAW of such APPLICABLE sults by a review is to be determined violation rationale the to understand In order of the circumstances. totality developed, it is neces- was Plan which list Rights nonexhaustive Voting following is a The 2 of sary to review § the circum- Ohio, totality of to v. relevant a amended, Armour Act, factors as to may be used 1991). In that assessment (N.D.Ohio stances F.Supp. 1044 partic- to leg- opportunity unequal amended. establish an Act Voting Rights was and elect process political stated ipate amendment of the history islative any vot- of choice: prohibit “to was candidate purpose its that results procedure history of official ing practice[ any [that] or 1. the extent ] that clear “to make political state or discrimination” discrimination re- is not discriminatory right intent of the touched the proof that subdivision 2.” reg- of Section to minority group violation to establish a quired of the members Cong., 2d Sess. vote, participate S.Rep. ister, No. 97th or otherwise Cong. & Admin.News (1982) process; U.S.Code democratic 179. pp. voting to which the extent political subdivi- or of the state Act, elections as Rights Voting 2 of the Section racially polarized; is sion amended, provides: the extent polit- to which the state or pends upon a searching practical evaluation ” ical unusually subdivision has large used ‘past present reality.’ Id. at districts, election majority require- vote ments, anti-single provisions, shot or oth- One month before the published Board voting practices procedures er or that here, the challenged Plan the Armour may opportunity enhance the for discrim- Armour, court filed its decision. In the against minority group; ination the plaintiffs alleged voting that a district 4. if slating there is a candidate boundary in Mahoning County drawn un- process, whether the mi- members of the apportionment der the 1981 plan which nority group have been denied access to split large, a population cohesive Black be- process; that tween two deliberately districts and effec- the extent to which members of the tively diluted the vote in violation minority group political the state or Voting 2 of the Rights Act and the § subdivision bear the effects of discrimi- fifteenth amendment. The Armour court education, nation such areas as em- conducted a “searching practical investiga- health, ployment and which hinder their past tion present of the reality” in ability participate effectively to Mahoning County by applying totality the (footnote omitted); political process of the circumstances factors and concluded political campaigns 6. whether have boundary that the was indeed violative of by been characterized overt or subtle ra- Voting 2 of the Rights Act and the fif- § appeals; cial teenth amendment. Significantly, the the extent to which members of the population Black illegal divided minority group pub- have elected to been boundary large enough was not to form the (footnote jurisdiction lic office in the majority single-member of a district. omitted). Thus, recognized the court in Armour that 417, S.Rep. Cong., No. 97th 2d Sess. 28-29 a group minority cohesive voters could (1982) Cong. U.S.Code & AdmimNews. though they an election even did influence 177, pp. 205-207. Additional factors comprise majority not a in the district. probative that could have value in estab- Armour, F.Supp. at 1059-60. lishing a violation are: significant

whether there is a lack of responsiveness part on the FACTUAL BACKGROUND of elected of- particularized ficials to the needs of the Constitution, beginning Under Ohio (footnote minority group members of the thereafter, every year in 1971 and tenth a omitted). five-member board is to as- policy underlying whether the state publish apportionment plan semble and an political or use of such vot- subdivision’s Const, Assembly. the General Ohio ing qualification, prerequisite voting, to XI, In provi- art. accordance with this § standard, practice procedure or or is ten- sion, apportionment plan published an was (footnote omitted). uous 1981, prior and became effective in to the at 29. Id. Voting Rights 1982 amendment of the Act. Plan, Tilling, The Senate Committee noted that “there is as author of the 1991 testified requirement any particular no that necessary number that he tried “to make the proved, majority changes of factors or bring apportion- be that a this current point way plan conformity them one or the other.” ment into Id. with the 1982 I, (Tilling Dep., Whether a violation has occurred is amendments.” Vol. at § totality 168). During August on the of the “based circumstances the end of 1991 and guided by beginning September Tilling those relevant factors in the case_” particular public meetings Id. at 29 n. 118 conducted fourteen Cong. pp. throughout purpose U.S.Code & AdmimNews Ohio for the of obtain- “question ing public minority input 207. The ultimate whether the comment and on political processes ‘equally open’ are de- the 1991 Plan. between 7.7% increased was district hearings, each public at these his comments In these that assert Plaintiffs interpre- his that 13.68%. stated repeatedly

Tilling voters pack black impermissibly related Rights Act and Voting increases tation wasted are of a votes creation their where required in districts case law federal possi- crossover wherever substantial exists district there because majority-minority Exhibits, For ex- candi- passim. to elect blacks voting which allows Trial Joint ble. Columbus, that hearing allege also public Plaintiffs of choice. ample, at dates 27, 1991, Tilling revised, seg- stated Ohio, August were on these where Supreme States having United small comply with district the former that ments Board Apportionment with guidelines, combined were minority populations Court that wherever mandate fragmenta- resulting “under a in the was districts other created, can be district voting majority-minority minority of dilution and tion Exhibits, Trial Joint done.” must be that allege that Similarly, Plaintiffs strength. the that Tilling also stated 2, at 12. legis- Tab by the white represented districts the record for the “establish to needed Board on voting records responsive with lators each circumstances totality the of the portions so that divided issues were black Voting comply with the to area” urban into packed were population black of the in Arm- decision the recent Act and Rights black percentage of high awith districts 13, Exhibits, Tab (Joint Trial our, supra. into districts fragmented or population other community leaders and 33). Black at pop- of black percentage such a small with public at the spoke persons interested strength voting minority that the ulation by the adopted Plan The was meetings. for justification diminished. As be would Board on Octo- majority on the Republican assert Defendants configurations, these 3, and 1991, October 1, on amended ber Act and federal Voting Rights the that Quilter Plaintiffs on published October majority- drawing of the law mandate case dissented. Ferguson and agree. We cannot minority districts. under action, allege that Plaintiffs this In rights by minority protecting guise of the ANALYSIS districts, Defen- majority-minority creating into minorities actually packed have dants dis- majority-minority for A. Justification historical- where minorities certain districts tricts of representatives elect to ly were able Voting 2 of the language of § con- Plaintiffs votes. with crossover choice requirement no Act Rights contains wasting packing results the that tend pro it Rather districts. majority-minority and packed districts minority votes “standard, proce or practice, any hibits sur- strength in voting minority diluting or in a denial results ... which dure “packed” voters where the rounding areas of right any of citizen the abridgement of Specifi- influence elections. possibly could account vote on to United States dilu- allege minority vote cally, Plaintiffs against directed It color....” is or race nine the revision resulting from tion they are results, regardless of how certain represented been have which districts of ma Thus, creation where the produced. legis- or a white minority legislator a either minority districts wastes jority-minority on voting record to 100% awith 90% lator influ minority and dilutes by packing votes minority issues. related to bills is an result by fragmenting, ence each legislators, regard to black With on right to vote ... “abridgement of the thir- six and to between elected been has which violates or color” of race account between For elections terms. teen Su Act. The United States Voting Rights an with elected each was principle: this recognized has preme Court ranging between 68.27% plurality average voting minority group racial Dilution apportion- Under and 72.64%. dispersal by the may be caused strength their population in the black plan, ment they con which districts in into blacks Un- to 53.19%. ranged from 38.5% districts minority of voters an ineffective stitute Plan, population the black der attempted prove or from the concentration of blacks into that their ability to they districts where constitute an exces- representatives elect the of their choice (Citations omitted). majority. impaired by sive was the selection of a multi- member electoral structure. We have no Thornburg Gingles, v. 478 U.S. 46 n. occasion to consider permits, whether 2§ 11, 106 2764n. 92 L.Ed.2d 25 S.Ct. does, if it what standards should (1986). Thus, per can no we find se re to, pertain brought by a claim minority a quirement majority-mi for the creation of group, that is sufficiently large not nority in 2 Voting Rights of the § compact to majority constitute a in a Act. single-member district, alleging that the Tilling also makes reference to Gingles, use of a impairs multimember district its supra, justifying configuration his ability to elections. influence In Gingles, districts. the United States We note also that we have no occasion Supreme challenge considered Court un- to consider whether the standards we Voting der Rights Act to North § apply respondents’ claim that multi- districting Carolina’s multimember scheme. operate member districts to dilute the preconditions The Court set forth three to a vote of geographically cohesive challenge alleging that multimember § groups, large that are enough to consti- impair minority ability districts voters’ to majorities tute single-member in districts representatives elect of their choice: and that are contained within the bound- First, minority group the must be to able challenged aries of the multimember dis- sufficiently large demonstrate that it is tricts, fully pertinent are to other sorts geographically compact and to constitute claims, of vote dilution such as a claim majority single-member a in a district. alleging splitting large that the of a and not, If it is as would be the case in a geographically minority cohesive be- district, substantially integrated the tween two or more multimember or sin- multi-member of the district can- form gle-member districts resulted in the dilu- responsible not minority be for voters’ minority tion of the vote. Second, inability to elect its candidates. minority group 46, 12, 2764, the must be able to show Id. at n. 106 S.Ct. at n. 12. politically that it is the mi- cohesive. If Thus, preconditions Gingles’ appli- are not cohesive, nority group politically is not it single-mem- to the cable of cannot be said that the selection of a ber districts and claims of dilution of mi- multimember electoral structure thwarts nority influence districts at issue here. Ac- minority group distinctive interests. cord, Armour, F.Supp. at 1052. Third, minority the must be to dem- able Therefore, nothing Gingles we can find in majority onstrate that the white votes per requirement which a establishes se for sufficiently as a bloc to it—in the enable majority-minority the creation of districts. circumstances, special absence of such as Finally, suggest Defendants that Arm- minority running unop- the candidate our, supra, mandates the creation of ma- posed usually minority’s to defeat the — jority-minority districts. It is true that the preferred candidate. court in Armour concluded that the divi- 50-51, Gingles, U.S. at 106 S.Ct. at sion of a cohesive Black concentration of (footnotes (emphasis original) 2766-67 in Mahoning voters between two districts in omitted). and citations Voting County was violative of 2 of the § Apparently, Tilling precon- read the first Rights the Act and fifteenth amendment. require majority- dition to the creation of determinations made after the These were minority possible. districts wherever How- a of court conducted detailed examination ever, Supreme in Gingles the Court limited totality the of the circumstances factors preconditions challenges these to to multi- legislative re- history outlined the with member districts: gard Mahoning Youngs- County and aggregation opinion

The claim we address in this is town. While the of Black vot- plaintiffs alleged appropriate one in which the ers into one district is an reme- circumstances, provided guidance determining on Armour certain dy under racially polarized voting1 is per- proposition for that whether not stand does present The Court in a case. noted that apportionment should responsible sons principally relied on ex- the district court districts wherever majority-minority create through pert evidence derived statistical Thus, nothing that possible. we conclude analysis ecologi- and bivariate Act, extreme case Voting Rights Gingles, 2 of § from regression analysis on data three cal Armour, supra, or mandates the supra, challenged years different election majority-minority drawing of 52-53, at at 106 S.Ct. 2767- districts. Id. is concentration of Black there a wherever 68. These methods are standard voters. racially polar- analysis of literature for totality 20, of Inadequacy Defendants’ n. 106 S.Ct. at voting. B. ized Id. at analysis voting degree circumstances n. 20. of bloc legal constitutes the threshold which Tilling’s In contention addition to significance to district. varies from district case statute law mandated that federal 55-56, at at 2768-69. How- Id. S.Ct. districts, majority-minority the creation ever, showing significant that a number by stating justified the Plan that revised he minority group members for the vote bring necessary “to districts were [the minority can establish same candidates bloc apportionment plan conformity into 1981] voting of 2. Id. at within context § Tilling Dep., the 1982 amendments.” with voting Generally, white 106 S.Ct. at essence, Thus, Tilling at is Vol. patterns normally that will defeat the com- config asserting majority-minority that strength support bined necessary remedy violations uration was signifi- is legally “crossover” votes white Rights Act the 1981 Voting of under the voting. Id. cant white bloc However, Voting plan. violations of the to be assumed. The Rights Act are not case, Tilling present the “con In requires in-depth an finding of violation a significant racial cluded that there was bloc ” totality analysis the of the circum voting throughout the State of Ohio.... S.Rep. locality in at issue. No. stances the 96, However, Tilling at Dep., Def.Exh. 93. (1982) 417, Cong., 2d Sess. 28-29 97th Tilling arrived at this conclusion without 177, pp. Cong. & Admin.News U.S.Code regression analysis. the benefit of Id. at 205-207; Armour, F.Supp. at 1053 Instead, Tilling 92. examined the votes for (our not focus on the inquiry does black minority representatives the to the General in the entire state but rather on experience Assembly past try to in elections to ascer reality local to the political the and social voting. Tilling Dep., patterns tain racial Mahoning Valley). Although Tilling stated I, Tilling at admits that he did Vol. 37-39. public reasons for the hear that one of the analysis using 1990 census data which ings to “establish the record was correspond directly not to the 1981 does totality in each urban of the circumstances Tilling not at 38. did reduce districts. Id. Exhibits, 13, Trial Tab at area ...” Joint writing. or to his calculations conclusions 33, in the record we find the information Tilling Id. at 39. also examined results regard. grossly inadequate in this primary in ran. of the which Jesse Jackson Tilling II, Again, Dep., Vol. at he did totality in Key determinations a subject any to statistical not data analysis are whether ra the circumstances analysis. Id. at polarized voting exists and the close cially Tilling ly to further contended that racial bloc related issue of the extent which voting in in juris elected in the the districts which candidates are existed 55, legislators being black were elected with Gingles, diction. 478 U.S. at S.Ct. in votes from districts Supreme Gingles Court white crossover with at 2768-69. Supreme "racially at n. 18. The terms are also used Court used the terms S.Ct. 1. The voting” voting" polarized changeably interchangeably and "racial bloc inter- here. Gingles. n. in 478 U.S. at public meetings, paucity Till- there is a majority a of black voters. infor- less than mation on these factors in the record. I, specifi- Of Dep., asked ing Vol. at When available, much is anec- the information voting in these dis- cally if the racial bloc Tilling’s culled from dotal seems to be Tilling legally significant, was could tricts experience from com- personal rather than answer, stating give unequivocal not an munity example, For when de- sources. “given opportunity there is merely that in posed on factors he took into account his higher percentage of black vote for a much totality analysis, of the circumstances Till- than white vote for black black candidates ing my years stated that “in the course of However, 40-41. Till- candidates.” Id. at in the Senate I have had occasion to talk to elected ing acknowledged that blacks were many minority representatives of the about from districts with as low as black 35% practices that have influenced their various Ultimately, Till- population. Id. at 177-78. ability fully participate in the ing voters in these dis- increased black process_” Tilling Deposition, Def.Exh. despite tricts the successful election of respect at 97-98. With to discrimina- legislators crossover with substantial black education, Tilling tion in he stated that had white vote. spent year a in late 70’s on the Ohio disturbing Tilling his It is that based Assembly’s General Joint Select Committee racial vot- conclusions that there was bloc Desegregation on School and noted that ing subsequent appor- revisions schools several of the areas in urban analy- tionment of voters on such a casual desegregation Ohio are under orders. Id. voting subject He did sis of returns. not Tilling at 97. also testified that he was analysis or even me- his data to statistical employment aware of the differences in “findings” in his calculations and figures morialize for minorities and whites in Ohio. Tilling’s writing. guidance input Id. While on some of these Given the of the Su- totality issues could be useful a preme Gingles regard with Court review, it, circumstances we find that even racially polarized voting, legally significant public a series of meet- combination with Tilling’s analysis does not we conclude that ing compressed and a half into two week proof polar- racially rise to the level of “searching period, far short of the falls voting. ized practical past present evaluation of factor is whether there Another relevant legislative histo- reality” mandated the responsiveness of on significant is a lack ry- particu- part of elected officials to the the Accordingly, adequate find that no we community. minority larized needs of the analysis totality of the circumstances was However, Tilling he did not stated that In performed by the Board. the absence of single voting any the record of examine analysis, there can be no reliable such an responsive- his representative to determine finding In the of a of a violation. absence community. minority to the Id. at ness violation, legal justification there was no Tilling’s on this factor information “remedy” in for the Board’s the form of voting legislators’ of involved his review majority-minority of the wholesale creation preparation previous in records for Senate justification, districts. Without such a the campaigns. Id. at 179-181. He observed voters, plan packs minority Board’s with “part my was of men- that the information Voting dilutive effects that violate the began process.” I this Id. equipment tal as Rights Act. 180-81. at of social and historical factors CONCLUSION Review totality the appropriate under a of are also reasons, foregoing conclude For the we However, Tilling review. circumstances finding of legal there is or that no mandate no studies of the com- admitted that he did justify to Voting Rights a Act violation public except at issue to hold the munities majority-minority Defendants’ creation II, Ap- hearings. Tilling Dep., Vol. at 39. the 1991 possible in districts wherever Accordingly, sifted the Board portionment relevant items can be While a few Plan. Plan. the Un- transcripts of the is to reconsider the voluminous ORDERED from Supreme Court are before the Ohio the claims under justification show can less it Voinovich, No. Ferguson v. test for the the case circumstances the totality of required sub- not the Board must this court is configuration, While 91-1882. present v. Davis issues, court this within plan to revised from these mit a abstain to In the event order. of this Mann, 377 U.S. days 678, 690, of the date 84 S.Ct. by this is not received plan that a revised (1964), par- 1447-48, where 12 L.Ed.2d 609 limit, action further the time within court litigation instituted in the state is allel sponte. sua court by this taken will be courts, for the appropriate it is federal Voting is- deal with federal under the courts to the analysis federal our Because revised, Plan to be the state state issues to requires the and leave the Rights sues Act un claims note, however, Plaintiffs’ address that the do decline We we court. this at Constitution States al- the United to the majority der claims adherence Board judicial the consistent with is majority- This time. to create mandate federal leged ref deciding cases without for preference Giv- possible. wherever arising the Fed under questions erence to no such is hold that there that we now en possible. Ha whenever eral Constitution possible de- mandate, this as a remove we Lavine, v. 94 S.Ct. gans 415 U.S. concurrent any subsequent or fense (1974) (citing 1383-84, 39 L.Ed.2d proceedings.2 state q, Co. Nashville R. v. Louisville & Siler 451, 455, 175, 193, S.Ct. 213 U.S. dissenting: DOWD, Judge, District (1909)). L.Ed. brings together a number This case under claims to Plaintiffs’ regard With They life. political developments in Ohio Constitution, note that these we the Ohio voting purposes,” situation, as the for favored race include "a exigencies which 2. The Rather, guiding lights suggests. the are deadlines, required dissent satisfying counsel have legal of2 § no mandate under there is posi- present that Voting parties their to formulate Armour, Act, supra, Rights Gingles, or speed, and have sim- commendable tions with majority-minority districts supra, to create panel a upon this mandate ilarly imposed Furthermore, ab- possible. wherever rapidly as reached as the conclusions record finding of a violation of a reliable sence analy- offering an opportunity of possible. The Act, justifica- Voting Rights be as it cannot used (which, thoughtful dissent depth of the sis in fact, majority-mi- creation for the wholesale tion form) not only outline seen have we divergent highlights nority districts. This available, offering a de- from being we refrain majority opinion and which the from directions reaction, simply observing in our that tailed only on proceed. The dissent focuses dissent analysis only appropriate becomes view an such result, majority whereas the untested end plan been shown to has after an importance of recognizes vital opinion according to prepared law. have been per pitfalls from a which arise and the process showing. of such present is record devoid districting, majority-minority application of se however, helpful to might, be response Some i.e., minority result from the dilution can vote First, against ac- caution we must parties. the in districts. minorities of concentration of the characterizations cepting of the some approaches, respective Proceeding their from example, by For majority opinion dissent. the opinion holding majority re- the of narrow the observes, colleagues the "My have that ruled it plan properly of a the resubmission quires purposes of Ohio for the reapportionment put this would court while the dissent premised, Assembly violates electing Ohio the General of super-apportionment position of a the in majori- Voting Rights Act because the 2 of § the of abundant on the basis status which board—a addi- apportionment ty of the created members occupy. dis- authority sent, Unlike the to we decline voting in majority-minority districts tional Ohio_” compared purposely and con- have not we state, goes to "Pre- on The dissent by plan Plaintiffs to submitted the the trasted increasing the that sumably, the Court holds by majority adopted of the Board. plan the the a minor- minority population stage a district where in of at the of this court this function The minority already a plans, to elect ity group able two is choose is to between proceedings not wasting packing adopted against per plan se and representative is as measure the to but above, further observes can- The dissent law law. As stated federal votes.” federal justification present apparently holds the dis- the majority that as serve the not that "the Unless, justifi- way such a that the Board can show plan. in such the be drawn tricts must plan cation, proceed develop a revised no such it must We made is black vote maximized.’’ state constitu- complies federal and opinion is not to with the which thrust of holdings. The law. to create tional majority-minority districts nor outlaw Voting Rights 2 of the Act. constitu- sions of Section attempt by way of include Ohio’s question Defendants answer that in The comply the one with provisions tional Carr, compli affirmative and declare that the the v. mandate of Baker man-one vote procedure apportionment of of neces 691, cated 186, L.Ed.2d 663 82 S.Ct. 369 U.S. sity included consideration of how to struc reap- requirement1 to (1962), year ten the in the 99 house districts the urban ture Assembly, a General portion2 the Ohio largest minority counties of Ohio where the Ohio, in includ- demographics change in the position The of populations are located. in and westward shift ing a southward include the two Demo the Plaintiffs which change political in the con- the population, apportionment of the board cratic members Board from Apportionment trol of the Ohio apparent. The Plaintiffs contend is less Republican Party to the the Democratic not Apportionment Board did that the Rights Act Voting the Party, impact of the findings support its any fact that make the in 42 U.S.C. as amended § majority-mi to create additional decision Republican the recognition by both nority districts and claim the creation Apportionment the members of Democratic majority-minority the additional creating more desirability of Board of the in of such contrary to law the absence was in legislative districts majority-minority “totality in the findings fact the context of Ohio, in Armour v. the decision the forth in the of the circumstances” test set (N.D.Ohio Ohio, F.Supp. State of history accompanied the legislative that 1991) case. adoption of the 1982 amendment to 1, 1991, case, on November This filed gained Rights Act and which addi Voting panel judge a three required the creation of in recognition plurality opinion in the tional sought and, remedy in the context of the 30, 106 Thornburg Gingles, v. 478 U.S. Plaintiffs, in view of prompt action by the (1986). The 92 L.Ed.2d 25 S.Ct. February 1992 for filing deadline of additionally Plaintiffs claim number seeking election to the Ohio candidates increased a number black voters was Assembly general election General districts, contrary to law because the dis of 1992.3 November by a already represented black trict was of the judge panel, mindful The three thus the addition of incumbent constraints, expe- has endeavored to time “packing” or voters constituted black a finding process and render the fact dite “wasting” those black voters. uncertainty about as to avoid decision so claim, study done also based on Plaintiffs for the of the 1992 election the mechanics elections, 1990 Ohio reference to the with Assembly.4 Ohio General “influence” districts number of that highly a de in this and that such feature decreased The central have been Voting typically of the controversy that a violation charged political crease involves a state In sum the Plaintiffs-Demo apportionment Rights Act. accompanies the Defendants-Republi that the electing the state’s crats contend purposes of for the Voting Rights Act question of whether cans violated body is the legislative voting majority-minority creating include additional process should the Vot- and also violated provi- districts Ohio recognition and consideration stringent requirements Constitution, XI, pendents more face 1.§ Article 1. Ohio sign persons who must number of terms of the “reapportion” are “apportion” and 2. The words petitions candidacy petition, them- but the the pur- interchangeably For in the case law. used poses May filed until after the need not be selves appor- my used the word dissent I have of primary been conducted. has even in the Ohio Constitution as it is used tion reapportionment though involves the this case parties granted in this case the 4.The Court of Ohio. of the State testimony. present apiece to their three hours May 17, primary election in a completed Ohio conducts procedure 3. was on December That parties major political Thereafter, and candidates the two wishing proposed fact counsel filed Re- Democratic of either the to run as 30, on the findings and briefs on December 1991 February must declare publican candidate January on merits wishing run as inde- to Candidates 704 a necessary. Westwego Citizens come decreasing the number byAct Rights

ing for 872 F.2d Westwego, v. Better Government districts. of “influence” Cir.1989). my 1201, (5th If one of fellow that the claim Additionally, Plaintiffs my agreed with panel had judges on this the due violates plan apportionment 1991 to write opportunity I had the position and fourteenth of the provisions process made the have opinion, I would the Court’s plan consti- the 1991 because amendment Appendix as parti- fact that are attached findings The gerrymandering. partisan tuted findings fact two From those fails for rea- 2 to this claim dissent. gerrymandering san proof. of fact First, summary major I find an absence a of I have distilled sons. of an absence incorporated in the importantly, findings More are hereafter which the 1991 under conducted actual election body in the of this dissent.5 gerrymandering partisan of plan, the issue pro- Article of the Ohio Constitution XI Bandemer, v. Davis premature. is ap- decennial plan for the vides a detailed L.Ed.2d 85 106 S.Ct. U.S. Assembly. the Ohio portionment of General (1986). of creation plan calls for the The detailed that the Defen- allege also The Plaintiffs member dis- ninety separate single nine the fifteenth intentionally violated dants Representa- for the Ohio House tricts colleagues have not ad- My amendment. seats single member thirty three tives and claims because constitutional dressed the study 1 is a Appendix in the Senate. Ohio appor- the that of the determination setting eight Ohio counties eighty the Voting Rights the violates plan tionment house districts of lower forth the number proof absence Again, I find a total Act. county with county by basis allocated on a fifteenth of the violation of an intentional population and of the total an indication amendment. eighty eight coun- population of the black that the 1991 colleagues have ruled My ties. purposes of the of Ohio for apportionment Grofman, a Assembly recognized as na- vio- General Bernard electing Ohio the Voting Rights Act because apportionment the issues as expert6 2 of on lates tional § apportionment interests, of the majority members de- has they to relate majority-minority additional board created publication, Bernard in a recent clared Ohio, and have ordered voting districts Grofman, Voting Wrongs; Rights, Voting apportionment of the five members Carr, 1990 Twenti- v. Baker Legacy The plan days within revise board Paper. CentuRy F. 31: eth guidance as to giving any accurate without eliminating reducing or approach to One accomplished is to be process how that statutory through or gerrymandering is Ohio constitu- structure of the within provisions that strict- state constitutional the mandates matter within or that tion such as com- formal criteria ly implement Voting Rights Act. of the mainte- equal population, and pactness, very opinion provides lim- majority political sub- integrity nance of proper to a background critical ited factual units. opinion I of the this case. am analysis of apportionment My study of plan, evaluating apportionment an that Ohio process for Ohio context to make careful court should be the district provisions that the indicates Constitutional findings of ...” both facts “detailed process for the and the Ohio Constitution plan at the analysis of the proper insure a is a mirror of Grof- to assist the Su- level district court approach. recommended man’s review be- appellate should preme Court presented by principally statistical findings on evidence be summary can found of these 5. A Justice Grofman.” Brennan Dr. dissent. ... Bernard later by Dr. written cited numerous articles also Thornburg Gingles, v. Court in Writing for the 6. apportionment. Id. the issue of at Grofman on 2752, L.Ed.2d 25 S.Ct. 92 106 U.S. 478 (1986), 47, 53, S.Ct. at 2767-68. 106 that he “relied indicated Brennan Justice

705 the districts must be tricts. of Twelve OF MAJOR SUMMARY wholly Cuyahoga County contained within FINDINGS FACT will, necessity, of the 13th district and brevity and conve- of interest In the adjoining county. “spillover” into an findings fact nience, highlighted the I have Twenty are entitled to at six Ohio counties proper to a most critical I are submit that The county. the least one district within analysis of this case. population remaining counties have a 62 Ohio XI of the Constitution 1. Article for a than of the ideal number less 90% the process for apportionment the controls therefore must be combined district and Ohio, As- the General body for legislative a house dis- other counties to create with single member mandates sembly, and trict.7 Representatives of for the House districts comprised of apportioning process for the 33 member Senate 4. The and a Districts. contiguous Assembly by House is two General done three Ohio the Ohio General persons appointed from process apportionment takes 2. The politi- Assembly major each of the with two in years year in the every ten place in Ohio remaining parties represented. cal The in ending in number the and the decade governor, auditor of three are the elected recent federal decenni- on the most reliance state, In secretary of state. 1971 and apportion- The 1991 census information. al process was con- apportioning the Assembly for the Ohio General plan ment by majority from the Democratic trolled a data. the 1990 census on relies by majority from the party and a in requires Constitution that Ohio Republican party. accomplished process be apportionment the In to the Ohio constitutional requires addition county by county basis and on a apportionment, Sec- provisions that control Ohio has 88 counties. compact districts. apportionment Voting Rights in the as amended requirement tion of Act The first the interpreted the ideal number in the process recently is to determine in 1982 and dividing the entire state for a district the 1981 that struck down Armour case process by 99 and for 1991 this population Mahoning it related to apportionment as 109,567. number of produced an ideal of County, by members considered was Next, county districts are single member in apportioning board county’s event the total mandated in Ohio minority population 6. The black of the ideal is with number. population 5% major six located its predominantly is counties, Warren, Wood, Allen Ohio Four (24.9%),Frank- Cuyahoga of urban counties Columbiana, computa- fell within that (10.9%), (15.9%), Montgomery lin Hamilton apportionment board 1991. The tion for (14.8%). (11.9%) (17.7%), and Lucas Summit districts for single member may also create approxi- account for Those six counties is population that with a total counties ninety nine house mately four of the forty The 1991 number. ideal within 10% represented by presently are districts and category latter an plan includes that though minority representatives even Fairfield, counties, Wayne three additional population of the six coun- total black Next, and Ashtabula. figures) is (according to 1990 ties census begin- is directed create board of the six only population the total 19.1% populous most counties with ning with 915,628 counties, i.e., population of a total county popu- a has that where the mandate 4,790,965. a number needed for in excess of the lation census, total As the 1990 indicated district, only one dis- that member single million is in population of Ohio excess county that is entitled within trict change people, only with a modest spill may over into one district more than experienced from the 1980 census. Ohio By way county counties. adjoining an or approximately gain population net County, the most Cuyahoga example, signif- However, were 50,000 there people. to 12.88 dis- county, is entitled populous Appendix 1. 7. See

706 apportion- 1980 in the none the where existed within state. shifts population icant also Plan Apportionment ment. The 1991 a substantial occurred there Specifically, at strong influence district 44.31%. has a qua- Northeast from the population shift in Minority the 1991 By way comparison, of and Central South- to the the state drant of Ferguson and proposed Plaintiffs’ Plan state, particularly to portions of the west (1) majority-minority Quilter one also has Delaware, and Madison Franklin, Union popula- voting age black district at 50.60% population a also occurred There counties. district at influence 46.40%. tion and one County and Hamilton shift from Cincinnati the rationale part of Significantly, Butler, and Warren counties. Clermont increasing Plan for Apportionment entire house dis- County one Cuyahoga lost in percentages Franklin relative black (109,000 people) while population trict in plan from the 1981 County house districts entire house County gained one Franklin in influence district a Senate was to create County replaced Hamil- Franklin district. County.12 Franklin populous most County the second as ton sig- also Plan Apportionment in state. There were creates county The in (2) majority-minority the inner districts Hamil- population shifts from nificant two only one existed in County where ton to the suburbs.8 cities majority-minori- The apportionment. major population shifts As a result of 7. Apportionment Plan in ty districts city to from the inner counties and within 52.- voting age populations of have black suburbs, majority of the 1981 con- way comparison, By of and 56.83%. 60% major the six urban figured districts in proposed by Plain- Minority Plan the 1991 reconfigured to meet the had to be counties Quilter also one Ferguson and reflects tiffs XI, requirements of Article Sec- population (1) district at' majority-minority 57.91%. of the Ohio Constitution.9 tion 3 Plan also reflects Apportionment The 1991 Appor- summary, the 1991 By way of 8. compared to influence district an 21.58% (4) majority- four Plan creates tionment Minority proposed Plan in the 1991 19.55% County with Cuyahoga in minority districts Quilter. Ferguson and by Plaintiffs 58.36%, population of voting age a black Plan reflects Apportionment The 1991 61.41%, prior and The 65.13% 63.42%. (1) district in majority-minority Mont- one (3) majority-minori- only districts had three County, where none existed in gomery population of 74.- a ty districts with black Apportion- apportionment. The 1991 90.05%, 1991 Minori- 80%, and 94.67%. voting a black Plan has a district with ment Ferguson by Plaintiffs proposed ty Plan and an influence age population of 50.70% majority- four Quilter similarly has and way comparison, By at district 29.23%. voting age black minority districts with presented by Ferguson Plaintiffs plan 63.71%, 60.18%, 66.67% populations Quilter dis- majority-minority has no 67.08%.10 districts at and two influence 36.20% tricts also cre- Apportionment Plan The 1991 challenge dis- Plaintiffs no 45.26%. Cuyaho- district in strong ates a influence Montgomery County. tricts compared to an influ- ga County of 40.61% Apportionment Plan reflects The 1991 only in the 1991 ence district 26.46% slight population increase black House proposed by Plaintiffs Fer- Minority Plan currently County, District Summit Quilter.11 guson and Repre- by minority incumbent represented 35.- (1) Sykes. The increase is from Plan has one sentative Apportionment The 1991 way By population. in Franklin Coun- black 40% 43.26% majority-minority district pro- Minority Plan comparison, the 1991 voting age population black ty at 50.30% Tilling, 11. Defendants’ Exhibit 77. Defendants’ Deposition of R. James 8. 96, pp. Exhibit 61-63. Tilling, Deposition R. Defendants' of James Tilling, Deposition R. Defendants’ of James 96, pp. Exhibit 103-104. 96, pp. Exhibit 79-80. Exhibit 10. See Defendants’

707 submitted, Among those groups. Quilter terest and Ferguson by Plaintiffs posed Elected Demo- from plans were the Black Rep- in population the black also increases (BEDO) Confer- and the Ohio of Ohio crats to from Sykes’ district 35.40% resentative Branches of the NAACP. of ence in districts no challenge Plaintiffs 47.20%. County. Summit 1991, 30, Apportion- September the On testimony from met to ment Board hear Plan reflects an Apportionment The proposed the proponents of various the Dis- in House population in black increase plans.13 compa- 45, is County, in Lucas which trict currently represented 1991, district 1, to the Apportionment rable October On Representative Ca- minority adoption incumbent of a by again to Board met consider age popula- voting meeting The sey black The plan apportionment. Jones. of final to 47.- increased permit in district was to tion Jones’ recessed from time to time was Minori- in the 1991 of compared among representatives to 44.98% discussions 65% Ferguson Tilling to by Plaintiffs and Mr. ty proposed and the NAACP Plan BEDO concerning in populations Quilter. attempt The black reach a consensus and to Ap- minority 47 in the 1991 Districts 45 and districts.14 House substantially similar are Plan portionment Mr. by initiated discussions were These proposed Plan Apportionment to BEDO and Tilling representatives of after Quilter. Ferguson and by Plaintiffs consensus to NAACP failed reach Tilling Mr. minority districts. regarding sufficient County, there is not In Stark to at- Congressman Stokes Louis majority-minori- contacted to form a population black togeth- minority groups tempt bring to ty district. discussions Tilling initiated these er. Mr. County Mahoning are in districts The minority voting issues he knew that since of the order configured pursuant to the apportion- point of the focal would be the v. State District Court Armour in Federal process.15 ment Ohio, 1991). (N.D.Ohio F.Supp. of public hearing conduct- 11.During (8) Overall, eight majority-mi- are there 1991, 1, and the BEDO on ed October Apportionment in the 1991 nority districts regarding the consensus reached a NAACP (4) in the 1981 only four compared to Plan Cuya- in districts establishment (6) in 1991 Mi- six apportionment apportion- in the final 1991 County hoga Fergu- proposed Plaintiffs nority Plan accepted BEDO’s NAACP plan. The ment Quilter. son and County, Cuyahoga establish- for proposal Plan, there Apportionment In the 1991 one majority-minority districts four ing (20) with over twenty districts 10% are The in Cleveland. district influence is the population, which voting age black ma- plan five original established NAACP’s Minority Plan in the number as same Cuyahoga Coun- districts jority-minority Quil- Ferguson and by Plaintiffs proposed by the originally plan submitted ty. The ter. majority-minority for also called five Board Tilling Plan, County.16 Cuyahoga Mr. drafting the 1991 In 9. of various closely with the leaders

worked 1991, offered the BEDO October On Further, minority minority groups Ohio. regard to the dis- with position consensus input in the creation groups had substantial amend- County as an Cuyahoga tricts to the plan that was submitted final (referred herein to plan the BEDO ment legislature. state Amendment”). BEDO “BEDO as the as an amend- also offered was plans Amendment were Proposed 10. majority by the proposed plan minority special in- ment by numerous submitted Tilling, Defendants’ Deposition James R. Tilling, 15. Defendants’ R. Deposition of James 13. 38, 39, 96, pp. 42. Exhibit pp. 36-37. Exhibit Tilling, Defendants’ Deposition of James R. Tilling, Defendants’ Deposition James R. 96, pp. Exhibit pp. 38-40. Exhibit Law History Apportionment apportionment.17 responsible persons Ap- accepted by the was The amendment A. Introduction incorporated portionment Board plan de- reviewing apportionment an In Plan.18 Apportionment final 1991 is veloped by legislature, a district court a 1, 1991, meeting of October 12. At the First, guided by a number of constraints. Johnson, Jeff and Senator Mattison19 Dana only must determine the district court County, Cuyahoga from minority a Senator plan acceptable is under that whether creating BEDO Amendment endorsed law, not whether another prevailing Floyd districts. majority-minority four advantageous to the more plan would be NAACP, en- Johnson, of the on behalf Sims, 377 Reynolds v. parties at interest. Apportionment 1991 entire dorsed the 533, 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 84 S.Ct. U.S. Plan.20 Second, (1964). is to be extended deference plan by the apportionment advanced to a by was endorsed Amendment The BEDO Clements, 537 legislature. Terrazas v. of BEDO and Mallory, President William 1982). (N.D.Texas It is with F.Supp. 514 Congressman Stokes.21 in I evaluate considerations mind that these of the of Branches The Ohio Conference Plaintiffs’ case. Apportionment 1991 endorsed the NAACP entirety.22 Plan in its B. Man One Vote One plan apportionment 1981 13. The spoke require- that first to the The cases percent a ten 24 with created districts Ohio voting fo- apportioned districts ments of (10%) minority Two more voters. or each citizen should on the ideal that cused County Mahoning were those districts govern- in his or her equal have an voice required that the decision and the Armour way in which most citizens are ment. The realigned place all mi- districts be two through government is their heard their two districts. in one of the nority voters Thus, day. in Baker v. vote on election plan also created apportionment The 1981 186, 691, Carr, 7 L.Ed.2d 369 U.S. 82 S.Ct. districts, majority- 24 four part of the as a (1962), citi- held that each Court 663 districts, Cuyahoga three Coun- minority weight in carry must the same zen’s vote high as of blacks as ty percentage awith determining political of a elec- the outcome County with a one in Hamilton to be holding The in Baker has come 94.67% tion. rule, man, fixed at percentage of black voters 53.2%. “one one vote” known as the plan eight created since. As the apportionment has followed ever The 1991 been 412 Cummings, U.S. Gaffney and the number Court in v. districts majority-minority 2321, 2325, 735, 741, 93 S.Ct. 37 L.Ed.2d at least of districts with 10% (1973) 298 noted: sum, 20. In the 1991 voting population is comparison to the plan, I 2 requirement of Art. of the ‘The § increased the number plan, has Constitution, representatives that be cho- by four and re- states,’ majority-minority People ‘by the of the several sen or of districts with one man’s vote in a con- duced the number 10% mandates that Appendix election is to be worth as gressional four. See more voters black as another’s.’ much 1. Tilling, Tilling, Deposition of James R. Defendants' Defendants' 20. Deposition James R.

17. Mattison, 96, 40; Deposition p. 96, Exhibit of Dana p. Exhibit 41. 82, 83-89; pp. Deposition Defendants’ Exhibit Johnson, 97, p. Floyd 58. Defendants’ Exhibit Tilling, Defendants' Deposition R. of James 18. 40, 96, pp. 44. Exhibit Mattison, Deposition Defendants’ Ex- of Dana 21. 82, 89, 90, pp. 91. hibit Director of is the Executive Dana Mattison 19. Johnson, Mattison, Floyd Ex- Deposition Defendants’ Defen- Deposition of Dana BEDO. 97, C; 82, pp. p. hibit 57-59. sub exhibit Exhibit dant's 755, 2332, Sanders, 1, 376 U.S. U.S. 93 S.Ct. 37 L.Ed.2d 314 Wesberry v. (iquoting (1973) (9.9% (1964). acceptable). deviation 11 L.Ed.2d 84 S.Ct. Voting Rights Act C. § ANALYSIS “one man give effect to the In order to Voting Rights Act Congress enacted the principle, one vote” begins majority analysis its In Rights Voting Act. U.S.C. § by noting case that the Plaintiffs have al- party year the Democratic one after leged that the 1991 Plan violates the Vot- Plan Apportionment was controlled ing Rights by impermissibly Act consider- 2 to eliminate the adopted, was amended § ing drawing lines, in race the of district invidious, inten- requirement of evidence serving to dilute the vote prove in to tional discrimination order focusing Plan, process. Before on the 1991 voting Rights Act violation. In Mobile v. however, majority the turns its attention to 1490, Bolden, 55, 100 S.Ct. 64 446 U.S. the merits of the 1981 Plan.23 (1980), that dis- 47 the Court held L.Ed.2d majority opinion argues The that the effect, alone, insufficient proportionate was Apportionment rejected must 1991 Plan be dilution. In re- prove to unlawful vote board, majority namely the and because Mobile, Congress such as sponse to cases prove Tilling, Mr. did not that the 1981 1982, 2 the in an amendment to passed § Voting Apportionment Plan violated the the re- Voting Rights Act that removed Rights Specifically, majority de- Act. the invidious, discrimi- quirement of intentional totality under the of the circum- clares that Angeles, Los City nation. v. Garza test, stances it was not that demonstrated Cir.1990). (9th my colleagues As F.2d 763 plan Voting Rights the the 1981 violated out, on the point the focus now is results majority Act.24 The reasons that absent apportionment plan. the showing, majority the board was not such a plan, the evaluating In the results of the apportion the entitled to state. only into account not the court must take majority opinion appears to declare The acceptable from the norm deviations Rights requires Voting the Act that that distribution, the extent population but also violation before an there be an established apportionment of the deviation. Judicial appor- to apportionment, board is entitled very high held to stan plans have been significant popu- with a black tion a district dards, minor deviations finding that even argument places the cart be- lation. This Legislative Voting Rights Act. violate the totality of the horse the fore the because afforded apportionment plans have been test, from the Vot- circumstances derived Generally, legislative appor leeway. more Act, Rights is a tool that is to be ing by the “under devi guided tionment is 10% evaluating in by the district court utilized rule, finding population that devia ation” it, prerequi- plan and not as a the before less than the ideal norm that are tions from redistricting. site to Finch, v. are de minimis. Connor 10% Sims, held that Reynolds In v. the court 52 L.Ed.2d 465 431 U.S. 97 S.Ct. apportionment in cases purpose court’s (1977); Parish Po the Wyche v. Madison plan (5th Cir.1981). determine which would be is not to Jury, 635 F.2d lice equal in of fair and appropriate most terms Cummings, U.S. eg. Gaffney v. See plan (1973) redistricting, rather the but whether 37 L.Ed.2d 298 93 S.Ct. Voting Rights Act. it violates the (7.83% population norm was before deviation from Plan I not believe that the 1991 Regester, 412 Since do acceptable); v. White especially when one colleagues "process” tion the state is remarkable My address the used do arriving Cuyahoga by majority at the board in the fact that one district in the considers analysis” "process plan. will population A criticism of the County in excess contained a black pack- follow. figure must be considered of 94%. Such a legislative ing any judicial standard. or under Reap- majority’s that the 1991 conclusion reappor- entitled to portionment Board was not Act, I am of Voting Rights County, the en districts in Hamilton six dis- the violates implemented. should be in County, view that it tricts Franklin three districts Montgomery County, and two districts does not majority opinion di- the While County, reconfigured Lucas had to be be- Plan, it does criti- the 1991 rectly evaluate population subsequent cause of the shifts by majority the board process used cize apportionment. the 1981 majority 1991 Plan. The developing Tilling’s Mr. recommen- opinion claims that An has an board obli- majority-minority districts dation to create gation apportion when the districts do possible inappropriate was whenever population requirements not meet Voting Rights by not mandated Act. population based on the total of the state view, Voting Rights 2 of the Act my In a § designat- divided number of districts interpreted by and as as amended ed in the state’s constitution. Garza v. unambig- sends an Gingles and Armour (9th City Angeles, Los 918 F.2d 763 signal apportioning process that a uous Cir.1990). uncorrected, population Left impact apportion- must consider the of the can, case, shifts and I believe would in this ing minority rights voting on in a situation result where vote of one majority opinion persons. The is ambiva- part in individual one of the state is of lent when one considers the fact that the unequal weight as the vote of another indi- Ferguson Quilter Plaintiffs and advanced vidual located in elsewhere the state. That plan apportionment their for which created Garza, why is in the court held that the majority-minority an additional two dis- legislature duty apportion has a to when opposed to tricts as the additional four population substantial shifts occur in order by adopted plan. such districts created the violation, Voting Rights to avoid a Act and process by focus on the Rather than used why that is I believe that on majority Plan, arriving the in at the 1991 I and, indeed, grand a scale was warranted submit that the Court should concentrat- be necessary in this instance. ing only on the result. It is when the majority The is also critical of the fact majority-minority creation of districts finding process engaged by Tilling. in Mr. minority serves to dilute the that the vote Specifically, majority the takes issue with Voting Rights Act is violated. The facts do Tilling’s Mr. determination that racial bloc support majority’s not the conclusion that voting existed under the 1981 Plan. The Voting Rights the 1991 Plan violates the majority Tilling indicates that Mr. did not Act. engage ecological regression in bivariate majority’s The determination that the De- analysis. Again, respectfully I submit that majority fendant members of the board duty majority it was not the board to to have been unable demonstrate that the voting justify find racial bloc in order to Voting Rights Act mandates the redistrict- the 1991 Plan. ing found in the 1991 Plan omits several majority The also discounted Mr. Till- important observations. The com- Court ing’s findings responsiveness of lack of to pletely ignores the fact that there were community. majority the black claims population shifts in the state of substantial mostly that his evidence is “anecdotal ... popu- since 1981. Based on the total Ohio rather from community than sources.” census, by the lation as calculated the Tilling The record indicates Mr. 109,567, otherwise. population ideal district was and every major met with the leaders of 104,089 minori- range the allowed was between and ty group in the state of He 115,045. Ohio. held Twenty forty seven of the four public hearings inviting counties, comments and criti- large in the six as urban Plan, groups, accepted pro- cisms from these and Apportionment the 1981 defined posed plans from the speci- groups. did not fall the deviation various Fur- within 5% ther, Specifical- supports the record fied in the Ohio Constitution.25 the conclusion Cuyahoga County, in that the 1991Plan ly, largely nine districts sev- was the result of Constitution, XI, 10(A). Article § 25. See Ohio

7H Voting Rights any group, Act minority entitles in- several the collaboration majority working board. groups incumbents, with cluding white Democratic to preferential Voting such treatment. The findings, major- fact In one of its few Rights prohibits Act the district lines to be unspecified districts that in nine ity notes minority’s minority legislators or white drawn so that a vote is diluted either with voting to legislators with a 90% 100% way they possess in such a that do not an issues, minority related to record on bills equal opportunity participate to in the elec- popula- the black plan increases process. By holding toral that the black district. The Court observes tion each maximized, is, majority vote must be popula- the black that under the 1981 Plan essence, creating voting a favored race ranged from to tion in these districts 38.5% purposes. I find that this not the was 53.19%, under the 1991 Plan and that Congress intention of when it enacted the in- population in each district was black Voting Rights subsequently Act Pre- creased between 13.68%. 7.7% Moreover, I amended the Act find increasing sumably, the holds that Court judicial precedent position. no for such a in district minority population a where already to elect a minority group is able Finally, it difficult find that there is representative per packing is se impermissible minority has been vote dilu- wasting minority votes. tion in Ohio when one considers the fact ignores the Initially, argument such an that the blacks have been able consist- population there were substantial fact that ently representatives elect more the six represented by in eleven districts shifts major percentage counties than their urban Moreover, pop- the black legislators. black population suggest. would While major in the six urban counties has ulation represented only popu- of the blacks 17.71% 7.3%, popula- the white by increased while census, repre- lation under the 1980 black by Appendix As has decreased tion 1.67%. comprises sentation of the members of 25% demonstrates, minority the opinion this 1 to Representatives the House of for these six County Cuyahoga in increased population counties. 9,182, minority population in Frank- by the Fifteenth Amendment 21,824, by Hamilton County lin increased 15,151 increase, and County experienced a relief for vote dilu- Another avenue for 2,112 in- County noticed a Montgomery fifteenth amendment. The tion is the County Only Summit and Lucas crease. they that are entitled to Plaintiffs claim minority popula- in experienced a decrease the fifteenth amendment be- relief under had to be The additional black voters tion. played part a in racial considerations cause Principles geo- in placed some district. Apportionment formation of the 1991 the compactness place- dictate their graphical majority does not reach Plain- Plan. The ment, in leading to an overall increase thus claim because it tiffs’ fifteenth amendment ques- population in the districts the black majority Defendant board finds that the tion.26 Voting Rights a cannot establish members Plan is invalid By arguing that the 1991 that would entitle them to Act violation population it increased the black because attempt lines in an to create redraw district already able to where blacks were districts Since I believe majority-minority districts. choice, their effectively candidates of elect wrong the majority applied that the both that the dis- apparently holds majority the proper analy- that under the analysis, and way a that the drawn in such tricts must be exists, I Voting Rights Act violation no sis Putting con- is maximized. black vote Plaintiffs’ fifteenth amend- must address compactness aside geographical cerns of moment, ment claim. I that the do not believe for the minority majority that the Court notes claim is often raised to note that the I wish Apportionment Plan all taking proce- as created 1991 census is a flaw in the that there population the ideal that is below contain a results in an undervaluation which dure 109,567. number of population. In that context existing black

712 race, Article Mere

The United States Constitution consideration of without more, right of citizens of the is not sufficient to a fif- states: establish XV “[t]he teenth amendment violation. As the to shall not be denied or Gom- United States vote noted, only specific illion Court discrimina- by any abridged by the United States or tory treatment violates the fifteenth race, color, previous or on account of state Further, amendment. this Court Arm- Unlike a claim condition of servitude.” held our that there must be intentional Act, Voting Rights aggrieved an under diluting political reasons order to minority must show intentional dis- voter sustain a fifteenth amendment claim. prevail on fif- in order a crimination Garza, violation. teenth amendment su- case, did, In this racial considerations Byrne, v. F.2d 1398 pra.; Ketchum indeed, play part in the creation of the (7th Cir.1984); Mobile, supra; Armour v. Apportionment Plan. Racial discrim- Ohio, (N.D.Ohio F.Supp. 1044 State ination, however, did not. Under Gomil- Clinton, 1991); F.Supp. v. lion, it is clear that there must be racial Jeffers (E.D.Ark.1990). Thus, prove a fif- discrimination before a fifteenth amend- violation, teenth amendment ment violation can be found. Plaintiffs (1) actual voter must establish: intent to have been unable to demonstrate an intent discriminate; (2) injury as a direct re- to discriminate. The evidence bears out Armour, supra.; sult of discrimination. that the Defendants considered race not for Jeffers, supra. purpose discriminating against black voters, violating but rather to avoid leading case on fifteenth amendment Voting Rights anything, Act. If the De- violations in relation to fendants’ consideration of race served to plans Lightfoot, is v. 364 U.S. Gomillion enhance the In light black vote. of these (1960). L.Ed.2d 110 In 81 S.Ct. facts, I would not find a fifteenth amend- Gomillion, challenged blacks the redraw ment violation. ing of a district that eliminated all but four Ohio Constitution original or of its 400 black voters with five eliminating any white voters. In find out just This leaves the Plaintiffs’ claims un- dilution, ing intentional black voter der agree my the Ohio Constitution. I with Court relied on the result as well as the colleagues light that in of the fact that redistricting changed fact that the dis pending these issues are highest before the simple square irregular trict from a to an Ohio, court in we should abstain. figure. The 28 sided Court held that such Conclusion suspect. maneuvering highly was In so view, my judicial In in restraint connec- holding, noted that: the Court “[w]hen apportionment tion with legis- a state for legislature singles readily thus out a isolat purposes justified lative is where: minority segment special ed of a racial for apportionment process 1. The has been treatment, discriminatory it violates the completed in a manner consistent with the 15th Amendment.” Id. at 81 S.Ct. at state’s constitution. 129-30. legislative 2. The body entire is elected undisputed It is that the Defendant ma- single on the basis of member districts. jority members took race into consid- board apportionment 3. The of the state based creating Apportionment in the 1991 eration upon figures the 1990 census does not vio- Tilling repeatedly Plan. Mr. indicated in percent adopted late the ten deviation rule deposition testimony his and the facts Supreme the United in States Court presented at trial revealed that he was Finch, Connor v. in supra, connection political the concerns of sensitive to black with continued compliance with the Baker groups groups these and worked with to Carr, supra, v. one man—one vote man- argue create the 1991 Plan. Plaintiffs that date. the fact that race was a consideration drawing supports the district lines the find- 4. The six urban counties state ing population primarily of a fifteenth amendment violation. where the is black lo-

713 judicial ap- forty four of the nine- 7.Active intervention cated are entitled portionment process approximately legislature within nine in the Ohio and of ty seats three weeks of the deadline candidates districts, forty four eleven are cur- those legislature to file for both the and the rently represented by minority representa- hardship senate threatens to work a on the is no indication in the evi- tives and there process election for the State of Ohio in apportion- that dence before the Court 1992. jeopardized opportunity ment has minority populations of the six counties I am of the view that this case mandates to continue to elect the incumbent judicial restraint. The Plaintiffs’ have representatives. to meet their been unable burden of estab- lishing Voting Rights a violation of the Act process was for 5. The or the fifteenth amendment. Presented open public first time conducted in an plan, with a suitable the Court should im- great manner with deference the black plement Apportionment the 1991 Plan counties. constituency the six urban orderly process insure for Ohio an election yet

6. election has been conducted. 1992. No

APPENDIX 1 URBAN COUNTIES WITH BLACK INCUMBENT LEGISLATORS COUNTY DIST.1 NO. POP.2 ^[1990] BLACK POP.3 ^[1990] BLACK LEGISLATOR4 % BLACK INC. POP.5 ^[1980] BLACK POP.6 ^[1980] BLACK % M/M-X10%7 2. Franklin 3. 5. 4. 6. 1. Summit Lucas Hamilton Montgomery Cuyahoga 12.88 7.90 4.70 4.22 5.24 8.77 1,412,140 961,437 866,228 462,361 514,990 573,809 350,185 181,145 152,840 101,817 61,185 68,456 20.9 11.9 14.8 24.8 17.7 15.9 ^{[2] [3] [2] [2] [1] [1]} 1,498,400 471,741 869,126 524,472 571,697 873,204 341,003 165,994 131,016 63,901 94,561 56,831 22.76 16.54 15.07 13.55 10.84 19.01 4-1 0-1 0-1 2-1 1-1 1-1 TOTALS 43.71 4,790,965 915,628 19.1 ^[11] 4,808,640 853,306 17.75 THAT A NUMBER DISTRICT COUNTIES WITH POPULATION EXCEEDS SINGLE COUNTY DIST. NO. POP. BLACK POP. BLACK % LEGISLATOR BLACK INC. POP. BLACK POP. BLACK M/M-X10% 19. 17. 18. 11. Trumbull 14. 12. Lake 15. 16. Green 8. 7. Licking Medina Butler Stark Portage Lorain Mahoning Clermont Clark Richland 2.08 2.42 3.26 1.97 2.47 1.25 1.15 1.17 1.37 2.66 1.12 1.35 1.30 367,585 215,499 227,813 271,126 264,806 291,479 128,300 122,354 126,137 150,187 142,585 136,731 147,548 39,681 25,052 21,230 13,031 13,134 15,221 3,906 9,611 9,981 2,217 3,528 1,291 ^[850] 14.98 4.51 7.83 7.91 8.83 7.03 1.73 6.68 6.82 2.74 1.64 .69 .86 241,863 289,437 258,787 378,823 150,236 135,856 274,909 212,801 113,150 131,205 120,981 128,483 129,769 24,111 41,075 19,813 12,072 13,173 14,605 3,571 9,373 2,036 8,792 ^[709] 14.19 7.14 4.66 7.21 6.04 6.36 8.77 6.78 2.63 1.68 .63 .09 .72 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 5.86 6.12 TOTALS 2,566,300 150,449 2,592,150 158,733 OF THE IDEAL A FIVE PERCENT DEVIATION A POPULATION WITHIN COUNTIES WITH 109,567 MEMBER DISTRICT FOR THE MANDATING A SINGLE DISTRICT OF POPULATION 8 COUNTY COUNTY DIST. NO. POP. ^[1990] BLACK POP. ^[1990] BLACK LEGISLATOR BLACK INC. POP. ^[1980] BLACK POP. ^[1980] BLACK M/M-X10% 20. Warren 99,276 1,711 1.72 2.12 113,909 2,415 (cid:127) 1.03 Wood lit 1,308 1.22 107,372 113,269 1,168 21. 9.78 10,975 112,241 109,755 12,313 11.22 22. Allen 1.30 23. Columbiana 113,572 1,409 1.24 108,276 1,409 8-12 3.56 3.89

TOTALS 432,461 15,403 17,305 445,209 714 IDEAL THE DEVIATION OF A TEN PERCENT A WITHIN POPULATION WITH COUNTIES 109,567 THE FOR MEMBER DISTRICT A SINGLE PERMITTING OF DISTRICT POPULATION

' COUNTY9 COUNTY DIST. NO. POP. ^[1990] BLACK POP. ^[1990] BLACK LEGISLATOR BLACK INC. POP. ^[1980] BLACK M/M-xl .34 93,678 1.11 1,153 1.1 103.461 Fairfield 24. 1.28 1.53 1.53 97,408 Wayne 1,557 101.461 25. 26. 2.94 3.14 3.14 104,215 3,138 99,821 Ashtabula 4,623 295,301 TOTALS 304,743 5,848 THE PERMIT COUNTY TO THAT IS INSUFFICIENT A POPULATION WITH COUNTIES REQUIRING THE COUN- THAT AND THUS MEMBER DISTRICT A SINGLE CONSTITUTING MEMBER DISTRICT A SINGLE TO CREATE ANOTHER COUNTY WITH TY BE PAIRED COUNTY POP. ^[1990] BLACK POP. ^[1990] BLACK % LEGISLATOR BLACK INC. POP. ^[1980] BLACK POP. ^[1980] BLACK m/m % —x 10% 77. Ross 73. Pickaway 76. 75. Preble 72. 70. Ottawa 71. 74. 78. 69. 79. 80. Seneca 65. 60. 35. Clinton 62. 61. 64. 63. 57. Knox 53. 45. 46. 40. 44. 47. Hancock 49. 50. 48. 38. 83. 81. 82. 42. 43. 41. Erie 52. 54. Huron 56. 31. 32. 58. 59. 37. Crawford 55. Jackson 30. 28. 39. 51. Highland 27. Adams 36. Coshocton 34. 33. Carroll 29. Jefferson Tuscarawas Scioto Auglaize Athens Putnam Sandusky Union Paulding Pike Noble Shelby Ashland Morrow Muskingum Lawrence Hocking Morgan Monroe Perry Brown Miami Mercer Meigs Belmont Madison Logan Marion Champaign Darke Holmes Henry Hardin Geauga Gallia Harrison Guernsey Fulton Fayette Defiance Delaware 38,498 27,466 69,330 59,733 76,779 65,536 81,129 66,929 30,954 40,113 39,024 61,963 29,108 39,350 35,728 31,111 48,255 33,819 32,849 47,473 56,240 61,834 30,230 80,298 47,870 24,249 20,488 31,557 35,427 37,068 42,310 71,074 82,068 44,915 40,029 27,749 84,090 31,969 46,585 80,327 39,443 93,182 15,497 26,521 59,549 36,019 22,987 64,274 47,507 14,194 25,533 53,619 25,371 11,336 34,966 35,415 16,085 4,488 2,458 2,764 3,468 2,707 3,036 4,467 1,779 1,553 1,172 1,188 1,559 6,312 1,424 1,056 1,308 1,878 ^{[218] [597] [393] [493] [327] [234] [615] [871] [236] [992] [460] [623] [265] [236]} 415 253 ^{[716] [381] [804] [406] [692] [616] [591] [662] [135] [177] [184] [147] [147] [26] [66] [52] [47] [93] [57] [14] [7]} 6.29 4.2 4.02 6.44 2.51 3.06 7.46 4.23 3.72 5.59 2.44 1.35 1.96 2.81 2,52 2.13 1.15 2.75 1.91 2.02 2.41 1.37 8.22 3.15 1.17 1.06 1.94 1.30 1.58 1.90 1.16 1.25 1.84 .04 .06 .23 .12 .66 .18 .74 .37 .72 .08 .80 .51 .97 .14 .51 .76 .90 .24 .34 .77 .16 .92 .53 .19 32,991 38,223 63,267 37,751 29,536 43,089 84,545 31,032 46.304 21,302 83,340 61,901 30,098 74,474 42,024 33,477 32,719 28,383 22,802 30,592 65,004 43,662 26,480 40,076 84,614 39,155 33,649 46,178 42,554 38,334 31,920 24.304 55,096 91,564 29,416 39,987 54,608 63,849 64,581 53,840 25,328 27,467 79,655 90.381 11,310 23,641 33,004 50,075 25,598 36,024 67,974 18,152 82,569 34,603 56,399 17.382 14,241 2,389 3,416 1,168 1,322 3,514 1,768 2,241 5,047 5,888 1,523 1,541 1,259 1,653 1,592 ^{[654] [503] [569] [711] [238] [242] [245] [565] [294] [206] [724] [140]} 577 207 ^{[683] [470] [101] [211] [523] [913] [637] [990] [219] [714] [301] [414] [117] [411] [979] [170] [312] [115] [22] [64] [17] [40] [10] [37] [36] [3]} 2.83 2.09 1.89 1.17 3.30 4.61 4.22 5.26 3.90 1.91 1.12 1.06 2.41 2.59 2.04 5.51 1.96 1.30 2.06 1.06 2.64 2.34 7.39 3.03 2.91 1.82 2.93 1.15 1.33 1.52 1.29 1.93 .77 .21 .04 .03 .03 .07 .37 .12 .61 .63 .68 .03 .36 .87 .11 .60 .09 .64 .31 .55 .14 .81 .48 .45 .68

715 84. Van Wert 85. Vinton 86. 87. Williams Washington Wyandot 62.254 36,956 30,464 22.254 11,098 ^{[774] [193] [20] [23] [4]} 1.24 .04 .06 .09 .63 36,369 22,651 11,584 64,266 30,458 ^{[780] [113] [13] [9] [9]} 1.21 .06 .08 .37 .02 1 Figures represent county the number of districts each is entitled to based on the ideal district 109,567. population of 2 Based on 1990 census information. 3 Based on 1990 census information.

4 Elected under the 1981 Plan. 5 Based on 1980 census information. 6 census Based on 1980 information.

7 majority minority figure represents “M/M” refers to districts. The the influence “10%” minority population district, majority minority that do not have a sufficient to constitute a but population. than contain more a black 10% 10(A). See Ohio Constitution Article XI § 10(B). See Ohio Constitution Article XI § person group consisting

ORDER five of the Gover nor, State, State, Secretary Auditor of majority opinion The and the dissent persons and two from the Ohio General Friday, were filed with the Clerk on Janu- Assembly, Repre one from the House of ary 1992. The dissent reference made sentatives and one from the Senate. Sec However, Appendix Appendix was requires persons tion 1 that such or a ma undergoing ready still final review and not jority of their number shall meet and estab filing. for ninety- the lish boundaries for each of the Appendix complete 2 is now Representative nine House of districts and is directed to file the and to Clerk same thirty-three State Senate districts. The copies to forward counsel record and meeting designated is to convene on a date Judge Judge Jones and Peck. August the Governor between 1 and every year ending 1 in in the num October IT IS SO ORDERED. one, 1971, 1981, as etc. The ber such apportionment published by is to be Octo APPENDIX year in ber 5 in the which it is made.2 FACT FINDINGS persons charged respon- 3. The with sibility apportionment for the of the Ohio I.BACKGROUND Assembly in 1991 three Re- General were legislative body 1. The for the State of Voinovich, George publicans, Governor Sec- consisting Assembly Ohio is the General Taft, retary of State Robert A. and State Represent ninety a nine member House of Aronoff, Stanley Senator and two Demo- thirty three atives and a member Senate.1 crats, Ferguson Auditor Thomas State Quilter. Representative Barney State XI 2. Section of Article of the Ohio places responsibility Constitution Apportionment anticipates in Ohio apportionment of the State of Ohio for Federal Decenni the use of the most recent Census, if Assembly of the General al available.3 Court takes the members XI, every ending apportion year the Ohio Constitu- date to the state in 1. See Article Section of in the number one. election, In 1990 the last such state tion. George Governor Voinovich and Secre- 2. Section 1 of Article XI of the Ohio Constitu- Taft, tary A. of State Robert both members major political parties provides tion that both Republican party, and Thomas State Auditor represented by Assembly General will be two party, Ferguson, a member of the Democratic participating members process. Thus, Republican party has a were elected. majority political party The issue of which con- process apportionment involved in the by process the out- trols the is then determined by as dictated the Ohio Constitution. of the last state election for the office of come Governor, XI, Secretary the Ohio Constitu- State and of 3.See Article Section 2 of Auditor of prior to the constitutional man- tion. State conducted 716 hearings

tionment were held and that the public given to a data base and was access for Ohio that the census notice judicial computer terminal.6 10,847,- population at fixed the state’s 1991, 26, ap- September proposed 8. On eighty-eight coun into 133. Ohio is divided (1) by: portionment plans submitted were ranked urban counties ties. The dominant responsible ap- for majority persons (Cleve Cuyahoga are by the 1980 census Voinovich, (Governor (Cin portionment Senator land), (Columbus), Hamilton Franklin Taft); (2) Secretary Aronoff and of State cinnati), (Dayton), Summit Montgomery responsible minority persons of the for (Canton), (Toledo), (Akron), Stark Lucas (Auditor Rep- apportionment Ferguson and (Middletown), (Elyria) Lorain and Butler (3) Quilter); resentative the Ohio Confer- 1980 and (Youngstown). The Mahoning NAACP; (4) the of Branches ence counties population eighty-eight of the (BEDO); Elected Democrats Ohio Black Appendix 1. on are set forth (5) Republican Party.7 the Ohio and appor- for the 1991 preparation 5. In appor- Force, 1 is the tionment, Legislative 9. Defendants’ Exhibit Task the Ohio by majority of effort, plan funded the Ohio tionment submitted bipartisan by apportionment and persons responsible deal for Assembly, was established to General 1, 1991, amended on appor- adopted on October issues with the technical 3, by the published 1991 and Gov- including collection and com- October tionment 5, Defendants' Ex- on October 1991. census data.4 ernor puterization of plan apportionment 76 is the sub- hibit Legislative Force en- The Task 6. Ohio of Branches by mitted the Ohio Conference University pre- gaged Cleveland State 77 is Defendants’ Exhibit of the NAACP.8 by inter- pare data base” use a “unified by BEDO. Defendants’ plan submitted general public in the groups and the ested by Plain- plan 78 is the submitted Exhibit process.5 The unified apportionment Quilter Ferguson on behalf of the tiffs and population PL-94171 data base included Defendants’ party. Democratic Ex- Ohio counts, demographic data and elec- racial by plan is the submitted the Ohio hibit races and all 1990statewide tion results for Republican Party. Popu- and Senate races. 1990 Ohio House plan as prepared by apportionment census tracts The 1991 data was 10. lation Voinovich, population data by converted to the defendants Taft ultimately adopted Aronoff, to the by precincts. as it interests wards and relates districts, was of minorities State Uni- All Cleveland data created minority repre- thoroughly discussed with data base has been versity in unified sentatives. stipulated proceeding. in this responsible for the 1991 persons The 7. OF THE OHIO II.THE APPLICATION 22, August first met on THE APPOR- TO CONSTITUTION Thereafter, hearings public were 1991. TIONMENT PROCESS throughout the State held at fifteen sites Constitution, Article XI of the Ohio ensuing one half 11. over the two and of Ohio in an extensively in 1967 obvi- public hearings as amended The of the purpose weeks. response man—one vote concerning ous to the one public comment was to obtain 186, Carr, 369 U.S. the first of Baker v. apportionment. This was decision the 1991 (1962),provides in public appor- S.Ct. 7 L.Ed.2d 663 history that such time in Ohio Tilling, Tilling, Deposition R. Defendants’ of James 4. Deposition James R. Defendants’ 7. pp. 34-36. pp. 23-26. Exhibit Exhibit Tilling, Deposition R. Defendants' plan of James Ohio Branches 8. Conference 96, p. 27. for the Exhibit Advance- of the National Association introductory People contained of Colored ment pages length as and is attached Tilling, six Defendants’ Deposition of James R. material Appendix pp. Exhibit 31-33. 22, 1991, August Tilling On Mr. was des- ignated Secretary persons to the respon- procedure by detail the which considerable apportionment sible for and was directed to apportionment process the will be accom- Apportionment draft a 1991 Plan.9 plished. XI, 10(A) (B) 13. Article Section and XI, 10 addresses the Section 12.Article first address the creation county of whole numbering and of House Districts creation districts, is, that a district to be created provides: and single county. from a Once those districts numbering and of house § [Creation established, have been identified and representative of districts.] XI, 10(C) provisions of Article plug Section prescribed The standards in sections in and address the division of counties with govern 8 and 9 of this Article shall more than one whole house ratio into dis- representative establishment of house of tricts, beginning largest county. with the districts, shall created num- which be and process completed Once the has been with following order to the extent bered respect to counties entitled to more than that such order is consistent with the district, one whole of foregoing standards: completed by the remainder of the is State (A) county containing population Each following XI, provisions of Article Sec- repre- substantially equal to one ratio of 10(D).10 tion representatives, in the house of sentation Article, provided as in section of this 10(A) (B), Pursuant to Section ninety-five per but no event less than adopted Apportionment begins Plan cent of the ratio nor more one hun- than single with the creation of seven whole per dred five cent of the ratio shall be county districts.11 designated representative a district. Plan, Apportionment 14. The after des- (B) county containing population Each ignating single county the first seven ninety ninety-five per cent between districts, whole created house districts in of the ratio or between one hundred five Cuyahoga, successive numerical order in per and one hundred ten cent of the ratio Franklin, Hamilton, Summit, Montgomery, may designated representative a dis- be Lucas, Many and Stark counties. of the trict. spillover adjoin- urban counties had into an (C) Proceeding in succession from the ing required county by provisions as of smallest, largest remaining to the each XI, 10(C), requires Article Section which containing county more than one whole any remaining territory that within “... representation divided ratio of shall be containing county such a fraction of one representatives into house of districts. representation ratio of shall be in- whole Any remaining territory within such representative containing one cluded one district county a fraction of representation whole shall be combining adjoining territory out- ratio of it with representative in one district included provisions county.” side the The of Article adjoining by combining it with territo- XI, 10(C) prohibit Apportion- Section ry county. outside the establishing ment Board from more than county one in a entitled to more

(D) district remaining territory spills district over into representa- than one whole that state shall be combined into territory. nor adjoining No claim is made tive districts. 278); (House population Tilling, Deposition of R. Defendants’ Wood District 4 with a James 113,272); (House p. Exhibit District 5 with a Ashtabula (House 99,821); population of District Fairfield #12, finding supra. See fact 103,453); Wayne population 6 with a 101,441). (House population of District 7 with a (House District 1 with 11. The counties are Allen designated 109,760); (House as The latter three counties were population Warren Dis- a 113,915); single pursuant to the discretion- population house districts 2 with a Columbia- trict 108,- 10(B). (House population ary power Section contained in na District 3 with 718 4) (Defendants’ Exhibit Appendix C

21. house districts as the Ohio map of is a spill- required the proof that any is there Plan Apportionment configured in the 1991 counties violated Sec- from the urban overs adopted. as 10(C). tion 5) (Defendants’ Exhibit Appendix 22. D representation of as one ratio 15. The as senate districts map is a of the Ohio XI 2 of Article of the in provided Section Plan configured Apportionment in the 1991 pop- into the 1990 divided Constitution Ohio adopted. as is demon- urban counties for the ulation 6) (Defendants’ Exhibit Appendix E 23. 1. Appendix strated on dis- map showing Ohio house is a colorized 7(D) XI, addresses Article Section 16. Apportion- in configured as the 1991 tricts of districts estab- possible retention the adopted. Plan as ment Ar- apportionment. preceding lished 7) (Defendants’ F Exhibit Appendix 24. 7(D) XI, provides: ticle Section map showing Ohio senate is a colorized making apportionment, (D) In a new configured Appor- in the 1991 districts as by the established boundaries district adopted. Plan as tionment shall be preceding apportionment reasonably con- adopted to the extent 8) (Defendants’ Appendix Exhibit 25. G requirements of the Section with sistent showing dis- map colorized Ohio house is a added) (Emphasis 3 this Article. of Ferguson Plaintiffs’ proposed tricts as Quilter Minority in the 1991 Plan as and XI, 3 of the Ohio Section 17. Article proposed. population re- describes the Constitution districts and states: quirements for house (Defendants’ 9) Appendix H Exhibit 26. repre- house of population of each The map showing Ohio senate is a colorized substantially shall be district sentatives proposed by Fergu- Plaintiffs districts as representation the to the ratio of equal Minority Quilter in the 1991 Plan son and provided in representatives, as house of proposed. as Article, no event 2 of this section 57) (Defendants’ Appendix I Exhibit 27. representatives dis- any house of shall keyed displays the 1981 house districts population of less than a trict contain population. Fifty four of the 1990 census more than one percent nor ninety-five districts, single 1981 less the whole the per cent of the ratio of five hundred Ashtabula, county districts of District represent- in the house representation Wayne County, District Fairfield atives, instances where except in those reconfigured must County, District be avoid divid- effort is made to reasonable remaining the population because with Section 9 ing county in accordance a to the fifty one districts fails to conform of this Article. XI, 3 of the provisions of Article Section representation 18. The ratio Constitution.12 Ohio Repre- House of 13) (Defendants’ Appendix Exhibit 28. J by the formula determined sentatives as provides population for each house 109,567. XI, in Article Section is set forth district as senate established 2) (Defendants’ A Exhibit Appendix 19. exception Apportionment Plan. With the as house districts map is of the Ohio will be dis- of H.D. 68 and S.D. which apportionment. configured cussed, and senate district com- each house 3) population requirements of (Defendants’ plies with the B Exhibit Appendix XI, 3, 4 and 9 of the Ohio as Article Sections senate districts map of the Ohio is a apportionment. Constitution.13 configured in the 5,478. 109,567 (5%) in order to com- The defendants contend that per is cent 12. Five ply the constitution as with other mandates of Apportionment fifty in the 1981 one districts case, Armour it was as the decision in the well necessary upward shift in or downward Plan have an districts, undersized to create two 5,478. population in excess of District 32. The District 68 and Senate House question of whether those undersized

population among eight fluctuation County house districts of Hamilton is (Defendants’ K Exhibit Appendix 104,424 114,- high from to a a low of 14) provides population of each house proposed by district as Plain- and senate d) Montgomery County (Dayton) con- Quilter in Mi- Ferguson tiffs and the 1991 sists of House Districts 38-43 with the nority proposed. Plan as only part Montgomery County of in the (Defendants’ L Appendix Exhibit spillover being House District 43 Huber 54) displays 1981 senate with Heights City remaining portion and the populations. 1990 census of in part House District 43 is contained (Defendants’ M Appendix Exhibit County popu- of Miami to the north. The 55) displays populations for 1991 the 1990 104,- lation fluctuation is from a low of configured in senate districts as the 1991 111,246. high ato of Appendix Apportionment adopted. Plan as e) (Akron) County Summit consists of (Defendants’ 56) displays Exhibit N House Districts 44-48 with House Dis- districts as same information senate spilling part Portage trict 48 into of over Ferguson Quil- proposed by Plaintiffs and Suffield, Rootstown, County including Minority proposed ter in the Plan. Randolph, Townships and Atwater and majority 32. The Township, except all of Brimfield for that multiple districts from whole board created Kent, part City Village and the of following Cuyahoga, order: counties Mogadore. population of The fluctuation Franklin, Hamilton, Summit, Montgomery, 105,500 high is from a low of to a of Lucas, Stark, Butler, Mahoning Lorain and 113,164. Counties. f) (Toledo) County Lucas consists of a) (Cleveland) County Cuyahoga con- 49-53. District House Districts House sists of House Districts 8-20. House City, Oregon 53 contains Jerusalem spills District 15 over into three town- Township, Village in Lu- and Harborview ships County, Hinckley, Medina Gran- of County cas and the remainder of the ger population fluctua- and Sharon. The spills district over and includes all of among tion the thirteen house districts Sandusky County City and the of Ottawa Cuyahoga the thirteen districts of Coun- Perkins, County, additionally, in Erie and 104,872 high ty is from the low of to a of Oxford, Groton, Kelley’s Margarette, and 114,955. fluc- Townships. population Island The (Columbus) b) County con- Franklin 104,395 113,501. tuation is from part House Districts 21-29 and sists of (Canton) g) County consists of Stark spills into Pick- of House District over Scioto, majority The of House Districts 54-57. away County Darby, and includes Monroe, Jackson, House District 57 lies outside of Stark Muhlenberg, Perry, Deer, parts County and all of Coun- Wayne Townships; and of includes Carroll Mahoning County (Youngs- Harrisburg Village ty, parts and Holland Vil- of New Berlin, town) Smith, Goshen, Pickaway County; including and lage contained Orient, Point, Jackson, Ellsworth, Green, Milton, Bea- Villages of Commercial popu- ver, Darbyville, Williamsport. Springfield Townships, part and The and and among the nine house Township City lation fluctuation and the of of Canfield County Canfield, Franklin is from a Sebring Village districts of Mid- and New 104,979 113,427. high of low of to a Village. only parts The of Stark dleton City (Cincinnati) County in House District 57 are the c) County Hamilton con- Minerva, Alliance, Village no of of House Districts 30-37 with sists of Paris, Lexington Town- Washington and adjoining counties. The spillover into ap- declaratory judgment they wherein seek a the 5% deviation limitation in which are below proving Constitution violate the Ohio Constitu- District 68 the Ohio the creation of House Supreme presently Court is before the Ohio tion Senate District 32. brought by the defendants in this case in a case only gain population enced a net 50,000 However, people. signif- there were ships. population The fluctuation is a population icant shifts within the state. 107,746 113,515. high low of to a Specifically, there occurred a substantial h) (Middletown) County Butler con- population qua- shift from the Northeast sists of House Districts 58-60. House drant of the state to the Central and South- part 60 includes District of Butler Coun- state, portions of particularly west ty County. pop- and all of Trumbull Franklin, Delaware, Union Madison 107,036 ulation fluctuation is a low population counties. There also occurred a 113,748. high and a County shift from Cincinnati and Hamilton i) County (Elyria) Lorain consists of Butler, Clermont and Warren counties. House District 61-63. House District 63 Cuyahoga County lost one entire house dis- part of County, contains a Lorain Erie population (109,000 people) trict County while County. popula- and Huron 113,457 County gained tion fluctuation is a low of and a Franklin one entire house 114,684. high of County replaced district. Franklin Hamil- j) Mahoning County County ton (Youngstown) populous as the second most consists of House Districts whole 64 and county sig- the state. There were also remaining part 65 and the Mahoning population nificant shifts from the inner County spills over into House District 57 cities to the suburbs.14 (see 32(g) supra). House Districts 64 major population 34. As a result of response and 65 were created in to the shifts within counties and from the inner Armour decision. suburbs, city to the majority the vast configured 1981 in major all urban III. THE PROCESS OF APPOR- areas had reconfigured to be to meet the TIONMENT AS FOLLOWED XI, population requirements of Article Sec- BY THE MAJORITY tion 3 of the Ohio A Constitution.15 sum- A. In General mary of the 1981 house districts with 1990 population indicating census data whether census, As indicated the 1990 requirements the 1981 district meets the population total ap- Ohio remained at XI, proximately people, virtually high 10 million Article Section or is too or too same as in 1980 experi- census. Ohio low follows:16

1981 APPORTIONMENT HOUSE DISTRICTS WITH 1990 CENSUS

POPULATION FOR MAJOR URBAN COUNTIES XI, IDEAL HOUSE DISTRICT ARTICLE (Name 109,567 Representative of Black SECTION 3 POPULATION — 104,089-115,045 District) Currently Serving REQUIREMENTS The 1981 RANGE — Cuyahoga County requirements 113,674 6 Meets requirements 107,304 Meets 7 100,798 8 Too low 100,461 Too low 9 requirements 108,686 10 Meets 96,086 11 Too low (James) 84,098 12 Too low requirements 104,883 Meets 13 (Prentiss) 91,972 Too low 14 Deposition Tilling, James R. Defendants’ 16. The source is Defendants’ Exhibit 58. 96, pp. Exhibit 61-63. Deposition Tilling, of James R. Defendants’ 96, pp. Exhibit 79-80.

721 XI, ARTICLE HOUSE DISTRICT IDEAL (Name Representative 109,567 3 of Black SECTION POPULATION — District) 104,089-115,045 Currently Serving REQUIREMENTS The 1981 RANGE — Too low 99,173 r*H ud (Whalen) Too low 96,258 r-H «o requirements Meets 107,097 t-H c- Too low 101,314 t“H oo Too low 100,333 j-H County Hamilton high Too 122,802 Too low 99,465 21 22 requirements Meets 108,124 (Mallory) Too low 97,630 Too low 102,789 (Rankin) Too low 99,765 high Too 119,239 high Too 116,413 County

Franklin high Too 116,369 (Miller) requirements Meets 106,537 high Too 118,913 (Beatty) Too low 97,764 requirements Meets 111,070 high Too 115,186 high Too 138,011 high Too 157,601 Montgomery County high (McLin) Too

115,907 requirements (Roberts) Meets 108,769 high Too 116,087 requirements Meets 106,321 high Too 118,434 SUMMIT COUNTY requirements Meets

107,879 requirements (Sykes) Meets 105,536 requirements Meets 108,031 requirements Meets 113,743 LUCAS COUNTY requirements (Jones) Meets

107,825 requirements Meets 108,701 Too low 102,736 high Too 121,371 XI, Article Section quirements of find- summary of the statistical A35. 12, 14, 8, 9, 11, H.D. legislative are 1981 These districts relates to the ings as it include districts Finding No. 34 19. These in Fact 18 and as set forth districts minority in- by reconfigure represented as the need to all districts in the context of (Prentiss) (James), (H.D. incum- 15 represented to districts cumbents applies it (black) remaining fol- dis- representatives (Whalen)). The minority bent 17) 7, 11, (H.D. 6, cannot be lows: tricts population re- given the (14) intact retained (9) a) out of the fourteen Nine More- districts. of the other quirements County must be Cuyahoga districts re- over, must be fourteen districts population re- reconfigured to meet the re- be remaining The districts cannot population by reason of tained intact because of thirteen districts duced to County. requirements of the other districts. Cuyahoga loss in population (8) b) (7) eight out of the dis- Seven e) County, districts In Summit all County recon- must be tricts in Hamilton 41-44) (H.D. require- population meet the population require- figured meet the XI, ments of Article Section 3. These XI, 3. These of Article Section ments split- reconfigured were to avoid districts 20, 21, 23, 24, districts are H.D. community in ting the black Summit districts include the two and 27. These County minority and to voter dilu- avoid by minority incum- represented districts tion. (H.D. (Mallory) and H.D. bents (2) f) County, In Lucas two out of four (H.D. (Rankin)). remaining district The (4) requirements districts do not meet the 22) intact because of cannot be retained XI, districts of Article Section These population requirements of the other remaining 47 and 48. The dis- are H.D. districts. tricts, including represented by H.D. 45 (8) c) (6) eight Six out of Jones, minority incumbent cannot be re- reconfigured County must be Franklin population intact re- tained because population requirements of to meet the quirements of other districts and to avoid XI, Article 3. These districts are Section dilution. voter 28, 30, 31, 33, 34 and 35. H.D. These necessary reconfigure 36. It was represented district districts include the major legislative districts urban (H.D. Beatty by minority incumbent Otto comply population counties to with the re- 31). remaining districts cannot two XI, quirements of Article Section 3 popula- be retained intact because Ohio Constitution. requirements tion of the other districts. d) (3) (5) comparisons population of the five 37. The of black Three out configured appor- Montgomery County reconfig- by must district as the 1981 be tionment, population require- Apportionment the 1991 Plan ured to meet XI, (the adopted by majority the defendants ments of Article Section 3. These plan) apportionment plan H.D. 38 and 40. These and the 1991 as districts are plaintiffs Ferguson represented proposed by the district districts include (H.D. 36). Quilter (the minority plan) McLin 1991 follow: by minority incumbent DISTRICTS WITH MINORITY REPRESENTATION OF HOUSE COMPARISON IN PLAN 1981 DEMOCRAT PLAN AND 1991 MAJORITY APPORTIONMENT 1991 PLAN MINORITY APPORTIONMENT 1991 1991 1981 PLAN17 MINORITY PLAN PLAN MAJORITY DEMOCRAT 15 12 16 14 6-19 - - - - Cuyahoga 74.80% 34.80% 90.05% 94.67%18 1990 Pop. 106,514— 1990 Pop. 106,424— ^[1990] 1990 Pop. 104,972— Pop. 108,572— 10 12 9 8 - - - - 8-20 63.42% 65.13% 58.36% 61.41% Cuyahoga 19 67.35% 67.25% 62.30% 65.64% 13 14 16 12 - - - - 6-18 67.08% 60.18% 66.67% 63.71% Cuyahoga 63.86% 70.81% 69.17% 68.20% every majority-minority percentage population. of total 17. In or black influence 18. Black respect eight urban district with to the counties Hamilton, Franklin, Cuyahoga, Montgomery, Voting Age Population. 19. Black Lucas, Summit, Mahoning, popu- Stark and is than the ratio of lation of the district representation less 109,567. number

723 1991 1991 1981 MINORITY PLAN PLAN MAJORITY PLAN DEMOCRAT 17 18 19 13 31" 11 10 32 29 30 34 28 33 35 7 6 9 8 28-35 Franklin - - - = - - - 26.14% 14.70% 14.40% 46.80% 26.60% 38.50% 12.40% 4.99% 4.16% 4.44% 2.36% 2.12% 0.49% 0.64% 4.10% 5.90% 5.10% 1.40% ^[1990] 15 14 11 21 20 17 18 22 28 24 29 19 13 25 26 23 1990 Pop 104,979— 1990 Pop 106,606— 16 27 Pop. - - - 105,024— 21-29 Franklin 40.61% 44.31% 6.86% 3.71% 2.34% 3.25% 0.45% 7.96% 0.23% 2.32% 4.47% 7.78% 3.92% 3.56% 1.31% 8.07% 3.09% 43.01% 55.92% 48.29% 2.85% 7.92% 4.63% 0.47% 3.29% 2.75% 1.41% 0.31% 8.41% 8.32% 3.75% 4.22% 8.66% 3.57% 4.32% 11 15 18 17 24 23 25 10 26 21 20 22 19 7 9 8 6 - 19-26 Franklin 26.46% 46.40% 50.60% 10.88% 6.03% 2.97% 7.32% 0.49% 5.14% 4.15% 2.19% 0.44% 4.78% 1.16% 5.23% 6.61% 1.49% 27.89% 50.80% 53.85% 12.45% 8.54% 6.87% 0.66% 3.12% 6.05% 2.62% 7.04% 0.47% 4.79% 5.99% 1.23% 5.08% 1.62% 23 27 22 SE 25 24 45 40 38 44 42 37 26 47 43 39 49 50 41 51 48 46 36-40 20-27 —- 41-44 “ 45-48 Lucas "~= 49-51 - - - - - Montgomery Hamilton Summit 32.30% 45.90% 36.10% 53.20% 42.10% 21775% 35.40% 12.60% 12.20% 13.20% Stark 123(5% 7.50% 8.90% 2.70% 6.20% 4.70% 9.00% 0.91% 2.30% 2.90% 2.80% 5.30% 4.43% 1.30% 30 35 31 32 45 38 1990 Pop 104,812— 39 43 48 1990 Pop. 104,424— 41 1990 Pop. 106,539— 42 33 34 40 44 ^[1990] 1990 Pop. 104,427— 46 47 ^[1990] 49 50 56 54 Pop. 108,609— ^[1990] 55 57 51 52 1990 Pop. 104,395— .Pop Pop. 38-43 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30-37 105,500— 104,614— 44-48 Summit 49-52 54-57 52.60% 21.58% 56.83% 39.52% 47.65% 29.23% 50.70% 12.93% 7.50% 7.91% 4.08% 2.84% 2.28% 3.61% 3.39% 5.40% 5.00% 1.18% 1.90% 1.94% 4.85% 2.18% 4.23% 0.61% 2.64% 1.12% 1.15% Montgomery Hamilton Lucas Stark 62.07% 24.00% 59.82% 43.26% 54.78% 32.35% 50.92% 15.15% 4.49% 8.04% 2.14% 2.14% 8.96% 3.30% 0.53% 3.86% 2.76% 5.65% 1.33% 1.31% 2.40% 5.46% 6.29% 6.00% 2.98% 3.84% 1.20% 28 32 29 33 34 41 35 39 38 40 36 31 37 46 44 45 47 42 43 49 48 50 ~= 35-39 - - - - - - 27-34 Hamilton 40-43 Summit 44-47 48-50 Stark 47.10% 57.91% 45.26% 36.20% 16.71% 19.55% 44.98% 43.09% 12.49% 3.11% 2.30% 3.26% 3.55% 3.62% 0.99% 2.71% 4.70% 4.16% 3.02% 2.24% 3.81% 2.54% 3.43% 3.08% Montgomery Lucas 47.63% 55.49% 21.67% 61.26% 18.46% 40.79% 47.20% 50.12% 14.49% 2.53% 3.96% 4.39% 3.46% 4.23% 3.21% 4.25% 2.88% 2.54% 3.34% 5.22% 5.73% 3.52% 3.84% 1.09% 724 1991 1981 1991 PLAN PLAN MAJORITY MINORITY PLAN

DEMOCRAT Mahoning Mahoning Mahoning 64-65 55-56 52-53 - - - 53 64 35.53% 55 2180% 31.19% 31.19% 35.53% 1990 Pop. 106,174— - - - 52 65 56 10.50% 1.48% 1.64% 1.44% 1.60% 10%) (Minority Districts Total Over 24 16 16 18 18 50%)) (Over (Minority Majority Total — By way summary, Ap- of County only the 1991 Hamilton where in one existed (4) portionment majority-mi- apportionment. majority-mi- Plan has four the 1981 The nority Cuyahoga County nority Apportionment with districts in the 1991 58.36%, voting age populations voting age populations black Plan have black 61.41%, prior By way comparison, and and 65.13% 63.42%. 52.60% 56.83%. (3) only majority-minori- Minority districts had three the 1991 proposed by Plan Plain- ty populations Quilter districts with black Ferguson of 74.- tiffs and also reflects one 80%, (1) majority-minority and The 1991 Minori- 90.05% 94.67%. district at 57.91%. ty proposed by Ferguson Plan Plaintiffs Apportionment The 1991 Plan also reflects Quilter similarly majority- and has four compared an influence district of 21.58% voting age Minority districts with black proposed the 1991 Plan 19.55% 60.18%,63.71%, populations Ferguson Quilter. Plaintiffs 66.67% 67.08%.20 Apportionment 42. The 1991 Plan re- Apportionment (1)

39. The 1991 Plan majority-minority also flects one district in strong Cuya- creates a influence Montgomery County, district where none existed hoga County of compared apportionment. to an the 1981 Appor- 40.61% The 1991 only influence district of in the 1991 tionment Plan has a district with a black 26.46% Minority proposed by voting age Plan population Plaintiffs Fer- and an 50.70% Quilter.21 guson and By influence district at way of 29.23%. comparison plan presented by plaintiffs Apportionment 40. The 1991 Plan has Quilter Ferguson and majority-mi- has no (1) majority-minority one district in Frank- nority districts and two influence districts County voting age popu- lin at black 50.30% at challenge Plaintiffs 36.20% 45.26%. ap- lation where none existed in the 1980 Montgomery County. no districts in portionment. Apportionment The 1991 strong Plan also has a influence district Apportionment at 43. The 1991 Plan re- By way comparison, slight of the 1991 flects a increase in population 44.31%. black Minority proposed 42, by Plan Plaintiffs’ Fer- in in County, House District Summit guson Quilter (1)majority- currently represented and also has one by minority incum- minority voting age Representative district at Sykes. black bent 50.60% The increase population and one influence district at 46.- is from to population. black 35.40% 43.26% Significantly, part By way comparison, of the rationale in Minority 40%. 1991 Apportionment proposed the 1991 by Ferguson Plan increas- Plan Plaintiffs and ing percentages Quilter relative in population black Franklin also increases the black County plan Representative districts from the in Sykes’ house 1981 35.- district from was to create a Senate influence in challenge district to no dis- 40% 47.20%. Plaintiffs County.22 in County. Franklin tricts Summit Apportionment 41. The 1991 Plan cre- 44. Apportionment The 1991 Plan re- (2) majority-minority population ates two districts in flects an increase in black in 22.Deposition Tilling, 20. Defendants’ Exhibit 77. Defendants’ James R. 96, pp. Exhibit 103-104. 21. Defendants’ Exhibit 77.

725 apportion- under the 1981 94.6% 90.1% 65.6%, 45, County, which plan in Lucas were reduced to District ment 67.0% House rep- currently comparable to the district population. is black 67.0% Represent- minority incumbent by resented (11) currently All eleven 51. voting age The black Casey Jones. ative by served incumbents remain increased in district was population Jones’ Q strongly Appendix districts. Democratic in 1991 compared to to 44.98% 47.65% 59). (Defendants’ Exhibit by Plaintiffs Fer- Minority proposed Plan populations Quilter. The black guson and IV. THE INTENTIONAL and 47 in the 1991 in Districts 45 House DISCRIMINATION substantially sim- Plan are Apportionment CLAIM pro- Apportionment Plan to the 1991 ilar Quilter. Ferguson and by Plaintiffs posed In General A. County, is not suffi- In there 45. Stark Tilling Secretary 52. Mr. was elected to majority- population to form a cient black persons August apportioning on minority district. Tilling by directed the ma- 1991. Mr. was County Mahoning in The districts 46. Apportionment jority members of configured pursuant to the order are Apportionment proposed Board to draft a in Armour v. State District Court Federal Plan.23 1991). (N.D.Ohio Ohio, F.Supp. 1044 Tilling Mr. is Chief Executive Offi- 53. (8) Overall, eight majority- are 47. there so cer of the Ohio Senate has been Apportion- minority districts in the 1991 January, 1985.24 Mr. Till- employed since (4) in the compared only four ment Plan ing degree a in Social Sciences has B.S. (6) six in the 1991 apportionment and University, a Masters de- from Clarkson by Plaintiffs Fer- Minority proposed Plan University gree political science from the Quilter. guson and Illinois, major in and met- with a urban Further, reduc- there is no relative 48. completed politics, and has course ropolitan over of districts with tion in the number Tilling Mr. is a toward a PhD.25 work In the voting age population. black 10% political science at professor of former Plan, twenty there are Apportionment from 1969 University taught where he Ohio voting (20) black districts with over 10% to 1976.26 the same number age population, precisely Tilling participated In Mr. 54. Minority proposed Plan in the 1991 as prepare the 1981 Con bipartisan effort Quilter. Appendix Ferguson and Plaintiffs Till redistricting plan.27 Mr. gressional 18). (Defendants’ Exhibit concerning testimony the 1981 Con ing’s Apportionment Plan dou- The 1991 by the Fed gressional plan was considered dis- majority-minority bles the number Flanagan v. Gill eral District Court maintaining the same in Ohio while tricts 1982), (S.D.Ohio, mor, F.Supp. population composition of black relative judge upheld court the 1981 a three where by minori- represented the current districts against of racial Congressional plan claims ty incumbents. discrimination. (Defendants' Exhibit Appendix P Tilling In Mr. observed change in black 21) percentage reflects amend- Constitutional proposal of an Ohio minority by served population impartial state for fair and provide to Cuyahoga ment Three districts incumbents. 74.8%, proposed amendment apportionment. The population of County with a black Tilling, Deposition Defendants’ Tilling, of James R. 26. Deposition R. Defendants' of James 23. 96, 96, pp. p. Exhibit 6. Exhibit 7-8. Tilling, Deposition Defendants’ of James R. 24. Tilling, Defendants’ Deposition of James R. 27. 96, p. 4. Exhibit 96, p. 10. Exhibit Tilling, Deposition R. Defendants’ of James 25. 96, p. Exhibit 5. to time to

meeting recessed from time was among representatives the Coun- by permit the ACLU and supported was discussions at the defeated Tilling cil was of Churches but Mr. the NAACP and of BEDO and polls.28 concerning a consensus attempt to reach to minority districts.35 last four the Tilling has served

56. Mr. of State Conference years on the National discussions were 60. above-referred organi- (“NCSL”), bipartisan Legislators Tilling representa- by Mr. after initiated representatives of all composed of zation to the NAACP failed tives of BEDO and deal with is- designed to fifty states regarding minority dis- reach a consensus legislatures. to state importance of sues Congressman Tilling Mr. contacted tricts. the currently Tilling Vice-Chair is Mr. bring the attempt to Stokes to Task Force.29 Reapportionment NCSL Tilling initiated together. Mr. groups with the NCSL In his involvement 57. minor- he knew that discussions since these panels Force, Tilling chaired Mr. has Task point the focal ity voting issues would be Voting the minority voting issues under on process.36 the close- Tilling Mr. has worked Rights Act.30 Collins, Director of Voter ly Clifford with currently holds two Floyd 61. Johnson NAACP, Dan- with James of the Education is the in the NAACP. He both offices iels, of the Ohio Confer- Chairman State the Political Action Commit- Chairman of NAACP, of the Frank of Branches ence and the coordi- Dayton for the Branch tees Allison, Branch of the Cincinnati President redistricting reapportionment and nator for Parker, NAACP, President of Fred of the Mr. of Branches. for the Ohio Conference NAACP, of the Branch the Columbus with has been associated Johnson Johnson, for Ohio Floyd State Coordinator years. He twenty-five the last NAACP for minority repre- and other Apportionment, position of chairman has held Tilling partici- Mr. has also sentatives.31 Dayton Action Committee for Political conferences, sponsored regional pated years and approximately five for branch NAACP, regarding minority voting is- position of for has held the Coordinator participated in Tilling Mr. has also sues.32 Redistricting for one Reapportionment and Bu- by the United States panels, co-hosted appointed Coordi- year. Mr. Johnson was Census, dealing apportion- with reau of Reapportionment and Redistrict- nator ment issues.33 Branches of ing for the Ohio Conference 30, 1991, Appor- September 58. On the NAACP.37 testimony from met to hear tionment Board proposed proponents of the actively the various in- has been 62. Mr. Johnson plans.34 minority voting issues since volved Rep- assisted the late 1963.38 Mr. Johnson 1, 1991, Apportion- October 59. On registration McLinin voter resentative C.J. adoption again to consider ment Board met encouraging register minorities apportionment. The drives plan final of a Tilling, Deposition Defendants’ Tilling, of James R. Deposition Defendants’ 34. of James R. 28. 96, 96, pp. pp. 10-11. 36-37. Exhibit Exhibit Tilling, Defendants’ Deposition James R. 29. Tilling, Deposition Defendants’ of James R. 35. 9, 96, pp. 12. Exhibit 96, pp. Exhibit 38-40. Tilling, Deposition R. Defendants' of James 30. 18, 96, 13, 14, 15, pp. 19. Exhibit Tilling, Deposition Defendants’ R. 36. of James 39, 38, pp. 42. Exhibit Tilling, Deposition R. Defendants' of James 31. 14, 15, pp. 19. Exhibit Johnson, Floyd Defendants’ Ex- Deposition of Tilling, Defendants’ Deposition James R. pp. hibit 96, p. 19. Exhibit Johnson, Floyd Defendants’ Ex- Deposition of Tilling, 38. Deposition James R. Defendants' of 33. 97, 96, p. 11. p. hibit Exhibit 14. influence district Cleveland. The Further, an Mr. Johnson has been original plan vote.39 NAACP’s established five ma- Democratic Voters of the active member jority-minority Cuyahoga districts in Coun- of the League; he also a member was plan originally by ty. The submitted 1963, sup- Equality in a Congress of Racial majority-minority Board also called for five Coordinating Com- porter of the Nonviolent Cuyahoga County.46 Dayton Alliance for in 1963 and the mittee 1, 1991, 66. offered On October BEDO Additionally, Mr. John- Equality.40 Racial position regard the consensus to the with since registered Democrat son has been a Cuyahoga County districts in as an amend- 1960. (referred plan ment to herein BEDO respon- primarily 63. Mr. Johnson was Amendment”). as the “BEDO The BEDO proposed preparation for the of sible Amendment was also offered as an amend- plan by submitted the Ohio plan proposed by majority ment to the of Branches of NAACP.41 Conference suggestions persons responsible apportionment.47 solicited and rec- of Mr. Johnson Reapportionment ommendations from the accepted by Ap- The amendment was comprised of Redistricting Committee incorporated portionment Board and presidents of the all of the branches.42 Apportionment final 1991 Plan.48 presidents among active the branch Most 1, 1991, meeting 67. At the of October Cincinnati, Allison from included Frank Johnson, Dana Mattison and Senator Jeff Columbus, Parker from Jesse Good- Fred Cuyahoga County, Senator from Daniels, Presi- ing Dayton, from and James creating endorsed the BEDO Amendment Mr. John- dent Ohio Conference.43 Floyd majority-minority four districts. proposed plan with son also discussed the Johnson, NAACP, Mattison, on behalf of the en- the Executive Director of Dana of Apportionment the Black Elected Democrats Ohio.44 dorsed the entire 1991 Plan.49 represented in the Octo- 64. BEDO was 1, Apportionment Hearing by ber en- 68. The BEDO Amendment was Mattison, its Executive Director.45 Dana Mallory, President of dorsed William hearing During public conduct- 65. Congressman Appen- Stokes.50 BEDO 1991, 1, and the ed on October BEDO (Defendants’ 24) is a letter dix R Exhibit regarding the reached a consensus NAACP Tilling Mallory to dat- from William James Cuya- minority districts in establishment of 1, 1991, confirming BEDO’s ed October apportion- hoga County in the final 1991 Amendment.51 support for the BEDO accepted plan. The NAACP BEDO’s ment of of Branches 69. The Ohio Conference Cuyahoga County, establish-

proposal for Apportion- endorsed the 1991 and one the NAACP ing majority-minority districts four Ex- 46. Johnson, Tilling, 39. Deposition of James R. Defendants’ Deposition Floyd of Defendants’ 96, 40, 97, pp. p. Exhibit 43. 11. hibit Johnson, 40. Floyd Deposition Defendants’ Ex- 47. Tilling, Deposition R. Defendants’ of James 97, p. 12. hibit 96, p. Exhibit 41. Johnson, 41. Floyd Deposition Defendants’ Ex- 48. Tilling, Deposition Defendants’ of James R. 97, p. hibit 18. 40, 96, pp. 44. Exhibit Johnson, 42. Floyd Deposition Defendants' Ex- 49. Tilling, Deposition of James R. Defendants’ 97, 16, pp. 19. hibit Mattison, 96, 40; Deposition p. of Dana Exhibit 83-89; 82, pp. Deposition of Defendants’ Exhibit Johnson, 43. Deposition Floyd Ex- Defendants' Johnson, p. Floyd Exhibit 58. Defendants' 97, p. 16. hibit Mattison, Ex- Deposition Defendants’ of Dana 50. Johnson, 44. Deposition Floyd Defendants' Ex- 89, 90, pp. hibit 91. 97, p. 19. hibit 51. Tilling, Mattison, Deposition Defendants’ of James R. Deposition Defendants’ Ex- of Dana C; p. p. Exhibit sub exhibit hibit the yet you increased riod of time and population. entirety.52 percentage of black in its Plan ment A. Uh-hum. Specific Apportionment As to the B. Q. Why is that? Counties. district individual Again, A. this is an above, and the BEDO As discussed 70. We believe by district examination. Apportion- the endorsed NAACP both differently respond that communities County. Cuyahoga respects as Plan ment range of circum- on based whole Mattison Dana Director Executive BEDO Rep- Again, understand that stances. Plan Apportionment the 1991 supported to that dis- came resentative Rankin voting given racial bloc County Cuyahoga away, passed her husband trict after population drifts county, major the the in long-standing relation- and there is a of Cleve- city to the suburbs the inner from voters, does not but that ship with in voter turnout minority and low land indicate that trends mean that Cleveland.53 time, over going that’s to continue and recommended an specifically 71. BEDO was to con- tried not to do what we popu- in plan black from the 1981 increase based on incumbents. struct districts in in the two districts percentages lation thing the reasonable just That’s not represented by currently County Franklin added.)55 (Emphasis to do. Beatty to avoid Miller and Representatives County House Montgomery Dis- In 73. Voting under the minority dilution vote Appor- the 1981 trict 36 as established testified: Rights Act. Mr. Mattison population Plan now exceeds tionment Ray Miller’s dis- Q. you increased So XI, Section 3 of the requirements of Article in majority did more than trict (cid:127) However, are blacks Constitution. Ohio plan? adopting the ’91 Representative McLin’s migrating from case. particular A. In this district Representative Robert’s district to why you Well, generally Q. tell me time, lose that, McLin’sdistrict will over so percent Ray in to 50 from 38 went district population Robert’s will black Miller’s district? Tilling recog- Mr. gain population. black totality at the again we A. Well looked configura- in his population drift nized this circumstances, at a number looked Montgomery County.56 districts tion of in conclusion to the of issues and came Ferguson and Plaintiffs 74. Both BEDO necessary figures that these were the popula- Quilter recognized these also our under- comply with again to in in districts Mont- configuring tion shifts Voting Rights Act.54 standing of plans.57 respective in gomery County their in supported an increase 72. BEDO Johnson, representing the represent- Floyd in districts 75. population both black incumbents, NAACP, Apportionment Representa- the 1991 endorsed by minority ed Rankin, all though configuration of respects even as Mallory and Plan tives Appor- over in minority been elected districts the 1991 have these incumbents Plan, specifically those years. tionment Montgomery County. Mr. John- County to Hamilton Q. going back Now acknowledged population shifts second, son that same situa- just briefly, for a required increases Montgomery County Mallory have been tion. Rankin McLin’s Representative long pe- population black over a representatives elected Mattison, Johnson, Ex- Deposition Defendants’ Floyd Ex- 55. Dana Deposition Defendants' 52. 98, 97, p. hibit 72. pp. 57-59. hibit Mattison, Ex- Deposition Defendants’ of Dana 53. Tilling, Defendants’ Deposition R. 56. of James 14-16, 89-92; Floyd Deposition of pp. hibit 96, pp. Exhibit 87-88. Johnson, p. 58. Defendants’ Exhibit Mattison, Ex- Mattison, Defendants’ Deposition Ex- of Dana Deposition Defendants’ of Dana p. hibit p. 58. hibit taking popula- County]

ilton and black remaining McLin’s dis- tion from the districts? in order to maintain district Further, with minority district. trict as a Well, primarily A. of our because corridor of the Trotwood the construction understanding totality circum- of of 35, Highway of black in the construction to the stances much of which was new Repre- displaced from population would be political arena vis-a-vis the 1982 McLin’s district.58 sentative Voting Rights amendment to the Act 1980, in present in- that wasn’t and based Tilling Mr. recommended an 76. Represent- in population on our assessment these were crease in the black County required in to that were to com- Sykes’ district Summit numbers ative understanding since the dis- minority port voter dilution with our of the re- avoid losing population.59 quirements. This rec- trict is black by Floyd John- was endorsed ommendation that, Q. doing But the effect of Mr. recom- NAACP.60 BEDO also son for the Mattison, popula- is to reduce the black percentage in the of mended an increase remaining in tion in the districts Ham- from population Sykes’ in district the black County? ilton analysis.61 same based on the 52% 35% you’ve happens A. That’s what when plan increased the black 77. BEDO’s got too few African-Americans Representative Jones’ district population in again totality on of cir- district based population shifts in County in Lucas due to they got cumstances and to come from expansion of and because an the district somewhere.64 displace University of Toledo will black employed the Tilling Mr. population.62 V. TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES configuration of this rationale to the same Appor- County in Lucas in the 1991 district Geographical Minority of A. Cohesion tionment Plan.63 Communities recognize NAACP 78. Both BEDO and Significant minority populations 82. population in cer- increasing the that black geographically major all urban counties are marginal in a re- tain districts will result compact contiguous.65 and dis- population other duction black Ap- created in the 1991 83. districts possible to increase the tricts. It is not geographically com- portionment Plan are districts with- minority population of some pact contiguous.66 and Mattison, reducing it in others. Dana out example, testified: B. Political Cohesion minority Q. Why didn’t BEDO maintain in the 1991 All districts they in 1980 with a 84. as were politically Plan are cohe Apportionment population spread black 12.20% for democratic creating Blacks tend to vote opposed to two sive. up to as 53% majority.67 candidates a substantial percent Ham- districts at 47 and 57 [in Mattison, Johnson, Deposition Ex- Floyd of Dana Defendants’ Deposition Defendants’ Ex- 64. 58. 98, 97, pp. pp. 56-57. 46-48. hibit hibit Tilling, Deposition R. Defendants’ 59. James 26, 30, 34, 38, 65. Defendants’ Exhibits 96, pp. 88-89. Exhibit 50; Tilling, Deposition of Defen- James 96, pp. 63-77. dants’ Exhibit Johnson, Floyd Defendants’ Ex- Deposition of 60. 97, p. 50. hibit (Cuyahoga), 31- 66. Defendants' Exhibits 27-29 Mattison, Deposition Defendants' Ex- of Dana 61. (Mont- (Hamilton), (Franklin), 35-37 39-41 98, p. hibit 75. (Lucas) (Summit), gomery), 47-49 43-45 Till- (Mahoning); Deposition James R. 51-53 Mattison, Deposition Defendants' Ex- of Dana 62. 96, pp. ing, 63-77. Exhibit Defendants’ 98, pp. hibit 80-81. Tilling, Deposition Defendants’ R. Tilling, of James Deposition Defendants’ of James R. pp. 64-66. pp. Exhibit 89-90. Exhibit touched that political subdivisions local participate rights of minorities Voting Bloc Racial C. in- This evidence process. democratic Apportion- preparing In . cludes: election Tilling considered Plan, Mr. ment held plan was a) apportionment statewide and The 1981 senate house and for returns voting He also through minority 1990. unlawfully dilute to races from primary Ohio, cam- Jackson Jesse strength considered the in Armour v. State of pre- Tilling did a Mr. paign (1991); for President. F.Supp. 1090 signifi- found review and cinct-by-precinct F.2d 1273 b) Eyrich, 922 Mallory In v. voting state- bloc of racial cant evidence Governor, Cir.1991), Secretary (6th wide.68 State, the Hamilton Members of of Gary King, expert, Dr. Defendants’ 86. Elections conceded County of Board at Harvard of Government Professor is Hamilton at-large election of that the the Harvard Director of University is Judges unlaw- Municipal Court County King political scien- Dr. is a Data Center. voting strength minority fully diluted statistician, quanti- in specializing tist and Act; Voting Rights under S2 of quantita- of application tative methods plan resulted c) apportionment The 1991 King redistricting. Dr. tive methods (4) majority-minority dis- only in four University of Ph.D. from the received his Ohio, (3) were which in three of tricts King published Dr. has 1984. Wisconsin in County;72 Cuyahoga apportionment. in the area of extensively grants numerous King received Dr. has con- 1991, d) Republicans when Until expertise. Dr. area of his and awards respon- majority persons of stituted a of sever- editorial board member King is an minorities did apportionment, for sible in his area journals published scholarly al in the state effectively participate not exten- King has lectured expertise. Dr. process;73 science and political sively in the area ever been e) minority candidate has No apportionment.69 office partisan to a statewide elected 200 elec- King analyzed over Dr. 87. candidate, Rob- Ohio,74 a but through Dr. 1990. from 1982 tions in Ohio Duncan, to the Ohio was elected ert ecological re- King conducted bivariate earlier. Supreme Court several decades all that analysis and determined gression in Ohio judicial for office Candidates polar- significant racially data indicated on a primary, but partisan in a run voting.70 ized general elec- in the non-partisan ballot his results of King verified the 88. Dr. tion. analysis ecological regression bivariate governmental f) There is discrimination analy- precinct homogeneous conducting a apathy to the governmental on based aggregated an analysis based and an sis on community.75 the black interests of These multinomial model. compound the bivar- results of analyses confirmed public g) Many public witnesses analysis.71 regression ecological iate responsible urged persons hearings and en- apportionment to maintain history of of a exists evidence 89. There influence majority-minority and hance of Ohio State official discrimination Exhibit 17. Tilling, 72. Defendants’ Defendants' Deposition of James R. 68. 96, pp. 91-93. Exhibit Mattison, Ex- Deposition Defendants' of Dana 73. Gary Ex- King, Defendants’ Deposition of Dr. 69. 82, p. hibit 95. 95, 5-6; Gary Vitae of Dr. pp. Curriculum hibit King, Exhibit 85. Defendants’ Mattison, Ex- Deposition Defendants' of Dana 74. Gary King, Defendants' Ex- Deposition Dr. 70. 82, p. hibit 40; and 93. p. Defendants’ Exhibits hibit Mattison, Ex- Deposition Dana Defendants’ Gary Ex- King, Defendants’ 71.Deposition of Dr. 82, p. hibit p. 44. hibit present barriers to minority candi- throughout the state. dates; These witnesses included: b) Minorities receive significant no finan- Mitchell, 1. James Black Elected Sub- support cial from the State Democratic (August 28, urban Officials p. Party;79 24); c) “Electability” of present blacks fur- Mattison, 2. Dana Executive Director ther barriers participation effective of the Black Elected Democrats of primaries;80 blacks in (BEDO), Ohio (August 1991, p. 37); d) Campaign financing and party en- 3. Dr. Welty, Wright Gordon State pose dorsement effective racial barri- 29, University (August 1991, p. 20); ers to participation black in the Demo- Jerry Hammond, 4. former President primary cratic system.81 of City Columbus Council (September 92.Minorities in Ohio bear the effects 7, 1991, pp. 48-49); of in education, discrimination employment, 5. Gresham, Samuel Columbus Urban and health which hinder ability their

League 7, (September 1991, 61); p. participate effectively in political 6. Mark Bradley, People’s Coalition process. For Voter Participation (September 7, a) Blacks experience a significantly high- 1991, p. 61); er unemployment rate in sig- Ohio and Wayne West, 7. Young Black Demo- nificantly less opportunity profes- for (September 7, 1991, 67); crats p. sional employment. This occurs Cathy Mock, 8. President, Young throughout the state every major and Black (September 7, Democrats 1991, urban in area Ohio. Specifically, in p. 109). 1990, the unemployment rate for white h) Both the NAACP and BEDO have males was but 4.6% for black 16.6% taken position persons that the re- males. Total unemployment for sponsible for must cre- whites was but 4.6% for blacks. 14.2% ate majority-minority districts wherev- Unemployment whites, for ages 16 to possible er and must maintain and en- 19, was but blacks, 11.6% for 40.4% existing hance minority districts.76 ages 16 to 19. The unemployment rate 90. for blacks was significant Cincinnati, There exists racially po- 13.6% in Cleveland, in voting larized throughout 17.3% in the State of 6.8% Columbus and Dayton in Ohio.77 10.6% significantly —all higher than whites. Similar statistics 91. experienced Minorities have racial apply in 1989;82 and barriers to participation effective in the b) Minority voter turnout in process is democratic in Cleveland Examples Ohio. in- extremely low due to minority clude: frustra- tion and apathy;83 a)There is system no open consistent of primaries c) party. Democratic The geographical displays of minority Endorsements and screening processes population past concentrations indicate 76. Mattison, Deposition of Dana Mattison, Deposition Defendants’ Ex- 80. Dana of Defendants' Ex- 82, 47; p. Deposition Johnson, 82, Floyd hibit p. of hibit 29. 97, pp. Defendants’ Exhibit 42-50. Johnson, Deposition Floyd 81. Ex- Defendants’ 97, 23, pp. hibit 34. 77. Deposition Gary King, of Dr. Defendants’ Ex- 95, p. hibit 45. 66; 82. Defendants’ Deposi- Exhibits 65 and Tilling, tion of James R. Defendants’ Exhibit 78. Mattison, Deposition of Dana Defendants' Ex- p. also, Johnson, Deposition Floyd 97. See 82, pp. hibit 25-27. 97, p. Defendants’ Exhibit 36. Mattison, Deposition Mattison, Deposition Dana Defendants’ Ex- Dana Ex- Defendants’ p. 28. p. hibit hibit

a) in state Demo- recognition is a There people do not vote housing;84 politics cratic that in discrimination of their solely because for blacks less able to d) less mobile Blacks are race;92 housing past housing due obtain practices;85 discrimination b) political in cam- appeals Racial exist cases in reported e) There are numerous pic- by prominent paigns as evidenced finding Circuit in the Sixth Ohio and to reinforce candidates tures of black police in minority discrimination is perception that the candidate education, in hous- in departments, fire black;93 contracting, elections, in state ing, in is- c) campaigns raise the Opponents in zoning practices;86 employment whenever black sue “welfare” desegre- f) under systems operate School office;94 candidate runs areas in major urban gation orders d) appeals exist in local races Racial Ohio;87 . County. Higher Montgomery voter Tilling’s partic- by Mr. g) indicated As candidate when a black turnout occurs Committee on the Joint Select ipation office;95 runs for Desegregation in the Gener- on School supported (unanimously Assembly al 1980, against Ed e) Floyd ran In Johnson effects of school by Republicans), the candidate, in a Orlett, the endorsed per- in in Ohio desegregation education in Montgom- seat primary for house a sist; vir- ery County. Mr. received Johnson h) system Dayton and the The school tually vote and insuffi- all of black deseg- subject to department are police seat;96 gain the cient white vote orders;89 regation politics in f) key role in plays Race a effectively pre- i) 1981, In the Democrats of Former President Central Ohio. Morris Jack- cluded Senator City Jerry Hammond cited Council drawing participation district son’s race for Columbus’ Frances-Lashutka lines;90 Moody-Rose- Attorney and the City 1980’s, Democrats fore- j) early In the Mayor;97 races mond for participation closed Senator Jackson’s Democratic Na- delegate a to the as experience based on his g) Tilling, James tional Convention.91 that campaigns, testified in the Senate appeals have or overt racial subtle campaigns in Ohio have 93. Political elections, cit- made in numerous been or subtle racial characterized overt been Cuya- race in ing the Forbes-Bonnano appeal. Mattison, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, Ex- Deposition of Dana Defendants’ 92. Defendants’ Exhibits 84. 82, p. hibit 32. 50. Mattison, Ex- Deposition Defendants’ of Dana 85. Mattison, Deposition Ex- of Defendants’ 93. Dana 82, p. 37. hibit 82, pp. hibit 65-66. Exhibit 66. Defendants’ 86. Mattison, Deposition Ex- Defendants’ 94. Dana 66. Defendants’ Exhibit 87. 82, pp. hibit 65-66. Tilling, Deposition R. Defendants’ of James 88. 96, pp. 97. Exhibit Johnson, Floyd Ex- Deposition Defendants’ 95. 97, p. 23. hibit Johnson, Floyd Ex- Deposition Defendants’ 89. 97, p. 34. hibit Johnson, Floyd Ex- Deposition of Defendants' 96. Tilling, Defendants' Deposition R. of James 90. 97, pp. 29. hibit 96, p. 98. Exhibit Hammond, September Testimony Jerry Tilling, 97. Deposition R. Defendants' of James 91. 1991, pp. 48-49. p. Exhibit rical to the number of seats awarded in an hoga County, the C.J. Thomas-Ike election.103 race, Thompson Virgil Browns’ race for 99. The seats/votes curve methodology Secretary State, Carl Stokes’ race for regression is a methodology. Dr. King Mayor Cleveland, the Lashutka-Fran- conducted regression analysis and then cis race for City Columbus Attorney, the calculated the variance around the seats/

Moody-Francis race for Mayor Columbus votes curve with standard deviations.104 and the Lashutka-Esp race for Colum- Mayor.98 bus analysis The of the 1971 and 1981

apportionment plans prepared by the Dem- prior ocrats in apportionments for the Ohio E. Roll Analysis Call House indicates that the 1971 and 1981 94. Defendants’ Exhibit 62 is a roll call apportionment plans were heavily biased in analysis prepared by Tilling. James R. favor of the Democrats.105 analysis indicates strong Republican sup- 101. The port bills of prepared interest to minorities. Ab- by the sent Democrats Republican support has been Senate, characterized as bills partisan would most plan never passed.99 have been ever recorded in

the political science literature. The 1981 apportionment plan prepared by the Demo- VI. PARTISAN BIAS is crats also significantly biased favor of Gary Dr. King, Defendants’ expert, the Democrats.106 an conducted analysis partisan bias 102. King’s Dr. analysis of the four in the apportionment 1991 plan, Apportion- plans question for the Ohio House indi- (the ment Plan “Tilling Plan”), the 1991 cates that both the Plan Democrats’ plan and the 1991 sub- plan and plan the proposed by Plain- by mitted Republican Ohio Party.100 Ferguson tiffs Quilter are heavily bi- 96. King Dr. performed this analysis ased in favor of the Democrats. The 1991 based precinct on district and level data for plan offered by the Republican Ohio Party Ohio House and Senate elections.101 is biased in favor of Republicans. However, the 1991 Apportionment Plan 97. King Dr. conducted analysis (the “Tilling Plan”) is not partisan biased in bias favor use of curve, a seats/vote any political party.107 a methodology standardly accepted in the field for over years.102 103. The results of King’s Dr. analysis

98. Partisan indicates that bias is the 1991 by parti- Apportionment measured Plan san symmetry. Partisan reflects an symmetry average partisan pro- bias only political vides parties —0.006, that are fairly treated less than standard error of system electoral if symmet- are votes .Oil.108 Deposition 20, 98. Tilling, of James November Deposition 103. Gary King, of Dr. Defendants' 1991, pp. 95, 195-198. p. Exhibit 16. Deposition 104. Gary King, of Dr. Defendants’ Deposition 99. Tilling, of James R. Defendants’ 95, pp. Exhibit 20-21. 96, pp. Exhibit 114-126. Deposition 105. Gary King, of Dr. Defendants’ 95, 28-30; pp. Exhibit Defendants’ Exhibit 88. Deposition 100. Gary King, of Dr. Defendants’ 95, 14, 27, pp. Exhibit 32-38. Deposition 106. King, Dr. Gary Defendants’ 95, 7, pp. Exhibit 9. Deposition Gary 101. King, of Dr. Defendants’ Deposition 107. King, Gary of Dr. Defendants’ 95, p. Exhibit 7. 95, 33-34; pp. Exhibit Defendants' 90. Exhibit Deposition 102. Gary King, of Dr. Defendants’ Deposition 108. King, Gary of Dr. Defendants’ 95, pp. Exhibit 13-14. p. Exhibit 35. regres- King’s Dr. The results of 105. Appor- that the analysis indicates sion plans for analysis of King’s Dr. 104. statistically indistinguish- is tionment Plan Ap- that indicate Senate the Ohio for both partisan bias from zero able statistically be cannot Plan portionment is consequently and Senate Ohio House partisan bias.109 plan.110 zero from distinguished partisan gerrymandered not a King, Gary Defendants' Deposition of Dr. Gary King, Defendants’ Deposition of Dr. pp. 37; Exhibit Exhibit 91. p. Defendants Exhibit APPENDIX A

1981OHIOHOUSEDISTRICTS B

APPENDIX SENATEDISTRICTS 1981OHIO C APPENDIX MAJORITY APPORTIONMENT DISTRICTS HOUSE

NEW ASSEMBLY GENERAL OHIO FOR D APPENDIX MAJORITY

1991APPORTIONMENT DISTRICTS SENATE NEW ASSEMBLY GENERAL OHIO FOR E APPENDIX F

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX 1981 APPORTIONMENT HOUSE DISTRICTS

WITH 1990 POPULATION

APPENDIX J House ‘planrepo’ Report for Plan District 1991 Dec 4 11:09:37 Wed = Population Target 0 % Hisp Hisp VAP VAP % %Blaek %Black Persons

District 1.00 1.13 10.07 11.22 109755 01 02 0.46 0.42 2.56 2.12 113908 0.30 0.37 1.23 1.30 108275 2.07 2.54 1.10 1.03 113269 1.19 1.54 2.81 3.14 99821 0.41 0.47 1.30 1.11 103451 0.35 0.42 1.40 1.53 101441 0.70 0.73 61.41 65.64 104972 0.84 0.86 58.36 62.30 108572 2.69 3.01 63.42 67.35 105514 0.83 0.92 40.61 43.01 104799 0.51 0.58 65.13 67.25 105423 8.82 10.95 2.32 2.85 n 0.64 0.69 6.86 7.92 0.60 0.65 3.25 3.29. 0.80 0.93 0.45 0.47 3.93 4.96 2.34 2.75

747 Senate House 02, 36, 37 33, 34, 35 30, 31, 32 73, 74, 76 49, 50, 52 01, 84, 85 61, 62, 63 71, 72, 88 21, 22, 23 27, 28, 29 91, 92, 94 05, 69, 70 79, 80, 93 95, 96, 99 08, 09, 10 07, 15, 81 13, 17, 19 16, 18, 20 11, 12, 14 87, 89, 90 '45, 46, 47 44, 48, 75 54, 55, 56 03, 97, 98 06, 77, 78 66, 67, 68 57, 64, 65

APPENDIX K Report District for Plan ‘demo0930’House

Wed Dec 4 11:11:19 1991 =

Target Population 0 District Persons % %Black Hisp %Black V Hisp % VA 01 109755 11.22 10.07 1.13 1.00 02 108275 1.30 1.23 0.37 0.30 03 113908 2.12 2.56 0.46 0.42 04 113269 1.03 1.10 2.54 2.07 05 103451 1.11 1.30 0.47 0.41 06 113673 0.47 0.44 0.96 0.82 07 107260 2.62 2.19 1.42 1.20 08 114135 1.23 1.16 1.74 1.46 09 108063 6.05 5.14 1.86 1.57 10 109506 0.66 0.49 0.86 0.75 11 105670 8.54 7.32 15.82 13.22 70.81 67.08 2.36 2.13 63.86 60.18 0.82 0.79 68.20 63.71 0.75 0.75 15 112720 27.89 26.46 0.91 0.81 16 106269 69.17 66.67 0.57 0.52 17 112526 3.12 2.97 0.62 0.59 18 106785 6.87 6.03 0.69 0.64 19 104912 50.80 46.40 1.02 0.95 20 111747 12.45 10.88 1.28 1.25 21 22 105539 53.85 50.60 0.89 0.84 107890 7.04 6.61 0.87 0.82 23 107563 4.79 4.15 0.73 0.66 24 114746 5.08 4.78 0.90 0.80 25 114655 1.62 1.49 0.99 0.93 26 109984 5.99 5.23 1.11 1.02 27 114704 3.46 3.11 0.65 0.57 28 61.26 57.91 0.63 0.59 2.53 2.30 0.59 0.52 3.96 3.26 0.41 0.35

750 House 92,

Senate 94, 96 13, 12, 14 71, 66, 80 09, 08, 11 06, 07, 10 16, 15, 17 88, 87, 91 40, 42, 43 62, 41, 69 48, 49, 50 99 05, 64, 78 55, 56, 74 L

APPENDIX M APPENDIX ‘planrepo’ Plan Senate Report District Mon Dec 10:48:38 = Target Population Hisp Hisp VAP % VAP % /«Black

District /«Black 2.62 3.25 0.54 0.60 2.31 1.90 2.82 3.15 N APPENDIX ‘demo0930’ Plan Senate Report for District 10:40:02 1991 Mon Dec O APPENDIX P

APPENDIX Q APPENDIX

Case Details

Case Name: Quilter v. Voinovich

Court Name: District Court, N.D. Ohio

Date Published: Jan 31, 1992

Citation: 794 F. Supp. 695

Docket Number: 5:91 CV 2219

Court Abbreviation: N.D. Ohio