Challengers Call Ohio’s Maps Unconstitutionally Gerrymandered

Ohio’s state House and Senate district maps, approved last week after the state Supreme Court threw out previous iterations for being unconstitutionally gerrymandered, still unduly favor Republicans and should be invalidated, three sets of challengers said Wednesday.

The new maps give the GOP an advantage in 61 of 99 House seats and 23 of 33 Senate seats, in a state where the recent preference of voters was only between 54% and 56% Republican, according to objections to the maps and corresponding documents filed in front of the justices.

The challengers and their supporters—which includes the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, and a nonprofit affiliated with former Attorney General Eric Holder’s National Democratic Redistricting Committee—filed separate sets of similar objections. They want the court to invalidate the maps and order the Ohio Redistricting Commission to try again.

The commission approved the maps on Sept. 26, following negotiations out of public view. Its two Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for approval, but one of the filings notes that their votes shouldn’t be a sign that they thought the maps are constitutional.

None of the objections have been officially filed but were made public through motions seeking permission from the court to file them.

The new map represents the sixth time the commission has put forth a General Assembly district map. The justices struck down five previous maps in 2022, with then-Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor (R) siding with the court’s three Democrats to form the majority.

It’s far from clear whether the new map will suffer the same fate. O’Connor retired at the end of last year and was replaced by Sharon L. Kennedy (R), previously an associate justice. Gov. Mike DeWine (R), who is a member of the redistricting commission, filled Kennedy’s seat with Justice Joseph T. Deters, also a Republican.

Challengers urged the court to use their prior rulings as a guide.

“Finally, for this Court to change course now would upset the significant reliance interests of not just Petitioners, but the people of Ohio who voted overwhelmingly to enshrine anti-gerrymandering provisions into the constitution to protect their democracy and their fundamental right to vote,” a group of challengers in the Holder-backed lawsuit said, referring to a constitutional amendment passed in 2015 that changed the way maps were drawn.

It continued: “Dramatically reversing course now would reward the Commission’s intransigence, undermine the Court’s authority by suggesting that a party that defies that authority long enough can secure its own favored outcomes, and confirm Ohioans’ cynicism.”

The case is League of Women Voters of Ohio vs. Ohio Redistricting Comm’n, Ohio, No. 2021-1193, objections filed 10/5/23.