In the case of League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm., 2022-Ohio-789 (“League III”), the Ohio Supreme Court held that the second revised redistricting plan proposed by the Ohio Redistricting Commission(“Commission”) failed to meet the standards set forth in Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B) of the Ohio Constitution.
In holding that the second revised plan is unconstitutional, the Court explained that, under Section 6(A) of the Ohio Constitution, redistricting plans cannot favor a political party, and under Section 6(B) of the Ohio Constitution, redistricting plans must correspond to the statewide preferences of Ohio voters. The Court further explained that the second revised plan favored the Republican Party and did not correspond to the statewide preferences of voters because a disproportionate number of toss-up districts were labeled as Democratic-leaning. As a result, the Court ordered the Commission to adopt a new plan by March 28, 2022.
To read this case, click here.
To read our prior blog update entitled, “Contempt Hearing Ordered for Ohio Redistricting Commission,” click here.
To read our blog of the League II decision entitled, “Revised Redistricting Plan Still Violates the Ohio Constitution,” please click here.
To read our blog of the League I decision entitled, “Redistricting Plan Violates the Ohio Constitution,” please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.