Filed Date: Sept. 23, 2021
Closed Date: Nov. 27, 2023
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about five different electoral maps for the Ohio legislature enacted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission following the 2020 Census, leading to six opinions of the Ohio Supreme Court. On September 16, 2021 the Ohio Redistricting Commission enacted an electoral map for the Ohio House and Senate after a 5-2 vote. On September 23, 2021, the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the A. Philip Randolph Institute of Ohio, and six individual voters—represented by private counsel and ACLU of Ohio—filed suit in the Ohio Supreme Court under Ohio Constitution Article XI against the Ohio Redistricting Commission and its commissioners, alleging that the map violated requirements under the Ohio Constitution regarding consideration of partisan factors. The League of Women Voters of Ohio and other petitioners sought an order invalidating the September 2021 Plan and ordering the Ohio Redistricting Commission to adopt a new map.
(Note: This case was consolidated with two other challenges to the electoral maps: (1) Bria Bennett, et al. v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, et al., Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2021-1198; and (2) The Ohio Organizing Collaborative, et al., v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, et al., Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2021-1210.)
In November 2015, Article XI of Ohio’s Constitution was amended to establish a new process for creating an electoral map for both houses of the Ohio legislature (referred to as a “general assembly district plan”). The amendment provided for the creation of a seven-member Ohio Redistricting Commission, composed of (1) the governor, (2) the auditor of state, (3) the secretary of state, (4) one person appointed by the speaker of the House of Representatives, (5) one person appointed by the House minority leader, (6) one person appointed by the Senate president, and (7) one person appointed by the Senate minority leader. During the time of this litigation, the three state-wide officers and majority leaders in both legislatures were Republicans.
The new Article XI also imposed substantive standards on the plans that the Ohio Redistricting Commission could enact, including that the plan (A) could not “be drawn primarily to favor or disfavor a political party,” (B) had to have a statewide proportion of districts which closely matched the statewide party votes for the previous ten years, and (C) must comply with federal law. Any disputes about whether an enacted plan complied with the standards were to be decided by the Ohio Supreme Court.
Following the 2020 Census, the Ohio Redistricting Commission was convened in August 2021 to enact a new plan for Ohio’s legislature. On September 16, 2021 the Ohio Redistricting Commission enacted a plan after a 5-2 vote along party lines. Of the 132 state-wide districts (99 House and 33 Senate), the September 2021 Plan created 85 districts (64.4%) which the Commission believed would favor Republican candidates. In the required statement enacted with the September 2021 Plan, the majority of the Commission stated that this percentage met the constitutional requirement for proportionality because Republicans won 54% of the share of the vote and 81% of the elections for statewide offices over the past decade.
On September 16, 2021 the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the A. Philip Randolph Institute of Ohio, and six individual voters filed a complaint in the Ohio Supreme Court alleging that the September 2021 Plan improperly was drawn to favor a political party and did not meet the proportionality requirements of the Ohio constitution. Because this action was filed initially in the Supreme Court, these parties are known as petitioners instead of plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ordered these petitions be consolidated with two separate petitions for oral argument: (1) Bria Bennett, et al. v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, et al., Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2021-1198; and (2) The Ohio Organizing Collaborative, et al., v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, et al., Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 2021-1210.
On January 12, 2022, a majority of the Supreme Court of Ohio, over a dissent of three justices, invalidated the September 2021 Plan (192 N.E.3d 379). The Court held that the Ohio Redistricting Commission did not attempt to draw a plan that met the constitutional standards of not favoring a political party and of matching the proportionality of state-wide votes. Particularly, the Court held that the Ohio Redistricting Commission had to attempt to create a plan with approximately 54% Republic-leaning districts, not anywhere from 54% to 81%.
The Court ordered that the Commission reconvene and adopt a new plan by January 22, 2022. The Court stated that it would retain jurisdiction for purposes of reviewing the new plan.
On January 22, 2022, the reconvened Ohio Redistricting Commission adopted a plan by another 5-2 party-line vote. The January 2022 Plan was modified from the September 2021 Plan to include more Democratic-leaning districts. The Commission determined that a district would be “Democratic-leaning” if even the vote share of a district was as little as 50.03% Democratic. The League of Women Voters of Ohio and other petitioners filed objections to the plan.
On February 7, 2022, a majority of the Court (over three justices dissenting) determined that the January 2022 Plan also violated the Ohio constitution’s requirements of not favoring a political party and of matching the proportionality of state-wide votes (195 N.E.3d 974). The Court held that competitive districts, like the 50.03% Democratic district, “must either be excluded from the proportionality assessment or be allocated to each party in close proportion to its statewide vote share.”
The Court again ordered the Commission to adopt a new revised plan by February 17, 2022. The Court again retained jurisdiction for the purpose of reviewing the new plan.
On February 24, 2022, the reconvened Commission adopted a new plan by a 5-2 party-line vote. The League of Women Voters of Ohio and other petitioners filed objections to the plan.
On March 16, 2022, a majority of the Court, over three justices dissenting, invalidated the February 2022 Plan on the same grounds as the prior two plans (198 N.E.3d 812). The Court emphasized that the process for adopting a plan was unconstitutional because the minority party commissioners had no input in drawing the plan. The Court also held that districts with 52% or less expected vote share are competitive and do not favor the 52%-leaning party for purposes of determining constitutional proportionality.
The Court again ordered the Commission to adopt a new revised plan by March 28, 2022. The Court again retained jurisdiction for the purpose of reviewing the new plan.
On March 28, 2022, the Commission adopted a revised plan by a 4-3 vote, with the state auditor and minority party commissioners voting against the plan. The League of Women Voters of Ohio and other petitioners filed objections to the plan.
On April 14, 2022, the majority of the Court invalidated the revised March 2022 Plan. The reasons for the invalidation were the same as the prior decision, as the Court found that the map was “materially identical.”
The Court declined the suggestions from other petitioners for the Court to either (i) adopt a new map directly or (ii) declare that a proposed but un-enacted plan was presumptively constitutional. Instead, the Court ordered the Commission to reconvene and submit a new plan by May 6, 2022.
Less than a week after the Supreme Court of Ohio’s League IV decision, on April 20, 2022, a federal three-judge panel for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held that Ohio’s failure to have a map in place for the primary elections set for May 3, 2022 likely violated the U.S. Constitution. See Gonidakis v. LaRose, 599 F.Supp.3d 642 (S.D. Ohio 2022). The federal court ordered Ohio to implement a new map for the 2022 primaries and stated that if Ohio did not do so by May 28, 2022, the court would require the elections to be conducted under the state-unconstitutional February 2022 Plan for the 2022 election cycle only.
On May 5, 2022, the Ohio Redistricting Commission, in a 4-3 vote, re-adopted the February 2022 Plan with no changes by “only for use in the 2022 election”. The League of Women Voters of Ohio and other petitioners filed objections to the plan.
On May 25, 2022, a majority of the Ohio Supreme Court again held the February 2022 Plan to be invalid. The Court again ordered the Commission to reconvene and adopt a new plan by June 3, 2022. The Court ordered any objections to the plan to be filed by June 7, 2022 and stated that the Court would retain jurisdiction for reviewing the new plan.
The 2022 elections were conducted under the re-adopted February 2022 Plan by order of the federal court.
The Ohio Redistricting Commission adopted a new plan on September 29, 2023 with a unanimous vote. The Commission submitted the plan to the Ohio Supreme Court on October 2, 2023.
Because the September 2023 Plan was submitted well after the June 3, 2022 deadline and petitioners’ June 7, 2022 deadline to submit objections, the League of Women Voters and other petitioners filed a motion for permission to file objections to the September 2023 Plan.
On October 19, 2022, the majority party Commissioners moved to dismiss the complaints. The Secretary of State also filed a motion to dismiss on October 30, 2022.
On November 27, 2023, the Supreme Court of Ohio granted the motions to dismiss in a 4-3 vote (225 N.E.3d 989). The Court reasoned that the complaints were based on the September 2021 Plan passed on a party-line vote. Because the new September 2023 Plan was adopted by a unanimous vote, the facts were very different than that as alleged in the complaints, so the petitioners' objections to the new plan were not properly part of the same case as their objections to the previous ones and the Court lacked jurisdiction. This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
James Brennan (12/30/2024)
Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 1:29 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Ohio
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 23, 2021
Closing Date: Nov. 27, 2023
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
League of Women Voters of Ohio, the A. Philip Randolph Institute of Ohio, and six individual voters.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Ohio Redistricting Commission, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Special Case Type(s):
Appellate Court is initial court
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2022 - 2023
Issues
Voting: