League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. (Slip Opinion)
2022-Ohio-65 (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Ohio Constitution's requirement that the Ohio Redistricting Commission "shall attempt" to draw a legislative map that is politically proportional and does not primarily favor one party is a mandatory, judicially enforceable duty. The Commission violates this duty when it fails to make a genuine, good-faith effort to comply with these standards, as evidenced by a secretive, one-party-controlled process and the adoption of a plan that is a significant partisan outlier.
Facts:
- In November 2015, Ohio voters amended the state constitution to create a new redistricting process under a seven-member Ohio Redistricting Commission, which included standards against partisan gerrymandering.
- In August 2021, the Commission, composed of five Republicans (Governor DeWine, Auditor Faber, Secretary LaRose, House Speaker Cupp, Senate President Huffman) and two Democrats (Senator Sykes, House Minority Leader Sykes), was convened to draw new state legislative maps.
- The Republican legislative leaders, Speaker Cupp and President Huffman, directed their staff members, Ray DiRossi and Blake Springhetti, to draw the district maps without the involvement of the Democratic or statewide officeholder members of the Commission.
- Cupp and Huffman did not instruct their map-drawers to attempt to comply with the partisan fairness and proportionality requirements of Article XI, Section 6, instead telling them to focus on other technical requirements.
- The map-drawers used software that displayed the partisan leaning of each district as they drew the lines, giving them real-time access to partisan data.
- The Commission failed to reach a bipartisan agreement and, on September 16, 2021, adopted a final plan on a 5-2 party-line vote, making it effective for only four years.
- The adopted plan created 62 Republican-leaning House districts (63%) and 37 Democratic-leaning districts (37%), and 23 Republican-leaning Senate districts (70%) and 10 Democratic-leaning districts (30%).
- This partisan split was disproportionate to Ohio's statewide voter preferences over the past decade, which were approximately 54% for Republican candidates and 46% for Democratic candidates based on vote share.
Procedural Posture:
- The League of Women Voters of Ohio, the A. Philip Randolph Institute of Ohio, the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, and various individual voters filed three separate original actions in the Supreme Court of Ohio.
- The actions were filed against the Ohio Redistricting Commission and its individual members.
- The complaints alleged the General Assembly–district plan adopted by the Commission on September 16, 2021, violated Article XI of the Ohio Constitution, including the anti-gerrymandering provisions in Sections 6(A) and 6(B).
- The parties conducted discovery, submitted evidence including expert reports and depositions, and filed merit briefs.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio held oral arguments on December 8, 2021, and subsequently ordered supplemental briefing on its authority to grant relief for a four-year plan.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the General Assembly–district plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission violate Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B) of the Ohio Constitution, which require the Commission to attempt to draw a plan that does not primarily favor a political party and where the proportion of districts favoring each party corresponds closely to statewide voter preferences?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
Yes. The General Assembly–district plan is invalid because the Ohio Redistricting Commission did not attempt to draw a plan that meets the mandatory standards for partisan fairness and proportionality in Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B). The language "shall attempt" in Section 6 imposes a mandatory, enforceable duty on the Commission, not a merely aspirational goal. The Commission failed this duty because the map-drawing process was controlled exclusively by one party, its map-drawers were not instructed to comply with Section 6, and partisan data was available throughout the process. Furthermore, the plan is a severe partisan outlier, as demonstrated by expert evidence showing that it packs and cracks Democratic voters to a degree not justifiable by Ohio's political geography. The Commission's after-the-fact justification, which improperly measured voter preference by the percentage of elections won (81% Republican) rather than vote share (54% Republican), confirms it did not have the correct constitutional target in mind.
Concurring - Chief Justice O'Connor
Concurs fully with the majority. This opinion writes separately to highlight that if Ohioans are unsatisfied with the failure of the current partisan-led commission to remove politics from the process, they have the power to again amend the constitution. Other states, such as Arizona, California, and Michigan, have created nonpartisan, independent citizen commissions to handle redistricting. This model more effectively distances the map-drawing process from the partisan interests of elected officials and may be a path Ohioans wish to pursue to achieve the goal of ending gerrymandering.
Concurring - Justice Brunner
Concurs fully with the majority, but would also find the plan invalid under Article XI, Section 3(B)(2), which requires compliance with the Ohio Constitution. The plan violates the state's Equal Protection Clause (Article I, Section 2) by diluting the weight of Democratic votes and preventing voters from acting on equal terms to reform their government. The evidence of partisan intent, discriminatory effect, and lack of a legitimate justification satisfies a three-prong test for an equal-protection violation. Gerrymandering is unconstitutional because it denies Ohioans equal protection in the exercise of their voting power.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
No. The General Assembly-district plan should be upheld because the court lacks authority under the Ohio Constitution to invalidate a plan based solely on an alleged violation of Article XI, Section 6. The court's remedial power is explicitly limited by Article XI, Section 9(D)(3) to violations of the neutral, mandatory map-drawing criteria in Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, or 7. Section 6 is merely a 'directory' provision that guides the Commission but is not judicially enforceable on its own. Furthermore, even if it were enforceable, the evidence shows the Commission did 'attempt' to comply with Section 6 through its bipartisan negotiations, which is all the constitution requires.
Dissenting - Justice Fischer
No. This court lacks the authority to review the four-year plan at all. Article XI, Section 8(C)(1)(a), the specific provision governing four-year plans adopted without bipartisan support, states the plan 'shall remain effective' for four years and conspicuously omits the phrase 'except as provided in Section 9 of this article.' This phrase is present in the provisions for six-year and ten-year plans, meaning its absence for four-year plans was a deliberate choice to insulate them from judicial review. By ignoring this clear textual command, the majority is engaging in judicial policymaking, exceeding its constitutional authority, and undermining the integrity of the court.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that Ohio's constitutional anti-gerrymandering provisions have legal force and are not merely 'aspirational' political goals. It empowers the state supreme court to enforce partisan fairness and proportionality standards, setting a significant precedent for future redistricting cycles in Ohio and rejecting arguments that such claims are non-justiciable. The ruling clarifies that the duty to 'attempt' to draw fair maps requires a demonstrable, good-faith effort within the map-drawing process itself, not just failed political negotiations. This will likely force the Commission to adopt a more transparent and data-driven process in future attempts to pass a constitutional map.
Unlock the full brief for League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. (Slip Opinion)