New Congressional map – Sept. proposals, Nov. results, 2022 redraw

Congressional redistricting is underway. By September we had maps from Senate Democrats, Ohio Citizen’s Redistricting, and Fair Districts. The Republican majority skipped the first 2 phases, waiting until November to propose an unconstitutional map that gives them an even greater advantage than they already have.

Ohio is losing one Representative seat, from 16 to 15, due to our population not keeping up with other states’ growth. Districts reflecting Ohio’s party preferences would be around 8 Republican and 7 Democratic, as opposed to the 12-4 makeup of the previous map which was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court. Ohio’s last map has 32 county splits and we’re looking to cut that in half or better this time.

Ohio Constitution says “Every congressional district shall be compact.” I’ve written a proposal for measuring compactness of districts, including a historically based standard of 85% average and a minimum of 60% for every district. Let’s see how the proposals shape up.

Democrats’ Map – Representative, fewest county splits

Senate Democrats’ Proposal – could be more compact

Democratic state Senators proposed their map on 9/29 (SB237). It has 6 competitive districts, 6 leaning Republican and 3 leaning Democratic. It’s likely to result in 9 Republicans and 6 Democrats, close to proportional. The map splits 11 counties one time each, better than any other proposal so far!

Their compactness averages 77% with a median of 79%. This is a big improvement over the last 2 decades of Ohio’s map, which currently sits at 62%. However, I’ve seen gerrymandered maps at 75% and a fair map reach 93%, so I’d like to see better compactness above 85%. OCRC and Fair Districts winning maps are much more compact.

The Democrats’ map has only 1 district under our minimum standard of 60%: district 4 around Cleveland at just 40%. That is too low and needs to be better. The next least compact district is number 13 right at 60%. Wrapping around the Columbus area separates constituents in Licking and Union/Madison counties and could be better.

11/10 – This map was amended to make districts more exactly equally populated:

It now splits 14 counties. District 4’s compactness was not improved, remaining at a low 41%. The second worst district 13 became less compact at 57% due to district 2 changes, which brings the map to 2 districts under 60%. Average and median were actually improved to 78% and 86% since districts 8 and 14 were made much more compact, but the couple of poorly compacted districts makes this amendment not much better than the original.

House Democrats’ Proposal – the most compact bill

On 11/5, State Reps. Brown and Galonski released a map proposal on behalf of House Democrats. This is a 9R-6D likely map. Safe seats are 6R-4D, with 5 competitive districts with 3 leaning right and 2 leaning left. It’s quite proportional with a slight advantage to Republicans as a compromise.

There are 14 county splits, none more than once, which is the second best of all the maps. (Corrected 11/11.) This includes small corners of Marion and Ashland counties split for population equality.

Their map is 83% compact on average with a median of 89%, and a minimum of 60%; the most compact legislative sponsored map so far, which nearly meets our proposed standards! District 9 along the lake is the minimum which meets our standard!

This is a great map which is very compact and proportional with few splits. We would do well to adopt this map!

GOP Proposals – Unconstitutional party favoring, most splitting

Both Republican proposals are the most egregious party-favoring maps I’ve seen, are the worst in terms of county splits, among the worst on compactness too. These maps are both 87% Republican, even higher than the 75% majority-favoring map we currently have which was ruled by a court to be unconstitutional. Republicans previously made the absurd argument that winning 13/16 statewide races justified taking up to 81% of the districts, and this map exceeds even that nonsense! These maps unduly favor Republicans, in violation of Ohio Constitution Article 19, Section 1(C).

House GOP’s Proposal – the least compact

On 11/3, Rep Oelslager proposed a map on behalf of House Republicans (HB479): a 13R-2D map strongly favoring Republicans.

There are 4 competitive districts that all lean Republican by at least 1.9% according to DavesRedistricting.

13 counties are split a total of 17 times, more than any proposal except for the Senate GOP’s. (Corrected 11/11) Splitting Summit County twice is particularly bad since it unnecessarily cuts the city of Akron in half.

This map is 73% compact on average with a median of 76%, better than Ohio’s current map, but the least compact of the proposals and below our standard of 85%. District 6 is the least compact at only 41%, a highly elongated district along the southeast and below our bare minimum threshold. District 1, connecting Cincinnati to Warren county is visibly gerrymandered. At 51% compact, it’s not much better than before, falling too far below our 60% standard. District 14 unnecessarily stretches from northeast to the west side of Cleveland and Akron, coming in at only 53% compact.

Senate GOP’s Proposal – could be more compact

Senator McColley also presented a map on behalf of Senate Republicans (SB258). It comes out to another 13R-2D map, severely favoring the majority. It has 7 competitive districts that all lean Republican.

It splits 14 counties a total of 17 times, the most of any proposal here. It unnecessarily splits Cincinnati and Columbus metros into 3 districts.

It’s 78% compact on average with a 80% median, which is decent but still below our standard of 85%. There are 2 districts under our 60% minimum standard: the elongated district 6 to the east at 54%, and district 12 including Canton at 59%.

These maps are unconstitutional, but perhaps they’ll offer Democrats 1 seat later to create the appearance of compromise.

Unified GOP Proposal – fewer county splits, still unduly favors majority

On 11/15, Republican leaders from both chambers released a new map (under SB258), available on DavesRedistricting here.

This has big differences from their other proposals. District 4 no longer dips into Franklin county as earlier GOP maps did, likely due to pressure from Jim Jordan calling Statehouse Republicans RINO’s for diluting his stronghold.

This is a likely 12R-3D. “Safe” seats are 7R and 2D. Of the 6 “competitive” districts, 4 lean Republican and 2 are toss-ups: districts 9 and 13.

12 counties are split a total of 14 times due to double splits in Hamilton and Cuyahoga counties. This is an improvement from the other GOP maps, but Hamilton county is still needlessly split twice with its bulk glommed onto Warren county. Also, Summit county is the 4th most populous county in the State but still small enough to fit within 1 district, so why split its city of Cuyahoga Falls rather than an unincorporated township somewhere else?

This map is 78% compact on average, with a 81% median, both improvements on earlier GOP maps but not as compact as the Brown/Galonski map. Only 1 district is under the 60% standard: Hamilton/Warren county district 1 at just 49%, which is far too low. District 5 is decently convex, but much more elongated than necessary, dragging the city of Lorain to the Indiana border.

Citizen’s Unity Map – Proportional, very compact, minimal county splits

The Ohio Citizen’s Redistricting Commission (OCRC) has released their Unity Map for Congressional districts by 9/30. It has 6 competitive districts, 6 safe Republican and 3 safe Democrat. Likely 9 Republican and 6 Democratic seats according to Dave’s Redistricting, or 8-7 according to their own report. Either way it corresponds closely to statewide voter preferences. There are 13 county splits, which is great but 2 more than the Democrats’ map.

OCRC’s map meets all of our proposed standards of compactness, much better than the Democrats’ map and a better average than any adopted map since 1943! Average and median compactness are 85% and 86%, which hits right on the high bar I laid out back in March. Every district exceeds our proposed minimum of 60%. The lowest is southeast District 8 at 65%, which partly curves around District 10 but is still well compacted. Second lowest is northern District 4 at 74% due to coming around Cleveland a bit, but still very good. Every other district on their map is at least 81% compact.

Fair Districts Winners – Representative, highly compact, but more county splits

Fair Districts Ohio has announced the top 3 winners of their mapmaking competition on 9/30. All 3 are more compact than Democrats’ map, but at the expense of 1-4 more county splits.

1st place winner is John Hagner from Yellow Springs, OH. His map has 14 county splits. Likely 8 Republican and 7 Democrat districts, more proportional than the Democrats’ plan. 5 competitive, 6 safe Republican and 4 safe Democrat, which is more proportional than any other proposal! Compactness is 85% average, 87% median and 65% minimum, all beating our high standards, but not the most compact of the top 3 winners.

2nd place winner is Paul Nieves from Yonkers, NY, who won 3rd place in the legislative map competition. His map has just 12 county splits, the least of the 3 winners but 1 more than the Democrats’. Likely 9 Republican and 6 Democrat districts. 6 competitive, 6 safe Republican and 3 safe Democrat. Compactness is 90% average and median, with a 75% minimum, far exceeding all of our standards!

3rd place map by Riley Jones of Loveland, OH also splits 14 counties, but 15 total due to splitting Cuyahoga twice. Likely 9 Republican and 6 Democrat districts. 6 competitive, 6 safe Republican and 3 safe Democrat. Compactness is 88% average, 87% median, 80% minimum, the best minimum of any proposal.

RationalOhio’s map with zero partisan considerations

10/29/21 – What happens if a map is made with zero considerations for political parties? I made my own map to answer that question, with no adjustments for “representational fairness”:

Without even trying, I created 10 likely Republican and 5 likely Democratic districts. That’s 6R and 2D safe districts, and 7 competitive districts.

This map is 89% compact on average, with a median value of 91%. One district near Cleveland is 62% compact, but all others are 80% or higher. It splits 12 counties a total of 13 times, which is average among the proposals.

It’s easy to achieve a compact map with few splits, but only if the mapmaker wants to.

How I made this map

1. Create districts around the biggest 3 “C” cities and Dayton.
2. Fill the other 3 corners of the state, and then the rest of the gaps.
3. Adjust for equally populated districts, keeping them compact and minimizing county and city splits.
4. DO NOT adjust for party preferences! The moment the map is filled with equal populations, STOP!

It is a choice to start by keeping major cities together, which results in some Democratic districts. That choice is reasonable because urbanities have shared identities which are distinct from rural areas, and that should be represented in Congress. However, Dayton, Toledo and Canton were kept whole too and still naturally resulted in red-leaning districts.

Lessons learned from this experiment

This map is not an argument against making adjustments to represent parties more proportionally. If an arbitrary choice can be switched for another arbitrary choice to gain more proportionality, then ideally we should do it. For example, my Toledo district is red because I randomly took it northwest, but others pull it down instead of across which resulted in a blue district. Either direction is reasonable, so why not make the choice that’s more proportional? My map shows that the areas west of Cleveland along Lake Erie can easily be squished or stretched to make 2 light blues or 2 light reds depending on who’s holding the pen.

Democrats would prefer an 8-7 map but 9-6 is also close to proportional. The process is meant to encourage bipartisan give and take, and 10-5 might be a reasonable compromise. However, if Republicans offer 12-3, that would unconstitutionally disfavor Democrats and should be rejected by the minority and by the courts.

Response to a Republican’s Critique

10/5/21 – Former Republican State Senator Jeff Jacobson reviewed the Senate Democrats’ map, prior to any Republican proposal to compare it to. Let’s look at his argument:

• His headline declares “Senate Democrats Plan Splits Counties”, even though Democrats have produced the fewest splits of any proposal so far, just 11 compared to the current map’s 32! (11/5: Republicans’ maps split 5-6 more counties than Democrats did!)
• He complains about the northern district containing Toledo based on unattributed comments made 10 years ago, even though the conditions are not the same today as they were back then. This year we have new rules, population changes, and bigger districts due to having fewer. He calls the northern district an alligator, implying that it’s no better than the old “Snake on the Lake”, but that’s wrong because the Democrats made a 92% compact district compared to the Snake’s 51%!
• He arbitrarily picks 13 northeast counties and complains that its districts don’t closely match partisan preferences, but we must be skeptical of cherrypicking specific counties to make a point. Also, he touts his own ability to draw Northeast Ohio better (as if it can be done without consideration of the rest of Ohio), but it’s an empty boast because he doesn’t even share his results.
  Nonetheless, the Democrats’ district around Cleveland is not compact and unnecessarily breaks up the region, which I’ve said could be much better. OCRC has already demonstrated a much better handling of the region.
  (11/5: He suggested this region should have 2R, 2D and 1 competitive district in this region is fair due to having a 53.4% Democratic lean, so will he now object to the fact that both Republican proposals created only 1 Democratic district there, with all others leaning Republican? My guess is that he will have no problem with that.)
• Jacobson complains about Republicans losing “20% of their clout”, but remember that Republicans unconstitutionally gave themselves 75% of the map last time, despite earning 55% of statewide votes, so majority losses are to be expected.
• He complains about Xenia and Springfield being in a district with Dayton, even though they’re all just 30 minutes from each other. In the old map, Republicans put Springfield in a district with Fairfield over an hour away! If he feels bad for Xenia having to share a district with Dayton, he should take a look at Washington Courthouse, which has shared a district with Dayton from 50 minutes away for the last decade. All districts have to be bigger this time so towns will need to share districts where they didn’t before, but Xenia, Springfield and Dayton are closer together than same-district towns used to be. He complains about splitting both Clark and Greene counties, but realistically if either one were kept whole, then some other county would have to be split anyway to meet population requirements. Jacobson is wrong here; the Democrats’ proposed Dayton district is a big improvement over the last one and highly compact at 89%.
• He also complains about putting Akron and Canton together in a district, again just 30 minutes from each other, even though Republicans previously carved the living daylights out of this area. If Jacobson thinks Canton doesn’t care about Akron, then why would they care about Mount Vernon 1.5 hours away in the district they share right now? If Akron doesn’t care about Canton, does he think they care about Youngstown 50 minutes east or Euclid 45 minutes north, all of which currently share a district? Jacobson’s argument is weak, because the Democrats’ Akron/Canton district is a major improvement and 89% compact, compared to only 40% in the old map. (11/5: House Republicans’ map also combines Canton with part of Akron.)
• Jacobson again unjustifiably likens OCRC to Soviet Union Community Party officials, and calls League of Women Voters “shills”, further undermining the credibility of his review.

Jacobson’s arguments amount to grasping at straws, and he has no high ground to stand on due to the very gerrymandered map his party produced in the 2010’s and in this year’s legislative maps. Although the Cleveland area could be better, his other complaints don’t hold up because the Democrats produced a good map. It’s significantly better than what Republicans made 10 years ago, and we haven’t seen any Republican proposal yet to show they can do any better.

11/5: Jacobson predictably hands out D’s and F’s to the other maps, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he releases a glowing review of the GOP maps which have the most county splits of any proposal and which unduly favor his own party.

The Official Redistricting Commission

The official Ohio Redistricting Commission was supposed to have a chance to make a bipartisan map starting 10/1. After a few days of no activity, Secretary of State and commission member Frank LaRose emailed the group asking them to begin, and started drafting proposals on his own. Co-chair Sykes suggested holding hearings starting 10/12, but there was still no word from Co-chair Cupp. On 10/8, LaRose said public hearings should wait until after the commission introduces a map. After weeks of inactivity, Co-chair Cupp finally agreed to hold a meeting on 10/28 to hear from folks who submitted maps, but with no intention to approve any of them.

Republicans will not be revealing any map proposal until November, contrary to the spirit of the state Constitution. Anticipating this, Commissioner Emilia Sykes sent a letter on 10/25 to Cupp and Huffman asking them to begin the next phase by 11/4.

Republicans skirt the Constitution again

Article XIX Section 1(C)(3)(a) says “The general assembly shall not pass a plan that unduly favors or disfavors a political party or its incumbents.” Since Republicans have chosen not to officially introduce any map in September or October, they have already unduly disfavored the Democratic party by denying their opportunity to consider the majority’s proposal at each step. In November, the majority can pass their map with zero minority support.

Furthermore, a map adopted by October requires that “Every congressional district shall be compact”, whereas a November map requires “The general assembly shall attempt to draw districts that are compact.” Republicans have treated the phrase “shall attempt” as unenforceable, and therefore have deprived Democrats the opportunity to seek compact maps as well.

Back to the Legislature

Senate and House meetings are scheduled on 11/3 and 11/4 to begin the final phase for adopting a new map by the end of November. All the map proposals have been added above.

On 11/16, a new Republican map, analyzed above, is expected to pass along party lines within days of its introduction. It’s likely to produce 12 Republicans and 3 Democrats, giving an even stronger advantage to the majority than Ohio’s current map does, keeping as many seats as they have now, while making Democrats take Ohio’s lost seat.

GOP map signed by Governor

On 11/20, Governor DeWine signed the GOP map into law. He says “SB 258 makes the most progress to produce a fair, compact, and competitive map.” However, this is objectively not the most compact map bill proposed, as that honor goes to HB483, the Brown/Galonski map. Also, SB258 is arguably not the most fair either, considering its dominate favoring of Republicans, which some say is as high as 13R-2D.

As of 11/29/21, State Senator Theresa Gavarone, chair of the Senate and Joint redistricting committees responsible for Ohio’s new Congressional map, is now running for Congress in District 9 in that map. On Twitter she changed her location from Bowling Green to Huron.

Lawsuits

The Hamilton/Warren district, the Summit county split, and other issues are likely be challenged in court. Within 2 days of being passed, National Redistricting Action Fund filed a lawsuit. On 11/29, Attorney General Yost moved to dismiss it for going against the Ohio Redistricting Commission when the General Assembly was responsible for the map, and the lawsuit even describes the General Assembly’s malpractice. On 12/3, Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit against the ORC, but kept it against Secretary LaRose, Speaker Cupp, and Senate President Huffman.

On 11/30, League of Women Voters and ACLU filed a second lawsuit, this one also against the Ohio Redistricting Commission. The same day a third lawsuit was filed by Reverend Kenneth L. Simon, this time in federal court over racial gerrymandering.

Ohio Supreme Court

On 12/28, oral arguments were heard by the Ohio Supreme Court. Attorney Ben Stafford did a great job of explaining the map’s unconstitutionality.

Map invalidated!

On 1/14/22, the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated the partisan congressional map in a 4-3 decision by Justices Brunner, Donnelly, Stewart, and O’Connell:

“We hold that the congressional-district plan is invalid in its entirety because it unduly favors the Republican Party and disfavors the Democratic Party in violation of Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(a). We also hold that the plan unduly splits Hamilton, Cuyahoga, and Summit Counties in violation of Section 1(C)(3)(b).”

The court sets a precedent for how we should understand “undue” favoring. It says any party-favoring that naturally results from the neutral line-drawing criteria from Section 1 and 2 is warranted, but favoritism in excess of that, compared to past election data, computer simulation results, and/or various statistical metrics, is undue. Strict party proportionality is not required, but is a valid piece of evidence for determining if favoring is warranted or undue according to the court.

Regarding compactness, specifically around Ohio’s largest 3 metro areas, the court says: “Not only are such oddly shaped districts not required by the criteria set forth in Article XIX, but they are in tension, if not in conflict, with Section 1(C)(3)(c)’s exhortation that the General Assembly “shall attempt to draw districts that are compact.””

Referring to unnecessary county splits around urban areas, the decision reads, “those splits result in noncompact districts that cannot be explained by any neutral factor and serve no purpose other than to confer partisan advantage to the political party that drew the plan.”

Adopting a map which is a better than past maps is “immaterial” when deciding if this map is fully constitutional, according to the decision. It’s not enough to follow the explicit line-drawing technical requirements and then ignore the more open-ended requirements against partisan favoring. They ruled that “permissive splitting under Section 2(B) does not authorize partisan splitting.”

“When the dealer stacks the deck in advance, the house usually wins. That perhaps explains how a party that generally musters no more than 55 percent of the statewide popular vote is positioned to reliably win anywhere from 75 percent to 80 percent of the seats in the Ohio congressional delegation. By any rational measure, that skewed result just does not add up.”

Dissenting opinion

Justices Sharon Kennedy, Pat Fischer and Pat DeWine disagreed and would have upheld the partisan gerrymander.

They argue that the General Assembly may cherry-pick data and define “due favoritism” and “competitive” however they want, to benefit themselves with as many likely seats as they want, as long as they cherry-pick a rationale that isn’t too outlandish. They suggest that the court shouldn’t even consider any other criteria to test whether party favoritism is warranted besides the criteria chosen by the General Assembly’s majority.

They argue “undue partisan advantage and lack of compactness cannot be the measure of whether governmental units have been unduly split,” going so far as to say “consideration of partisan fairness and compactness are irrelevant to this analysis.” While there could be other, nonpartisan reasons that a county split is undue, they rule out the possibility of it being undue at least partly because of its partisan advantage. That’s a strange conclusion in an amendment specifically designed to avoid splitting communities for partisan gain!

Justice O’Connor likens the dissent to a “magician’s trick”.

Read my full analysis of their dissent here.

What’s next?

The legislature now gets 30 days to try again, and then the Ohio Redistricting Commission gets 30 days to try. That means a redrawn map could arrive as late as mid-March, and then be subject to further objection.

Congressional candidates must file their petitions by March 4th, which is already extended 30 days by SB258. To hit that deadline we would probably need to get a map out of the Statehouse phase.

There’s a placeholder bill SB286 from Senator Rob McColley to “revise” the map, but there has been no public mapmaking activity as of 2/4, 3 weeks since the ruling.

A new FairDistrictsOhio map for 2022

While we wait for General Assembly to even start working on a new map, FairDistrictOhio released a new map by Paul Nieves on 2/3/22, which they call their “Model Map”.

It’s exactly equally populated and likely 8R-7D or 9R-6D. There are 14 counties split, with a small second split in Cuyahoga. It’s incredibly compact, with a 89% average, 88% median, and 80% minimum, exceeding all of our high standards! This is perhaps the best map available, beating even OCRC’s on compactness, with equal populations to boot.

How to constitutionally split Franklin County

Franklin County GOP Chairman Josh Jaffe called the FairDistricts map’s Franklin split unconstitutional, but that’s wrong. This type of split is used in almost every proposal other than GOP maps. Jaffe cites Section 2(B)(4)(a), which says that for cities more populous than a district, mapmakers “shall attempt to include a significant portion of that municipal corporation or township in a single district”.

No district can hold more than 87% of Columbus’ 905,748 in order to be equally populated. In the FairDistricts map, District 3 has 61% (548,336) of Columbus, a significant part of the city. The initially adopted GOP map had 65% (584,813), within the same range as FairDistricts’.

If we look at Columbus plus its surrounded precincts (~1,042,049), the max possible is 75% in one district. FairDistricts has 59% (618,791) of Columbus+, and the GOP map has 67% (695,937). If we instead look at how much of District 3 (786,630) contains Columbus+, FairDistricts is 79% and GOP is 88%.

Both proposals put a significant part of Columbus into District 3, so Jaffe’s claim of an unconstitutional violation of 2(B)(4)(a) is not supported.

General Assembly couldn’t do it. Will the commission?

Mapmaking meetings were scheduled for 2/8 and 2/9, with just days left for the General Assembly’s chance. Republicans were anticipated to reveal a new map.

However, the meetings were canceled, because the bill would need emergency authorization to quickly go into effect in time for this election cycle, and Republicans didn’t think they could get enough votes for that, according to State Senator Bob Peterson and House Speaker Cupp. It requires 66 votes to do, which would require some votes from Democrats. The cancellation shows they’re not even trying to make a fair map that Democrats might support.

Meanwhile, Democrats have released their own new 8R-7D map proposal on 2/8.

Responsibility is now in the hands of the Ohio Redistricting Commission. Democrats point out that nothing in the Constitution allows the commission to pass a 4-year partisan map, that only the General Assembly may do that, and therefore a map now requires bipartisan support to be adopted. It’s an interesting argument grounded in a literal interpretation of the Constitution. This required minority support argument is described in more detail here.

Running out of the clock

If commissioners drag their feet long enough, they may be able to use an invalid map for the next election. Article XIX Section 1 says:

“When a congressional district plan ceases to be effective under this article, the district boundaries described in that plan shall continue in operation for the purpose of holding elections until a new congressional district plan takes effect.”

This may explain why Republicans keep waiting until the last minute to finish maps and are unwilling to move back the election dates, so that they can use their unconstitutional gerrymander after all.

It’s unclear if the invalidated map will “continue in operation” or if it’s wiped away from ever having been in operation. If candidates end up being forced to file petitions under the invalid map lines by early March, one could argue that it remains in operation.

On 2/22/22, the commission met and discussed congressional mapmaking for the first time since the court ruling. On 3/1, Republicans revealed a new map for the 2pm meeting, and they may take a vote on it during the next day’s 10am meeting, again leaving very little time for feedback.

A revised Republican map

Republicans’ latest map, under Frank Strigari, is up on DavesRedistricting. It’s 10R/3D with 2 tossups that barely lean D. This is a big improvement for Summit county and a much more compact northeast, but not great for Cincinnati nor for the southeastern half of Columbus.

There are 14 county splits, none more than once. It’s 79% compact on average, which is higher than previous GOP proposals but still lower than others’ proposals. Median compactness is 85%, which is great. However, the minimum is too low at 48% (District 15). 2 other districts are below our standard of 60%: districts 1 and 9 which have been contorted to minimize Democratic lean.

The number of Hamilton county splits was reduced from two to just one, but Warren county is still defiantly attached to Cincinnati, despite that being a central issue raised by the court. Cincinnati is severed from its Democratic leaning suburbs just above it in the same county. That District 1 is now exactly 51% Democrat, continuing the Republican strategy of using districts that favor the minority party by the most narrow margin possible.

Columbus’ District 3 is now well anchored to the borders of Franklin county, but the rest of Columbus is strung along rural areas to the west with the insufficiently compact (only 48%) District 15.

The northwest District 9 is 50.3% Democratic, and District 13 in Akron is 52.2% Democratic. All 10 Republican districts are over 53.3%, while only 2 Democratic districts exceed that: Columbus and Cleveland.

On 3/2, Democrats moved to adopt their SB237 map from last year, and it was rejected along party lines 2-5. Russo offered 4 revisions to the GOP proposal as an alternative map: keep District 1 in Hamilton, change District 9 to include Lorain, keep District 15 closer to the parts of Columbus that it includes, and a Cuyahoga adjustment. Republicans rejected these changes.

Republicans tweaked their proposal from the day before to account for incumbent addresses, and this map was adopted along party lines, 5-2.

Senator Huffman claimed that the prohibition of undue favoring no longer applies. If it’s true that Section 1(C)(3) doesn’t apply to the commission, then Section 2(B)(2) does apply, where the Constitution says the map “shall comply” with this: “Every congressional district shall be compact.” Since District 15 is not compact, this map fails this Constitutional requirement.

Back to court, but 2022 is likely a done deal

Objections filed on 3/4 and 3/7 say the revised plan is still unconstitutional. They ask the court to enforce its January 14th decision on this Commission-drawn map. League of Women Voters’ objection focuses on the poor quality of districts 15 and 1, and suggests that these two be ruled defective and ordered to be corrected. In contrast, Adams petitioners consider the map invalid more holistically.

Respondents Huffman and Cupp reiterate their claim that “the Section 1(C)(3)/(F)(3) requirements do not apply to Commission-drawn plans”, but then how can the Commission-drawn plan last for 4 years when that duration comes from the same part of the Constitution? They also deride all the mathematical models for measuring compactness as unreliable, and ask the court to let this election run with the revised map.

After 2 weeks, the Supreme Court announced on 3/18 that petitioners’ motions were “procedurally improper” and that they need to file a new lawsuit. Petitioners restructured their lawsuits and resubmitted on 3/21 and 3/22.

Notably, ACLU and LWVO decided not to challenge the map for the 2022 elections, challenging 2024 instead. Their reasoning is that court decisions take time and redrawing can take up to 2 months according to the Constitution, but ballots are going to be sent out very soon. Voter advocates have roundly criticized that choice, and say there’s still time to invalidate the map before ballots go out and push back the primary to summer.

In contrast, the Neiman lawsuit requests that no election use this map and that the election date be moved back. There’s a tension between the court’s authority to invalidate a map and the legislature’s authority to set the times for elections. We’re already past that point with the state legislative maps, but in that case the court retained jurisdiction and gave 10 days to fix the maps. On the congressional side, it’s a whole new case yet to be decided, and the court may not have authority to change the election date nor order fewer than 60 days to redraw the map.

On 3/29/22, Ohio Supreme Court consolidated the lawsuits and set a 62 day schedule for submitting evidence and allowing responses. Justices Kennedy, Fischer, and Pat DeWine would have added even more time to the schedule.

This likely brings an end to the fight for the 2022 Congressional elections. A primary election is still set for May 3rd, and the court may not rule on the map until June or later. Barring some surprise action by a court or the legislature moving the primary, the revised Congressional map is locked in for 2022, even if it’s later ruled unconstitutional.

Revised map invalidated

On 7/19/22, Ohio Supreme Court invalidated the 2nd Congressional map. That means the districts used in the 5/3 primary and planned for use in November are unconstitutional, yet will be used for 2022 anyway. They ordered the General Assembly to drawn a new map within 30 days, by mid-August. That’s before this year’s general elections, but wouldn’t go into effect until the 2024 elections.

Republican Representative Gary Click reacted to the news by reiterating his call to impeach Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, using the coded language “I’d like to buy a vowel” from an earlier meme.

The Redistricting Commission might resubmit the same unconstitutional map, with or without minor tweaks, or just let the deadline pass with no action, since they’ve done all of these things already for statehouse districts without any disciplinary consequence.

As of 8/17, the General Assembly did not redraw the map, ignoring the court’s order. Now Huffman and Cupp are claiming they have more time for appeals to the US Supreme Court. Section 3 does say 30 days from when “an appeal of the court order could have been filed.” However, that section also references an “unappealed final order”, and no appeal has been filed even as our court’s deadline has expired. Furthermore, the same section also gives the state court “exclusive” jurisdiction.

9/16/22 came and went with nothing from the Redistricting Commission either.

Ultimately, the Republican leaders have no interest in observing the Constitution’s prohibition of “a plan that unduly favors or disfavors a political party” anytime soon. The fight could continue for many months to come, despite our best hopes for a final resolution.

10/17/22 – Ohio Republican legislative leaders appeal Ohio Supreme Court gerrymandering decision to US Supreme Court, invoking the bogus “independent state legislature theory” in Huffman v Neiman. Their theory is that state courts should not be allowed to rule on redistricting cases, because Article 1, Section 4 of the US Constitution says, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof”. However, it is generally understood that anything prescribed by a state legislature is subject to judicial review as part of our system of checks and balances. The US Supreme Court hears arguments on this theory in the Moore v Harper case in December.

11/8/22 – Despite Republicans’ efforts to gerrymander Congress, Democrats still managed to pick up a seat, resulting in a 10-5 map.

References

Timeline of 2020 Ohio redistricting – CommonCause

First round Ohio Supreme Court cases:
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission
Regina C. Adams v. Governor Mike DeWine

Second round Ohio Supreme Court cases:
Meryl Neiman v. Secretary of State Frank LaRose
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Secretary of State Frank LaRose