1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE 

ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LARRY HOUSEHOLDER ET AL.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 1:18-cv-357

ORDER DENYING 

EMERGENCY MOTIONS TO 

STAY PENDING APPEAL

Before: Moore, Circuit Judge; Black and Watson, District Judges.

Before the Court are Defendants’ and Intervenors’ motions to stay this Court’s injunction 

pending appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. See Dkt. 266 (Defs.’ Mot. to Stay); 

Dkt. 268 (Intervenors’ Mot. to Stay). Plaintiffs oppose the motion. See Dkt. 269 (Pls.’ Opp’n). 

Defendants and Intervenors waived the opportunity for a reply brief, and the motions are now ripe 

for decision.

“A stay is not a matter of right . . . .” See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (citation 

omitted). Courts evaluate four factors in considering a stay pending appeal:

(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on the merits of the 

appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving party will be irreparably harmed absent 

a stay; (3) the prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants the stay; and 

(4) the public interest in granting the stay.

See Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Johnson, 833 F.3d 656, 661 (6th Cir. 2016); see also

Nken, 556 U.S. at 434.

The Court has reviewed these motions and briefs, and the Court finds that the arguments 

raised in the motions mirror the issues considered and ruled upon when the Court previously denied 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 270 Filed: 05/09/19 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 23715
2

the motion to stay the trial in this matter. See Dkt. 213 (Order Denying Mot. to Stay Trial). No 

new arguments persuade the Court that a stay is now warranted, and therefore the Court adheres 

to its prior analysis. See id. (denying a stay of trial because any effect of Common Cause v. Rucho

(S. Ct. No. 18-422) and Benisek v. Lamone (S. Ct. No. 18-726) on this case is unknown, and the 

public welfare, relative hardships, and time constraints of this case weigh strongly against a stay). 

Moreover, Defendants and Intervenors attempt to relitigate the merits of the case in these motions

and avoid the Court’s finding and conclusion that the current map is unconstitutional and has thus 

harmed voters. For the reasons stated in the Opinion and Order, we reject the arguments that 

attempt to relitigate the merits of this case. See Dkt. 262 (Op. & Order).

The Court also takes this opportunity to emphasize and clarify two points. First and 

foremost, Defendants have not changed their position that a new map would need to be in place 

no later than September 20, 2019. See Dkt. 185-1 (Wolfe Decl. at 2). The Court needs sufficient

time to assess properly whether any potential State-enacted remedial plan is constitutionally 

acceptable, and, if a remedial plan is not constitutionally acceptable, the Court needs adequate time 

to work with a special master to draw a map and consider any objections from the parties to such 

a plan. This may take time, and the Court will carefully analyze any remedial plan so that the 

voters in Ohio can avoid another election with unconstitutionally drawn districts. Ensuring a 

remedial plan is in place prior to the deadline is the optimal way to avoid voter confusion. 

Presently, Defendants maintain that deadline is September 20, 2019. (Again, we observe that H.B. 

369, the actual plan that was used in the 2012 elections, was signed into law on December 15, 

2011.) The Court is committed to working with Defendants’ deadline while also discharging its 

“own duty to cure illegally gerrymandered districts . . . .” See North Carolina v. Covington, 138 

S. Ct. 2548, 2553–54 (2018).

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 270 Filed: 05/09/19 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 23716
3

Second, the Court’s Order does not “require[] both houses of the General Assembly to 

separately introduce . . . a new congressional districting plan . . . .” See Dkt. 266 (Defs.’ Mot. to 

Stay at 12) (emphasis added). One house of the General Assembly could introduce one new plan, 

which could then pass both houses and be signed by the Governor; the State House of 

Representatives and State Senate need not introduce separate and different plans for consideration. 

The Court’s Order, however, requires Defendants to submit alternative plans (if any) considered 

by the General Assembly or any constituent committee. See Dkt. 262 (Op. & Order at 295). In 

fact, the Court’s Order does not require the State to draw its own remedial plan at all, but the Court 

has allowed the State the opportunity to cure its own unconstitutional gerrymander. Id. at 294–96. 

The Court continues to hope that the State will take that opportunity. 

Accordingly, the relevant factors and circumstances of this case continue to weigh against 

granting a stay. The Court therefore DENIES the motions to stay this Court’s Order.

ENTERED: May 9, 2019

s/ Karen Nelson Moore

HONORABLE KAREN NELSON MOORE

United States Circuit Judge

s/ Timothy S. Black

HONORABLE TIMOTHY S. BLACK

United States District Judge

s/ Michael H. Watson

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WATSON

United States District Judge

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 270 Filed: 05/09/19 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 23717