Ohio's high court judges whether state maps gerrymandered
Dec. 9—COLUMBUS — The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday weighed into the question of whether a Republican-controlled commission drew maps for state House and Senate districts that were unconstitutionally designed to tighten the party's grip on power.
Democrats and other opponents to the map argued that the 5-2 GOP-majority Ohio Redistricting Commission is trying to see if it can get away with the power grab without the 4-3 Republican-majority court ordering it back to the drawing board.
Republicans on the commission countered that the map ultimately approved with a party-line vote was the most constitutional on its table and that it improved in terms of partisan competitiveness as the process went forward.
"According to the secretary of state, his role was extremely limited and to the point of being excluded," said Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, a Republican.
Phillip Strach — representing Senate President Matt Huffman and Speaker of the House Bob Cupp, both Lima Republicans and members of the commission — said, "At the end of the day, Secretary of State [Frank] LaRose voted for the plan, and he testified that he believes it's constitutional."
Chief Justice O'Connor countered, "He voted for it obviously. His characterization, based on the email evidence, is the plan is asinine. And then you have the governor saying something about, in his heart, he believed they could have negotiated a more constitutional plan.
"More constitutional?" she asked. "Is something either constitutional or it's not? Do you nibble around the edges of provisions and say that's kind of constitutional?"
The court did not immediately rule. In addition to upholding the maps, it has the option of sending them back to the commission for whole new plans or with directions to fix specific problems.
Most eyes are on the chief justice as a potential swing vote since she was among the dissenters a decade ago when the court's majority upheld the last set of maps.
Republicans currently have veto-proof majorities — 64-35 in the House and 25-8 in the Senate. Analysis suggests the new maps would cement— and potentially build upon — those majorities.
Because the five Republicans on the commission — two legislative leaders and three statewide officeholders — failed to reach a deal to get the votes of the two Democratic members, the new maps passed along party lines and would last four years instead of the traditional 10.
If the maps are upheld, the entire process would have to start over again in 2025 to come up with a map that would last the remaining six years until after the 2030 U.S. census.
"It doesn't take a political scientist to know that if you take people associated with a group and pack them into a district that they will miss out on opportunities to have equal representation in the General Assembly with profound consequences for the laws of this state," said Brian Sutherland, representing plaintiffs in the challenge brought by the Ohio Organizing Collaborative and others.
But Mr. Strach argued that the new constitutional process worked and that the commission met its obligation to avoid political gerrymandering. He said negotiations led to a plan that reduced that number to 62.
"What happened was you had a less partisan-leaning map that ultimately was adopted," he said. "The commission could have said, 'You know what, we can't cut a deal [with Democrats], we've complied with the anti-gerrymandering requirements, we're going to go back and we're going to adopt that 67 Republican-leaning House plan. We're going to do that because we can.'
"They didn't do that," Mr. Strach said.
Among other things, the new rules require the commission to divide fewer counties and municipalities, produce geographically compact districts, and adopt a final product that generally reflects voting trends in the state over the last decade. Critics argue the last provision should have resulted in maps closer to a 54 percent to 46 percent partisan split.
Chief Justice O'Connor seemed to be trying to wrap her head around the formula used by the commission to justify the partisan split of the final map. There had been arguments among Republicans that, based on the fact that Republicans have swept most statewide offices over the past decade, a breakdown of 81-19 could have been justified.
The statehouse map litigation is separate from multiple lawsuits that have been filed before the state Supreme Court and in federal court to challenge recently passed congressional maps.
In addition to the chief justice, observers are closely watching Republican Justice Pat DeWine, the governor's son, and Justice Brunner, whose 2020 campaign was assisted by a virtual fund-raiser with Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder. His anti-gerrymandering group is among the plaintiffs in the three lawsuits.
First Published December 8, 2021, 1:08pm
