IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

__________________________________________

)

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE, )

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OHIO, )

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE )

DEMOCRATS, NORTHEAST OHIO YOUNG )

BLACK DEMOCRATS, HAMILTON COUNTY )

YOUNG DEMOCRATS, LINDA GOLDENHAR, )

DOUGLAS BURKS, SARAH INSKEEP, )

CYNTHIA LIBSTER, KATHRYN DEITSCH, )

LUANN BOOTHE, MARK JOHN GRIFFITHS, )

LAWRENCE NADLER, CHITRA WALKER, )

TRISTAN RADER, RIA MEGNIN, ) SECOND

ANDREW HARRIS, AARON DAGRES, ) AMENDED

ELIZABETH MYER,BETH HUTTON, ) COMPLAINT

TERESA THOBABEN, )

and CONSTANCE RUBIN, ) No. 1:18-cv-00357-TSB

)

Plaintiffs, ) Judge Timothy S. Black

) Judge Karen Nelson Moore

v. ) Judge Michael H. Watson

) Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

RYAN SMITH, Speaker of the Ohio House )

of Representatives, LARRY OBHOF, )

President of the Ohio Senate, and )

JON HUSTED, Secretary of State of Ohio, )

in their official capacities, )

)

Defendants. )

__________________________________________)
1

INTRODUCTION

1. This case is a challenge to Ohio’s current United States congressional redistricting 

plan (the “plan” or “map”) and each of its component districts as an unconstitutional partisan 

gerrymander that violates the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I of the 

United States Constitution. 

2. The current Ohio map is one of the most egregious gerrymanders in recent 

history. The map was designed to create an Ohio congressional delegation with a 12 to 4 

Republican advantage—and lock it in for a decade. It has performed exactly as its architects 

planned, including in 2012, when President Barack Obama won the state. In statewide and 

national elections, Ohio typically swings between Democrats and Republicans. In this decade, 

Republicans have secured 51% to 59% of the total statewide vote in congressional elections. For 

example, in 2012, the Republicans received 51% of the congressional vote. Yet the challenged 

map has consistently given Republicans 75% of the congressional seats. In order to accomplish 

this entrenched Republican advantage, the map was designed to dilute the votes of individual 

voters by either packing them or by cracking them into districts where, absent special

circumstances, they will never have the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. In each 

of the map’s sixteen entrenched districts, voters have also been deprived of their right to cast a 

meaningful vote. 

3. The Ohio map, created in the redistricting that followed the 2010 Census, was 

drawn by the Republicans in Ohio, with the support and assistance of the national Republican 

Party. The goal was to design a map that would, through packing and cracking across each 

individual district, establish a 12-4 Republican to Democratic seat ratio throughout the decade 

for Ohio’s U.S. congressional delegation. The 12-4 map was drawn in secret in a hotel room, 
2

nicknamed “the bunker” by the map drawers, to which only Republicans had access. Versions of 

the map had to be approved by national Republicans, despite there being no official role in 

Ohio’s redistricting statutes for the national Republican Party. The tightly controlled process 

worked as planned. 

4. The mapmakers were able to accomplish their goal by drawing a map that 

privileges partisan outcomes in each individual district, often at the expense of traditional 

districting criteria. Many of the resulting districts, including the 1st District, the 3rd District, the 

4th District, the 9th District, the 11th District, the 13th District, and the 16th District, have highly 

irregular, sprawling shapes with borders that defy explanation by any political boundary or 

geographical feature. 

5. Consider, for example, the 1st District. It is drawn with two barely connected 

wings, containing portions of Hamilton County and all of Warren County. This district was 

newly drawn in the 2011 redistricting cycle and converted from a district that had once been 

competitive to a solidly Republican district. 

6. The map splits Ohio’s major cities, including Cincinnati, and 23 counties into 

different districts. Despite the fact that the 2011 map has fewer districts than the previous map, 

it produces more splits in Ohio’s counties, including urban counties. For example, Summit 

County, where Akron is located, is split between four districts in the 2011 map, but previously 

only between three, and Lorain County, which is part of the greater Cleveland area, is split 

between three in the 2011 map, but previously only between two. 

7. Such gerrymandering not only violates democratic principles but is 

unconstitutional. As Ohio Governor John Kasich recently stated in an amicus brief filed with the 

Supreme Court, “partisan gerrymanders are unconstitutional, are harming our republican 
3

government, and readily can be identified and addressed by courts.” Brief of Republican 

Statewide Officials as Amici Curiae In Support of Appellees at 1, Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161 

(U.S. Sept. 25, 2017) [hereinafter, “Kasich Gill Amicus”]. 

8. Democratic self-government is predicated upon the electorate choosing among 

candidates in free and fair electoral competitions that reflect the voters’ judgments, not those of 

the state. Partisan gerrymandering violates “the core principle of republican government . . . that 

the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.” Ariz. State Legislature 

v. Ariz. Indep. Redistricting Comm’n, 135 S. Ct. 2652, 2677 (2015) (quoting Mitchell Berman, 

Managing Gerrymandering, 83 Tex. L. Rev. 781 (2005)); see also Cal. Democratic Party v. 

Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 590 (2000) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Rather than reflecting voters’ 

dynamic or evolving preferences, elections under gerrymandered systems systematically lock in 

candidates from the legislators’ preferred party and discourage electoral competition. In Ohio’s 

case, including by diluting the votes of individual voters by placing them in districts where, 

absent special circumstances, they will never have the opportunity to elect their candidates of 

choice, and by violating the rights of voters in each district to cast a meaningful ballot, this 

gerrymandering ensures that Republicans vastly outnumber Democrats in Ohio’s congressional 

delegation. 

9. Partisan gerrymandering violates several provisions of the Constitution. By 

entrenching the party in power and insulating it from meaningful accountability to the electorate, 

partisan gerrymandering substantially burdens voters’ fundamental rights, including (1) their 

First Amendment right to associate for the advancement of political beliefs, to express political 

views, and to participate in the political process, see Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787–

88 (1983); (2) their First and Fourteenth Amendment right to “cast a meaningful vote,” Burdick 
4

v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 445–46 (1992) (Kennedy, J., dissenting); and (3) for voters in packed 

districts or in cracked districts constructed to, absent special circumstances, deprive them of the 

opportunity to elect candidates of choice, their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection 

and treatment under the law, Obama for Am. v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 428 (6th Cir. 2012). See 

also Kasich Gill Amicus at 5 (“By specifically targeting voters on the basis of political affiliation 

and stripping them of political power, that action goes beyond mere partisan wrestling and 

violates both the First and the Fourteenth Amendments.”). Not only does partisan 

gerrymandering violate citizens’ rights under the Constitution, it also goes beyond the powers 

granted to states under Article I. 

10. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the practice is constitutionally 

problematic. Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161, slip. op. at 2 (U.S. June 18, 2018) (Kagan, J., 

concurring) (“Partisan gerrymandering, as this Court has recognized, is ‘incompatible with 

democratic principles.’”); Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 292 (2004) (plurality op.) (conceding 

“the incompatibility of severe partisan gerrymanders with democratic principles”); id. at 316 

(Kennedy, J., concurring) (acknowledging that “partisan gerrymandering that disfavors one party 

is [not] permissible”); id. at 326 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“State action that discriminates against 

a political minority for the sole and unadorned purpose of maximizing the power of the majority 

plainly violates the decisionmaker’s duty to remain impartial.”); id. at 345 (Souter, J., dissenting) 

(“increasing efficiency of partisan redistricting has damaged the democratic process to a degree 

that our predecessors only began to imagine”). 

11. Federal courts across the country have considered the issue of partisan 

gerrymandering in the last two years, and have found manageable standards for determining that 

partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution. See Common Cause v. Rucho, 279 F. Supp. 
5

3d 587 (M.D.N.C. 2018), appeal summarily dismissed, judgment vacated and remanded sub 

nom. Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 17-1295 (U.S. June 25, 2018); Whitford v. Gill, 218 F. Supp. 

3d 837 (W.D. Wisc. 2016), vacated and remanded, No. 16-1161 (U.S. June 18, 2018); Shapiro v. 

McManus, 203 F. Supp. 3d 579 (D. Md. 2016). 

12. Plaintiffs seek a declaration from this Court that the map and each of its 

individual districts are unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment, the Fourteenth 

Amendment, and Article I of the United States Constitution, and an order enjoining any further 

elections under the map and requiring that a new map be implemented. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This action is brought pursuant to the United States Constitution. The Court, 

therefore, has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 1357, and

42 U.S.C. § 1983. It also has jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2201 and 2202, to grant declaratory relief requested. 

14. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a), a three-judge court should be convened to hear 

this case. 

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because each is a citizen 

of Ohio. 

16. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because events 

giving rise to these claims occurred in the Southern District of Ohio, at least six of the Plaintiffs 

live and vote in the Southern District of Ohio, and each Defendant conducts business in this 

district. 
6

PARTIES

Plaintiffs

17. Plaintiff Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute (“APRI”) is the Ohio chapter of the 

A. Philip Randolph Institute, a national organization for African-American trade unionists and 

community activists, established in 1965 to forge an alliance between the civil rights and labor 

movements. It has ten chapters across Ohio, including in Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinnati, 

and has members throughout the state; its activities are funded in part by membership dues. 

While APRI supports a variety of charitable ventures unrelated to voting, the bulk of APRI’s 

work is focused on voter education, registration, civic engagement, and outreach efforts. The 

gerrymandered congressional map impairs APRI’s work by making it more difficult to engage 

voters through its education, registration, and outreach efforts, and by deterring and discouraging 

its members and other Ohio voters from engaging in the political process. APRI is suing on its 

own behalf as well as in its capacity as representative of its members in order to seek a 

constitutional map.

18. Plaintiff League of Women Voters of Ohio (“LWVO”) is the Ohio chapter of the 

League of Women Voters of the United States, founded in May 1920 before the ratification of 

the Nineteenth Amendment granting women’s suffrage. LWVO is a non-profit, non-partisan 

membership organization dedicated to empowering citizens and ensuring an effective 

democracy. LWVO has 29 local Leagues and 3 state units with 2,732 members, the vast 

majority of whom are registered Ohio voters. The LWVO has members in each of Ohio’s 

congressional districts. LWVO aims to shape public policy, educate the public about policy 

issues and the functioning of our democracy, and works to protect and expand Ohioans’ access to 

elections and their government. Individual LWVO members invest substantial volunteer time in 
7

voter education, civic engagement, and voter registration. Prior to the 2011 redistricting cycle, 

LWVO helped sponsor a competition for citizens to draw redistricting maps that privileged good 

governance aims over partisan ends. The gerrymandered congressional map impairs LWVO’s 

work by making it more difficult to engage voters through its education, registration, and 

outreach efforts, and by deterring and discouraging its members and other Ohio voters from 

engaging in the political process. LWVO is suing on its own behalf as well as in its capacity as 

representative of its members in order to seek a constitutional map.

19. Plaintiff the College Democrats at The Ohio State University (“OSU College 

Democrats”) is a student organization at The Ohio State University. Its purpose is to promote 

the ideals of the Democratic Party, to provide students with opportunities and information on 

how to be involved in the political process, and to keep students connected after graduation by 

forming personal and professional relationships with Democratic individuals and organizations.

OSU College Democrats also works to provide a forum for students to develop an active interest 

in governmental affairs and the electoral process at the local, state, and national levels. In 

carrying out its purpose, OSU College Democrats conducts voter registration among students

and works to ensure that students who are already registered update their registrations to reflect 

their current residence. OSU College Democrats also canvasses in support of Democratic 

candidates, including candidates for Congress. By disfavoring the Democratic Party, the 

gerrymandered congressional map inhibits OSU College Democrats’ association with its 

members and voters, including by hampering its efforts to engage, activate, and register voters. 

20. Plaintiff Northeast Ohio Young Black Democrats (“NEOYBD”) is a chapter of 

the statewide organization, Ohio Young Black Democrats. Its mission is to engage in advocacy 

on selected issues and on behalf of Democratic candidates, to develop, train, and support the next 
8

generation of Democratic political leaders, and to educate and engage Democratic voters. In 

carrying out its purpose, NEOYBD engages in activities that include: registering and 

reregistering Democratic voters, getting out the vote, maintaining a strong online presence and 

providing media trainings for future Democratic leaders, hosting candidate forums, organizing 

events including fundraisers, canvassing, attending demonstrations, and circulating petitions. By 

disfavoring the Democratic Party, the gerrymandered congressional map inhibits NEOYBD’s 

association with its members and voters, including by hampering its efforts to engage, activate, 

and register voters. 

21. Plaintiff Hamilton County Young Democrats (“HCYD”) is a chapter of the 

statewide organization, Ohio Young Democrats. Its purpose is to encourage the participation of 

young Democrats in the political process and to further of the goals of the Democratic Party. To 

carry out its purpose, HCYD conducts voter registration, canvasses on behalf Democratic 

candidates, advocates for policy issues supported by its members and the Democratic Party, and 

conducts forums with candidates. Because Hamilton County and the City of Cincinnati are split 

across two congressional districts in the current map, HCYD is compelled to hold forums for the 

Democratic candidates in both Congressional District 1 and Congressional District 2, and divides 

its resources and volunteer hours to engage with the Democratic congressional candidate in each 

district. By disfavoring the Democratic Party, the gerrymandered congressional map inhibits 

HCYD’s association with its members and voters, including by hampering efforts to engage, 

activate, and register voters.

22. Linda Goldenhar is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of Ohio,

and an active voter. She is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates for Ohio’s 

congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the future. She has 
9

hosted Democratic fundraisers and volunteered on behalf of Democratic candidates for many 

years. Plaintiff Goldenhar currently resides in Ohio’s 1st Congressional District, in which 

Democratic voters are cracked under the current Ohio map.

23. Douglas J. Burks is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of Ohio,

and an active Ohio voter. He is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the future. 

He plans to volunteer, including canvassing door-to-door, for current Democratic candidates. 

Plaintiff Burks currently resides in Ohio’s 2nd Congressional District, in which Democratic 

voters are cracked under the current Ohio map.

24. Sarah Inskeep is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of Ohio,

and an active Ohio voter. She is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the future. 

She is politically active and regularly canvasses voters in her community on issues she cares 

strongly about. Plaintiff Inskeep currently resides in Ohio’s 3rd Congressional District, in which 

Democratic voters are packed under the current Ohio map.

25. Cynthia Rodene Libster is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of 

Ohio, and an active Ohio voter. She is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates 

for Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the 

future. She has spent decades speaking, fundraising, and actively supporting the local 

Democratic Party and its candidates, including as Marion County co-chair of a Democratic 

campaign, and previously served as one of the Party’s local officeholders on the Marion City 

Council. Plaintiff Libster currently resides in Ohio’s 4th Congressional District, in which 

Democratic voters are cracked under the current Ohio map.
10

26. Kathryn Deitsch is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of Ohio, 

and an active Ohio voter. She is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the future. 

She is a member of her local Democratic Party Central Committee, has been one of the Party’s 

nominees in recent election cycles, and has actively worked on behalf of recent Democratic 

campaigns in Ohio. Plaintiff Deitsch currently resides in Ohio’s 5th Congressional District, in 

which Democratic voters are cracked under the current Ohio map.

27. Luann Boothe is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of Ohio, 

and an active Ohio voter. She is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the future. 

She has volunteered in her community for Democratic campaigns in the past. Plaintiff Boothe 

currently resides in Ohio’s 6th Congressional District, in which Democratic voters are cracked 

under the current Ohio map.

28. Mark John Griffiths is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of 

Ohio, and an active Ohio voter. He is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates 

for Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the 

future. He is working to revitalize his local Democratic Party organization and is actively 

supporting his local Democratic congressional candidate by donating and volunteering. Plaintiff 

Griffiths currently resides in Ohio’s 7th Congressional District, in which Democratic voters are 

cracked under the current Ohio map.

29. Lawrence Nadler is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of Ohio, 

and an active Ohio voter. He is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the future. 
11

He serves on the Central Committee of his local Democratic Party and leads his precinct for the 

Party. He has also donated to Democratic candidates and canvassed local communities on their 

behalf. Plaintiff Nadler currently resides in Ohio’s 8th Congressional District, in which 

Democratic voters are cracked under the current Ohio map.

30. Chitra Walker is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of Ohio, 

and an active Ohio voter. She is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the future. 

She serves on the Executive Committee of her local Democratic Party organization and has been 

closely involved in local Democratic election efforts, including serving as campaign treasurer for 

a municipal race and hosting fundraisers. Plaintiff Walker currently resides in Ohio’s 9th 

Congressional District, in which Democratic voters are packed under the current Ohio map.

31. Tristan Rader is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of Ohio, 

and an active Ohio voter. He is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the future. 

He is a City Council member for Lakewood and has campaigned for multiple Democratic 

candidates, including a congressional candidate. Plaintiff Rader currently resides in Ohio’s 9th 

Congressional District, in which Democratic voters are packed under the current Ohio map.

32. Ria Megnin is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of Ohio, and 

an active Ohio voter. She is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the future. 

She has canvassed on behalf of the Democratic nominee in the past. Plaintiff Megnin currently 

resides in Ohio’s 10th Congressional District, in which Democratic voters are cracked under the 

current Ohio map.
12

33. Andrew Harris is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of Ohio, 

and an active Ohio voter. He is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the future. 

He is interested in becoming even more actively engaged in Democratic politics in the future. 

Plaintiff Harris currently resides in Ohio’s 11th Congressional District, in which Democratic 

voters are packed under the current Ohio map.

34. Aaron Dagres is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of Ohio, 

and an active Ohio voter. He is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the future. 

He is a leader of his local Democratic Party organization and has been closely involved in 

numerous Democratic campaigns, including pursuing his party’s nomination to Congress in the 

past. Plaintiff Dagres currently resides in Ohio’s 12th Congressional District, in which 

Democratic voters are cracked under the current Ohio map.

35. Elizabeth Myer is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of Ohio, 

and an active Ohio voter. She is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the future. 

She has volunteered on multiple Democratic campaigns and donated to the Party itself, and to a 

number of its candidates. She also worked as a Democratic poll monitor in the past. Plaintiff 

Myer currently resides in Ohio’s 13th Congressional District, in which Democratic voters are 

packed under the current Ohio map.

36. Beth Hutton is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of Ohio, and 

an active Ohio voter. She is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the future. 
13

She has long worked on voter education efforts in her community and recruits candidates to 

speak at local forums. Plaintiff Hutton currently resides in Ohio’s 14th Congressional District, in 

which Democratic voters are cracked under the current map.

37. Teresa Anne Thobaben is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of 

Ohio, and an active Ohio voter. She is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates 

for Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the 

future. She has been nominated to serve as a member of the Central Committee of the 

Democratic Party in her county for about 13 years and has run twice as the Party’s candidate for 

County Commission. Plaintiff Thobaben currently resides in Ohio’s 15th Congressional District, 

in which Democratic voters are cracked under the current map.

38. Constance Rubin is a United States citizen, registered to vote in the State of Ohio 

and an active Ohio voter. She is a Democratic voter, has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past, and plans to support such candidates in the future. 

She established a Democratic Club in Stark County and led it for several years. She has 

supported Democratic candidates over many election cycles, and was the Party’s 2014 nominee 

for the State Senate in her district. Plaintiff Rubin currently resides in Ohio’s 16th Congressional 

District, in which Democratic voters are cracked under the current map.

Defendants

39. Defendant Ryan Smith is the Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives and is 

sued in his official capacity. 

40. Defendant Larry Obhof is the President of the Ohio State Senate and is sued in his 

official capacity.
14

41. Defendant Jon Husted is the Ohio Secretary of State and is sued in his official 

capacity. He is the chief election officer in Ohio responsible for overseeing election 

administration pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3501.04.

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

42. Under current Ohio law,1 the state General Assembly has the primary authority 

for drawing Ohio’s U.S. congressional districts, and the Joint Legislative Task Force on 

Redistricting, Reapportionment, and Demographic Research (“Task Force”) is tasked with 

advising the General Assembly. See Ohio Rev. Code § 103.51. The Task Force is a six-person 

bipartisan committee, with three members appointed by the Speaker of the Ohio House of 

Representatives and three by the President of the Ohio State Senate. Id.

43. The congressional map must be approved by a majority of both the Ohio House of 

Representatives and the Ohio State Senate, and then signed into law by the Governor of Ohio.

Genesis of the Ohio Map

44. In anticipation of the 2010 Census, the Republican State Leadership Committee 

(“RSLC”), a national organization, formulated a strategy to solidify and increase Republican 

control of state legislatures in states where the congressional redistricting process would be 

controlled by those legislative bodies.

45. To implement this strategy, the RSLC implemented and organized the 

REDistricting Majority Project (“REDMAP”). According to REDMAP documents, its rationale 

was “straightforward.” It took aim at 

[c]ontrolling the redistricting process in these states [to] have the greatest impact 

on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries 

 1 A constitutional amendment that will make changes to the redistricting process was approved 

on May 8, 2018. The amendment will not affect any election until the 2022 election cycle, 

following the next decennial census. See infra ¶¶ 132-36. 
15

would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting 

activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the 

state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of 

Representatives for the next decade.2

46. Ohio was one of the states targeted by the RSLC under REDMAP. Following its 

plan, upon information and belief, the RSLC spent nearly $1 million on races for the Ohio House 

of Representatives in advance of the 2010 election. The plan worked: it flipped control of that 

body to the Republican Party following the wave election in 2010. With the capture of the Ohio 

House of Representatives, Ohio came under the single-party control of the Republican Party.

47. Following the November 2010 elections, the Republican Party, including through 

its RSLC/REDMAP initiative, shifted its focus to help state map drawers in their efforts to 

capture more seats through redistricting. This included utilizing the single-party control of the 

Ohio General Assembly to dictate the drawing of Ohio’s U.S. congressional map. Thus, in a 

letter to all Republican state legislative leaders nationwide, including those in Ohio, Chris 

Jankowski, then President and Chief Executive Officer of the RSLC, wrote:

We know the ongoing redistricting process will impact the legislative lines that we will 

have to defend in 2012 and beyond. Therefore, we have taken the initiative to retain a 

team of seasoned redistricting experts that we will make available to you at no cost to 

your caucus for assistance. We urge you to use them as a key resource for technical 

advice as you undergo this process.3

 

48. Mr. Jankowski assured the state legislative leaders that “the entirety of this effort” 

would be paid for through the RSLC’s 501(c)(4) arm, the State Government Leadership 

Foundation.

 2 The RLSC Redistricting Majority Project, 2012 REDMAP Summary Report, 

http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/?p=646 (Jan. 4, 2013).

3 Exhibit 430 to Hofeller Dep., Dickson v. Rucho, No. 11 CVS 16896 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 28, 

2012).
16

49. In May 2010, the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) conducted a training 

session on redistricting led by John Morgan, a national Republican operative. The theme was 

“keep it secret, keep it safe.” The training was attended by the Chief Legal Counsel for the Ohio 

House Republican Caucus.

50. Following the 2010 Census, Ohio lost two congressional seats, reducing the size 

of its delegation to 16 seats, from the 18 seats it had been apportioned following the previous 

decennial census.

51. While the process for drawing Ohio’s congressional map was charged to the Ohio 

General Assembly with the advice and assistance of the bipartisan Task Force, Ohio’s 2011 

congressional map was not created by this official legislative process, but instead in covert, 

backroom dealings among various national and Ohio Republican officials and operatives.

52. The Chief of Staff to the Ohio Senate and the Chief of Staff to the Ohio House of 

Representatives, two of the highest-ranking Republican staffers in the state, engaged two Ohio 

Republican operatives, Ray DiRossi and Heather Mann, as consultants to undertake research and 

other activities deemed necessary for drafting the congressional map. These operatives were not 

engaged to consult with or assist the bipartisan Task Force; they were retained exclusively by the 

Republican members of that Task Force, and rendered services strictly to those Republican 

members. Ultimately, it was Republican operatives, DiRossi and Mann, rather than any 

members of the Ohio General Assembly or the Task Force, who drafted the congressional map.

53. To support and guide their drafting activities, DiRossi and Mann were both 

provided with the RNC’s redistricting training materials.

54. National Republican operative John Morgan, the presenter of “keep it secret, keep 

it safe,” also advised DiRossi and Mann in their work on the Ohio congressional map. 
17

55. In addition to DiRossi, Mann, and Morgan, two other national Republican party 

operatives were engaged in drawing the 2011 Ohio congressional map: Adam Kincaid, 

Redistricting Coordinator of the National Republican Congressional Committee (“NRCC”) and 

Tom Whatman, the Executive Director of “Team Boehner.” John Boehner was the then-Speaker 

of the U.S. House of Representatives. Team Boehner was created to work in concert with the 

NRCC and the RNC to expand the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

56. In order for the congressional map to be finalized for presentation for a vote by 

the General Assembly, Whatman first had to approve the map. DiRossi and Mann would email 

Whatman about changes to the map. Whatman would then indicate whether or not he approved. 

Upon information and belief, the map drawers made changes at Whatman’s direction, without 

ever seeking approval from the Republican elected officials who had the official authority to

draw the map.

57. Beginning in July 2011, the redistricting operations were based out of a secretlyrented hotel room at the DoubleTree Hotel in Columbus, Ohio, tellingly referred to as “the 

bunker” by the Republican operatives and officials engaged in the redistricting, rather than in the 

offices of the General Assembly. Upon information and belief, no Democratic officials or 

operatives were able to access the bunker, and Governor Kasich and members of his staff 

attended meetings regarding the map drawing that were limited to Republican operatives and 

officials.

58. The map drawers and Ohio Republican officials often used their personal, rather 

than official, e-mail addresses to conduct and discuss the state business of drawing Ohio’s 

congressional map.
18

59. Ohio’s congressional map was designed to provide for and maintain Republican 

control. This was accomplished by relying upon two partisan indices to guide the drawing. The 

first index was based upon the percentage of each precinct’s vote for John McCain, the 

Republican presidential candidate in 2008. The second was based upon the percentage of each 

precinct’s vote for the Republican candidates in the 2004 presidential race, the 2006 state-wide 

attorney general and auditor races, the 2008 presidential race, and the 2010 governor’s race. By 

using these indices to draw district lines, the map was designed to guarantee Republican control 

throughout the decade.

60. The map drawers used the indices to design districts that would maximize the 

number of congressional districts in which a Republican would consistently win by manipulating 

the district boundaries around populations. They planned to allow Democrats to win 4 four 

districts, by packing Democratic voters into these districts, but carefully crafted the other 12 

districts to ensure Republican wins that would endure across election, often by cracking 

Democratic voters across district lines so that, absent special circumstances, these voters would 

never have the opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

61. The map drawers considered drafting a congressional map with a stronger, 13-3, 

Republican advantage, but, upon information and belief, they decided that drafting such a map 

could result in smaller margins of victory in some Republican districts, which could risk those 

districts becoming competitive during a strong Democratic election year and give rise to the 

possibility of a seat falling to Democratic control. They settled on drawing a map that would 

confer a slightly less aggressive advantage, but that would virtually guarantee a solid, 12-4 

Republican advantage.
19

Development of the Initial Map, HB 319

62. The drafting of the initial map occurred primarily in July and August 2011, but it 

was kept from the public and even from members of the General Assembly until September 13, 

2011, two days before the full Ohio House voted on the bill and just eight days before its final 

passage on September 21, 2011. 

63. There was a so-called “road show” around the state, purportedly for public input 

on the redistricting maps, on July 20-21 and August 2, 2011, but no maps were published or 

available for review either before or at any of those sessions.

64. The map drawers planned to have a completed map by mid-August 2011 for only 

themselves to see, and resolved to “keep it in the can” until hours before the votes in the Ohio 

House of Representatives and Senate, almost one month later.

65. The first congressional map passed by the General Assembly in 2011, enacted as 

part of HB 319, was debuted and voted on over the course of nine days. 

66. On September 12, 2011, the House State Government and Elections Committee 

issued a notice that indicated that the committee might hear testimony on the still yet-to-be seen 

map with the new districts at the committee’s hearing the next day. On September 13, 2011, the 

HB 319 map was revealed to the full committee for the first time at the hearing. On September 

14, 2011, the committee approved the map on a straight party line vote, and the next day, 

September 15, 2011, the map was approved by the full Ohio House, 56-36. 

67. On September 20, 2011, the Senate Committee on Government Oversight and 

Reform held a hearing on the proposed congressional map. On September 21, 2011, the 

Committee held a second hearing and added an amendment to include a $2.75 million 

appropriation for local boards of election. This amendment was appended in order to make 

HB 319 immediately effective and to shield the law from the possibility of a voter referendum, 
20

since appropriation bills are not subject to the referendum process. The Government Oversight 

and Reform Committee then voted to approve the map on a straight party line vote, and the map 

was passed by the full Senate by a 24-7 margin. 

68. Later that day, the amended bill was passed by the House with a 60-35 margin. 

69. Governor Kasich signed HB 319 into law on September 26, 2011. 

Rejection of Any Alternative Maps

70. There were no changes to the Republican map in the nine days in which the bill 

was before the General Assembly. 

71. While certain alternative maps were submitted to the legislature prior to and 

during the debates, the General Assembly failed to seriously consider them. 

72. The General Assembly could have seriously considered maps from the Ohio 

Campaign for Accountable Redistricting (“OCAR”) competition. OCAR held a competition 

where private citizens drew their own congressional maps. Upon information and belief, the 

map Ohio enacted was worse than the one that came in last place in the contest, when judged on 

the basis of the number of split counties, compactness, competitiveness, and representational 

fairness (i.e., the degree to which a plan favored one party over another). 

73. On August 30, 2011, the Ohio House State Government and Elections Committee 

requested that proposed maps be submitted three days later on September 2, 2011. 

74. An OCAR competition map was submitted on September 2, 2011 to the Ohio 

House State Government and Elections Committee, and additional alternative maps were 

discussed at the House State Government and Elections Committee meeting on September 6, 

2011. None of these maps were reflected in the map debuted to the Ohio House on September 

12, 2011. 
21

75. At the hearing before the full House on September 15, 2011, Democratic 

Representative Matt Lundy advocated that the legislature send the map back to the Ohio House 

State Government and Elections Committee and have public hearings so that the final map could 

be fully vetted by the public. His request was ignored. 

76. On September 19, 2011, Democratic Senator Tom Sawyer introduced SB 225, 

which proposed adopting the district lines drawn by one of the OCAR competition maps. The 

Senate never held any hearings on SB 225. 

77. On September 21, 2011, the same day as the Senate vote on HB 319, Senator 

Sawyer introduced an amendment to that bill. His amendment would have replaced the 

Republican map with an OCAR competition map. The Senate voted to table his amendment and 

never voted on the substance of the OCAR competition map. 

The Referendum Attempt and the Final Map, HB 369

78. After HB 319 passed, Democratic leaders announced that they would seek a 

referendum to give voters an opportunity to repeal HB 319. An advocacy group called Ohioans 

for Fair Districts filed a mandamus action in state court seeking to compel the state to accept the 

referendum petition. On October 14, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a referendum 

could proceed if there were signatures of 6% of state electors collected by December 25, 2011. 

79. Upon information and belief, as a result of the threat of a referendum that would 

cause the map to be redrawn to reflect the will of Ohio voters, the Republicans introduced a 

second map. The slightly revised second map was introduced as HB 369 to the Rules Committee 

on November 3, 2011. The revisions to the map did nothing to change the partisan skew of any 

of the proposed districts nor did the revisions change the entrenched 12 to 4 Republican to 

Democrat ratio in Ohio’s U.S. congressional delegation. 
22

80. In addition to introducing a revised, but still gerrymandered map, HB 369 also 

changed the primary system in Ohio by consolidating two primary election dates (one for state, 

local, and U.S. Senate elections and the other for the U.S. House and presidential elections) into 

a single primary date. This change was projected to save the State approximately $15 million 

per year. 

81. Upon information and belief, as with HB 319, the process for drawing the HB 369 

map was tightly controlled by the Republicans. It was introduced in the House Rules Committee 

and not the State Government and Elections Committee, which typically has responsibility for 

drawing the map. 

82. The Ohio House voted on the final map on December 14, 2011. Nine Democratic 

members of the Ohio House spoke out against the bill. They stated that the proposed map was 

not materially different from HB 319, since it did nothing to change the ratio of Republican 

districts to Democratic districts. These Democratic legislators noted that, like HB 319, HB 369 

would entrench a 12-4 advantage for Republicans. Representative Ron Gerberry, the ranking 

Democrat on the State Government and Elections Committee, complained that he had only been 

shown the map an hour before the vote and that more people should have been involved in the 

map drawing process. Other Democratic members of the Ohio House complained about how the 

lines had been drawn in heavily minority communities, including Cuyahoga and Lorain counties. 

These members were especially concerned by the splits of these counties. 

83. The map was introduced in the Ohio Senate on December 14, 2011 by Republican 

Senator Keith Faber. As in the Ohio House, Ohio Democratic Senators spoke out against the 

map as a partisan gerrymander. 
23

84. Despite these protests, both houses of the General Assembly voted to enact 

HB 369 on December 14, 2011. HB 369 was then signed into law by Governor Kasich on the 

following day, December 15, 2011. 

The 2011 Redistricting Map 

85. The results from the elections subsequently held under the 2011 map confirm that 

its engineering of a 12-4 seat split—through packing and cracking Democratic voters—was

effective and durable. It consistently produced the intended seat split across the 16 districts, 

even during the 2012 election cycle that heavily favored Democrats.
24

86. The following table shows how, despite fluctuations in the statewide vote share 

between the parties,4 Republicans consistently retained 75% (12 out of 16) of the seats in all 

three congressional election cycles held under the map:5

Statewide vote share Seat share

Year Democrats Republicans Democrats Republicans

2012 47% 51% 25% 75%

2014 39% 59% 25% 75%

2016 41% 57% 25% 75%

87. Not only did the statewide seat split between the parties remain constant: 

Republicans and Democrats maintained the same seats, in the same districts, throughout these 

three election cycles. 

88. Packing of Democrats—concentrating Democratic voters into just four districts to 

reduce their power throughout the rest of the state—is evident from the large winning margins in 

each of the four Democratic districts. In all three election cycles, voters in those districts cast 

many more votes for the Democratic congressional candidate above and beyond the 50%+1

majority needed to win the district. The following table presents the percentage of the vote won 

by the Democratic candidate in each of the four packed Democratic districts across the 2012-

2016 elections:6

Percentage of votes of winning Democratic candidate

District 2012 2014 2016

District 3 68.29% 64.05% 68.57%

District 9 73.04% 67.74% 68.89%

District 11 (uncontested) 79.45% 80.25%

District 13 72.77% 68.49% 67.73%

 4 The percentage of the statewide vote share in this table includes two uncontested elections 

(District 8 and 11) in 2012, and one uncontested election (District 7) in 2014. Such elections 

overstate the support the party with an unopposed candidate would receive if there had been a 

contested election. 

5 The election returns information in the table is retrieved from the official election results and 

data from the Ohio Secretary of State’s website.

6 See supra note 5.
25

89. As the table shows, in all four districts in all three years, the Democrats had at 

least 64% of the vote, and in one case as much as 80% of the vote—an excess of 14 to 30 

percentage points above the 50%+1 threshold needed to win. The packing of Democrats is most 

extreme in District 11. Democrats never had less than 79% of the vote in that district, 29 

percentage points more than needed to win. Democratic voters were radically concentrated into 

these four districts.

90. The packing of Democratic voters was accomplished by relying upon partisan 

indices to identify areas populated by voters that predominantly voted for Democrats, and then

the drawing of barely contiguous districts with boundaries that cannot be explained by neutral 

redistricting criteria. 

91. Consider the four Democratic districts in turn. District 3 is shaped like a 

snowflake and fractures Franklin County and the city of Columbus. Plaintiff Inskeep lives in this 

packed district, and due to the district’s composition, her vote carries less weight than it would 

have in a district not constructed to privilege partisan ends.
26

92. District 9, the “Snake on the Lake,” eats its way across the southern border of 

Lake Erie, ingesting portions of five counties (none in its entirety) and fragments of two of 

Ohio’s major cities, Cleveland and Toledo.

93. Plaintiff Walker and Plaintiff Rader both live in Lakewood, a city that is part of 

the Greater Cleveland Metropolitan area, on the very eastern tip of the district. Instead of 

belonging to the same district as those living in Cleveland, Plaintiffs Walker and Rader share a 

district with those residing in the city of Toledo, which is 108 miles away. Due to this packed 

district’s composition, their vote each carries less weight than it would have in a district not 

constructed to privilege partisan ends.
27

94. District 11 resembles a detached shoulder blade with a robotic arm that reaches 

out from a shoulder of Cleveland into Akron. 

95. Plaintiff Harris lives in the Cleveland area (noted as a red dot on the map above). 

His district includes parts of the core of the city of Akron and the Akron Fulton International 

Airport (purple dot), which is almost an hour drive away from his house on one of the most farreaching robotic fingers. However, his district does not contain the Cleveland Hopkins 

International Airport (blue dot), which is 15 minutes away from his house. Due to the district’s 

composition, his vote carries less weight than it would have in a district not constructed to 

privilege partisan ends.
28

96. District 13 collects the remains of Akron that District 11 leaves behind, and 

appends it to the jigsaw puzzle piece of the rest of the district. Plaintiff Myer lives in this packed 

district, and due to the district’s composition, her vote carries less weight than it would have in a 

district not constructed to privilege partisan ends.

97. By contrast, cracking—the practice of splitting Democratic voters into districts to 

dilute their votes—is evident from the number of Democratic votes cast for the losing candidate 

in Republican-winning districts. Democrats in these districts use up their votes in numbers that 

were calculated to be large but never sufficient to win. None of the Democratic votes cast in 

these districts go towards successfully electing Democratic candidates of choice. The percentage 

of votes that Democrats cast in each of the twelve Republican-winning districts in each election 

is depicted in the following table:7

 7 See supra note 5.
29

Percentage of votes cast for Democratic candidate

District 2012 2014 2016

District 1 37.6% 36.78% 40.77%

District 2 41.37% 34.04% 32.82%

District 4 36.49% 32.33% 32.01%

District 5 39.16% 28.92% 29.10%

District 6 46.75% 38.58% 29.32%

District 7 43.6% (Uncontested) 28.96%

District 8 (Uncontested) 27.36% 26.97%

District 10 37.49% 31.53% 32.67%

District 12 36.53% 27.75% 29.84%

District 14 38.73% 33.02% 37.37%

District 15 38.44% 33.98% 33.84%

District 16 47.95% 36.26% 34.67%

98. As the table indicates, in most districts, although Democrats routinely cast over 

30% of the votes, none of these votes ever contributed towards electing any of their candidates of 

choice. These districts were drawn with the goal of diluting Democratic votes. 

99. The contorted shapes of some of these districts also make clear the length the map 

drawers had to go to in order to achieve their political goals.

100. Consider District 1, where Plaintiff Goldenhar lives: it is made up of two barelyconnected wings of Hamilton County and Warren County. Due to this district’s composition, her 

vote carries less weight than it would have in a district not constructed to privilege partisan ends.
30

101. District 1 includes a large part of Cincinnati, which is part of Hamilton County, 

but not the whole city—the other part of Cincinnati is found in District 2: 

102. The 2011 redistricting significantly changed District 1’s shape and added heavilyRepublican Warren County to the district. It also injected an eastern portion of Hamilton County

into District 1 that, on information and belief, has consistently voted Republican. Prior to the 

2011 redistricting, the district was competitive and swung back and forth between Republican 

and Democratic Representatives. For example, a Democrat won the district in 2008. Since the 

2011 redistricting, it has been a solidly Republican district.
31

103. Consider District 4, where Plaintiff Libster resides, an approximately S-shaped 

district that spans a little less than half the state both in length (103 miles) and width (92 miles). 

Due to the district’s composition, her vote carries less weight than it would have in a district not 

constructed to privilege partisan ends.

104. Next, look to the drawing of the congressional districts in central and southeastern 

Ohio. The construction of these districts substantially impaired the voting strength of 

Democratic voters in the region, including in District 6, where Plaintiff Boothe lives, and in 

District 15, where Plaintiff Thobaben lives. 

105. As part of the 2011 redistricting in crafting District 6, the district lines were 

drawn to carve substantially all of Athens County—which votes predominantly Democratic—out 

of District 6 and into District 15, which otherwise contains counties that more reliably vote 

Republican. As a result, Democratic votes in Athens County are wasted. In the small sliver of 

Athens County that remains in District 6, more voters have voted for the Republican 

congressional candidate than the Democratic candidate in every election. In constructing these 
32

districts, the map drawers also added to District 6 certain central Ohio counties that recently 

supported a Republican candidate: Guernsey, Jackson, and Carroll Counties, and portions of 

Muskingum County.

106. Further cracking Democratic voters in District 6, the map drawers also divided 

Mahoning County so as to impair the voting strength of its Democratic voters. The 

gerrymandered map packs Mahoning County Democratic voters into District 13—further 

depriving the Democratic voters in District 6 of the opportunity to elect candidates of their 

choice. Conversely, reliably Republican sections of Mahoning County remain in District 6. 

107. And for District 15, the map drawers stitched together a number of heavily 

Republican counties that offset the addition of the Democratic areas of Athens County and 

diminish the voting strength of Democratic voters in the District. The portion of Franklin 

County that predominately votes Democratic was further packed into District 3, while the portion 

remaining in District 15 has gone to the Republican House candidate in every election since the 

map was put in place.

108. Prior to the 2011 redistricting, many Democratic voters in southeastern and 

central Ohio had the opportunity to elect their congressional candidate of choice, and even were 

successful in doing so in multiple elections. Now, in both District 6 and District 15, absent 

extraordinary circumstances, this is not an option.
33

109. Also consider District 16, where Plaintiff Rubin lives. Due to the district’s 

composition, her vote carries less weight than it would have in a district not constructed to 

privilege partisan ends. Various barely contiguous, odd shapes on jagged stalks sprout from a 

square area. In particular, the northernmost chunk of the district is barely connected to the rest of 

the district by highway 80 and thin slivers on either side of the highway.

110. And while any redistricting is plainly bound to divide certain counties or 

municipalities, examining the way in which such splits were made in the 2011 redistricting 

makes clear the length the map drawers went in order to achieve their political ends. In 

northeastern Ohio, the map drawers split Cuyahoga, Summit, and Stark Counties, and sorted the 

portions across congressional districts based on each portion’s partisan composition. 
34

111. Cuyahoga County is split among four congressional districts. The following 

graphic, produced by the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, shows how the map fractures 

Cuyahoga County:

112. The portions of Cuyahoga County placed into District 14 and District 16 generally 

favor Republicans, while those that favor Democrats—including the whole of Cleveland—are 

placed into Districts 9 and 11, each a packed Democratic district.
35

113. Summit County is split among four congressional districts; under the previous 

map, it was split among three. The following graphic, produced by the Summit County Board of 

Elections, shows just how the map fractures Summit County:

114. As with Cuyahoga, voters within Summit County were sorted between 

congressional districts based on the party they favor. The areas of Summit County that favor 

Democratic congressional candidates were drawn into District 11 and District 13, each a packed 

Democratic district. The portions that generally prefer Republican candidates were placed in 

District 14 and District 16, increasing the Republican advantage in those districts. 

115. The intertwined district lines illustrate how voters in Summit were sorted across 

districts according to their past participation in the political process: District 14 sends several 

tendrils into District 13. And the portions of District 16 within Summit County are not even 

CD 14

CD 13

CD 16

CD 11
36

contiguous: there is an orphan parcel of the district (in orange) in the southeast part of the 

county. 

116. And Stark County, which had previously been kept intact, was split across District 

7, District 13, and District 16. The portion of Stark County remaining in District 16 has voted 

for the Republican House candidate by safe margins in every election after the gerrymander, 

helping to entrench the Republican representative. With the predominantly Republican portions 

of each of these split counties placed into District 16, Democratic voters in that area no longer 

had the opportunity to elect their congressional candidate of choice.

117. Municipal splits also make clear that the map is an extreme gerrymander. In 

addition to the splitting of Cleveland, Akron, and Cincinnati, as shown in the graphics above, 

Columbus is fractured across Districts 3, 12 and 15. 

 

118. As noted previously, District 3 fractures not only the city of Columbus but also 

Franklin County. District 3 is selective in which Columbus neighborhoods it permits within its 

CD 12

CD 3

CD 15
37

boundaries and many of its appendages are barely attached to the rest of the district (see zoomed 

in graphics above). Both Districts 12 and 15 contain tendrils that pick up those neighborhoods 

that District 3 failed to include.

119. The Ohio State University also sits where all three of these districts converge. 

The bulk of the University is packed into District 3 in an outcropping (circled above), while 

anyone who lives off campus just to the north, south, or northwest finds themselves cracked from 

their fellow students into Districts 12 and 15. 

120. Each individual Plaintiff and any Democratic members of the organizational 

Plaintiffs currently living in Districts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, or 16, including Plaintiffs 

Goldenhar, Burks, Libster, Deitsch, Boothe, Griffiths, Nadler, Megnin, Dagres, Hutton, 

Thobaben, and Rubin, currently lacks an opportunity to elect their congressional candidate of 

choice, and/or a meaningful opportunity to influence congressional elections, absent special 

circumstances. Under a nondiscriminatory redistricting arrangement, each of these Plaintiffs 

could reside in a compact congressional district that comports with traditional redistricting 

principles, and that provides them with an equal opportunity to elect their preferred 

congressional candidates and/or meaningfully influence congressional elections.

Metrics for Measuring Partisan Asymmetry in the Congressional Redistricting Plan

121. All measures commonly used by political scientists to detect and measure the 

effects of partisan gerrymandering make clear that the Ohio map is an extreme partisan 

gerrymander. These measures—including the efficiency gap, the mean-median difference, and 

partisan bias—have been relied upon by courts in recent cases striking down partisan 

gerrymanders. See Whitford, 218 F. Supp. 3d at 903–10 (finding the map of the Wisconsin State 

House to be an unconstitutional gerrymander in part by relying on the efficiency gap); Rucho, 

279 F. Supp. 3d at 658–66 (relying on all three metrics in finding that the North Carolina 
38

congressional map had discriminatory effects); see also Whitford, No. 16–1161, slip op. at 10 

(U.S. June 18, 2018) (Kagan, J., concurring) (noting that “evidence of partisan asymmetry well 

fits a suit alleging associational injury”).

122. The intuition behind each of these measures is the principle of partisan symmetry: 

that the map should give voters of both parties a similar opportunity to elect their candidates of 

choice.

123. Partisan symmetry does not require proportional representation, either explicitly 

or implicitly. Proportional representation would require the percentage of votes earned to match 

the percentage of seats earned. In contrast, partisan symmetry is a less restrictive concept: it 

requires only that the map treat voters of both parties equally. A plan may have partisan 

symmetry and not provide proportional representation: for example, the plan might require both 

parties to obtain the same results if they earned a certain percentage of the vote. So for example, 

if the Republicans obtained 65% of the seats if they won 55% of the vote, then the same should 

be true for Democrats. 

124. One metric of partisan asymmetry is the “efficiency gap,” which measures the 

difference between the two parties’ excess votes.

8

 There are two kinds of excess votes, each 

capturing one of the two classic partisan gerrymandering tactics: packing and cracking. Both 

tactics force the votes of those from the opposing party to be used inefficiently, by placing the 

opposing party’s voters in districts where their votes will not have any impact on the outcome. 

Excess votes from “packing” are those votes cast in excess of the 50%+1 needed for the party to 

win the district. Excess votes from “cracking” are all votes cast for a losing candidate. The 

efficiency gap aggregates both kinds of excess votes for each party. The ratio of the parties’ 

 8 See Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos & Eric M. McGhee, Partisan Gerrymandering and the 

Efficiency Gap, 82 U. Chi. L. Rev. 831 (2015).
39

excess votes reveals the discrepancy between how the map treats the parties. This ratio can then 

be multiplied by the number of congressional districts in the state to quantify the efficiency gap 

in terms of a number of seats. Though the efficiency gap is a statewide measure, just like a 

redistricting plan, it is made up of the votes from each separate district. The process of 

calculating the efficiency gap readily shows which districts have been cracked and which 

packed.

125. The Brennan Center for Justice (“Brennan Center”), a non-partisan organization, 

calculated that, in the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections, the gerrymandered Ohio congressional 

map produced an efficiency gap of 3.93, 1.77, and 1.6 extra seats for Republicans in those 

respective elections.9

 Another non-partisan organization, PlanScore, calculated the efficiency 

gap for congressional districting plans nationwide dating back to 1972.10 It found that the 

current Ohio map is more skewed than 93% of the maps it analyzed across the nation for the

entire period.11

126. The “mean-median difference” is a typical statistical test of asymmetry and can be 

applied in the redistricting context to measure the partisan skew of a map. It is calculated by 

subtracting a given party’s mean district vote percentage from its median district vote percentage 

in the same election. This difference reveals the degree of asymmetry in electoral outcomes for 

the parties. The statistical significance of the mean-median difference is then calculated to 

determine whether the difference is meaningful. 

 9 Laura Royden & Michael Li, Brennan Center for Justice: Extreme Maps at 22 (2017), 

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Extreme%20Maps%205.16_0.pdf.

10 PlanScore, Partisan Gerrymandering Historical Data, https://planscore.org/#!2016-ushouse 

(last visited June 25, 2018).

11 PlanScore, Ohio 2012-2016 Redistricting Plan, Efficiency Gap, 

https://planscore.org/ohio/#!2016-plan-ushouse-eg (last visited June 25, 2018).
40

127. Using the mean-median metric, the Brennan Center calculated that in the 2012, 

2014, and 2016 elections, the Ohio map produced uniformly statistically significant measures of 

partisan gerrymandering at significance levels of 2.59, 2.47, and 2.60 respectively.12 All of these 

levels exceed the threshold of 1.75 for statistical significance under the mean-median 

methodology.13 PlanScore calculated the mean-median difference for congressional districting

plans nationwide dating back to 1972.14 It found that the current Ohio map is more skewed than 

85% of the plans it analyzed nationwide for the entire period.15

128. A third way to measure a plan’s asymmetry is through the “partisan bias” metric, 

which works “by taking the two parties’ statewide vote share in a particular election, and then 

imposing a uniform swing of the magnitude necessary to make the parties split the statewide vote 

equally.” Rucho, 279 F. Supp. 3d at 664. One can then calculate the number of seats each party 

would win under the uniform swing assumption. If a party garners 50% of the votes but wins 

over 50% of the seats, the map is biased in favor of that party; if a party garners 50% of the votes 

but wins less than 50% of the seats, the map is biased against that party. Id. at 664–65.

129. PlanScore calculated the partisan bias of the 2011 Ohio congressional redistricting 

plan, and found that across the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections, Republicans would have won 

25% extra seats in a hypothetical, perfectly tied election.16 PlanScore also calculated the partisan 

 12 Royden & Li, supra note 9, at 28.

13 Id. 14 PlanScore, Historical Data, supra note 10.

15 PlanScore, Ohio 2012-2016 Redistricting Plan, Mean-Median, 

https://planscore.org/ohio/#!2016-plan-ushouse-mm (last visited June 25, 2018).

16 PlanScore, Ohio 2012-2016 Redistricting Plan, Partisan Bias, 

https://planscore.org/ohio/#!2016-plan-ushouse-pb (last visited June 25, 2018).
41

bias for congressional districting plans nationwide dating back to 1972.17 It found that the Ohio 

map is more skewed than 97% of the plans it analyzed nationwide for the entire period.18

130. All of these tests agree: Ohio’s map is an extreme partisan gerrymander.

Ballot Issue 1

131. Ohio voters deplore the extreme gerrymandering in their State. On May 8, 2018, 

they went to the polls and approved, with nearly 75% of the vote, Ballot Issue 1, a reform 

measure that will govern the congressional redistricting process in Ohio following the next 

decennial census. 

132. Ballot Issue 1 was the result of a process of negotiation among Republicans and 

Democrats in the General Assembly, along with advocacy groups, and implemented 

requirements intended to limit either party’s ability to gerrymander congressional districts. 

133. Ballot Issue 1 sets up a multistep process. The General Assembly may pass a 

district map if three-fifths of the members of each house vote to approve it, as long as at least 

one-half of the minority party members vote in favor. If the General Assembly is unable to 

adopt a map, a commission would then have an opportunity to draw a map. The commission 

would consist of seven members: the governor, state auditor, secretary of state, and four 

legislators, two of whom would have to come from the minority party of each of the General 

Assembly chambers. A majority of the commission members, including two members belonging 

to the minority party, would have to agree on a map. If the commission is unable to agree on a 

map, the process reverts back to the General Assembly. The General Assembly could then adopt

a map if it is approved by three-fifths of its members, including one-third of the minority party. 

 17 PlanScore, Historical Data, supra note 10. 18 PlanScore, Partisan Bias, supra note 16.
42

134. However, if the General Assembly is unable to adopt a map with a three-fifths 

vote, then a map agreed upon by a simple majority in each house would be implemented, even 

without any minority votes in favor. Such a map would last for four years. 

135. Ballot Issue 1 will put in place a process that begins after the next census, with 

map-drawing to start in 2021. It will not affect any election until the year 2022. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count I: First Amendment

(Violation of the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech and Association Pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

136. Plaintiffs rely upon and incorporate the facts alleged in paragraphs 1-136 of this 

Complaint.

137. The First Amendment, which protects the rights of voters to associate with and 

advocate for a political party, to vote for their candidate of choice, to express their political 

views, and to participate in the political process, “has its fullest and most urgent application . . . 

to the conduct of campaigns for political office,” McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 134 S. 

Ct. 1434, 1441 (2014) (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272 (1971)). These 

rights constitute the “core of those activities protected by the First Amendment” without which a 

representative democracy cannot function. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 356 (1976).

138. Burdening, penalizing, or retaliating against citizens “because of their 

participation in the electoral process, their voting history, their association with a political party, 

or their expression of political views” is highly disfavored. Vieth, 541 U.S. at 314 (Kennedy, J., 

concurring).
43

139. Abridgment of these rights is subject to strict scrutiny. See, e.g., Davis v. Fed. 

Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724, 744 (2008); United Steelworkers of Am. v. Sadlowski, 457 U.S. 

102, 111 (1982).

140. Where state officials intentionally seek to skew electoral outcomes to freeze their 

advantage and insulate their majority from changes in voter preferences and are successful in 

effectuating that intent, their actions violate the First Amendment. Just as the First Amendment 

requires the government to remain neutral when it regulates the competition of ideas that takes 

place in a public forum, so, too, it demands neutrality in the administration of the ideological 

competition of an electoral contest.

141. While states have authority to regulate elections to ensure that they are “fair and 

honest” and that “some sort of order, rather than chaos accompanies the democratic processes,” 

they also have a “responsibility to observe the limits established by the First Amendment.” Eu v. 

S.F. Cty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 231, 227, 222 (1989) (internal quotations 

omitted). 

142. For a democracy to function, electoral contests must reflect the voters’ judgments, 

not those of the state. “In a free society the State is directed by political doctrine, not the other 

way around.” Cal. Democratic Party, 530 U.S. at 590 (Kennedy, J., concurring).

143. Partisan gerrymandering is thus barred by the First Amendment and is 

“incompatible with democratic principles.” Ariz. State Legislature, 135 S. Ct. at 2658 (quoting 

Vieth, 541 U.S. at 292).

144. The Ohio 2011 congressional map burdens the First Amendment rights of voters

and organizations to associate and participate in the political process, including individual 

Plaintiffs, OSU College Democrats, NEOYBD, HCYD, and Democratic members of the
44

organizational Plaintiffs. It severely burdens or penalizes voters who choose to support the 

Democratic Party or Democratic candidates based upon the voters’ past participation in the 

political process, their voting history, their association with a political party, and their expression 

of their political views.

145. The drawing of Ohio’s congressional district boundaries was based on data about 

voters who previously chose to support the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. These 

voters were placed into particular congressional districts so that they would be prevented from 

meaningfully participating in the political process. The map drawers were successful in their 

goal. The burden on these voters was intentional, and in fact was an objective of the 2011 map’s 

drafters.

146. The drawing of Ohio’s congressional district boundaries was done to privilege the 

state’s preferred political party, and to burden the state’s disfavored political party. The party 

and its members were “deprived of their natural political strength by a partisan gerrymander,” a 

violation of their First Amendment right to associate. Whitford, No. 16–1161, slip op. at 9 (U.S. 

June 18, 2018) (Kagan, J., concurring) (citing Vieth, 541 U.S. at 315 (Kennedy, J., concurring)).

147. Defendants’ actions cannot meet strict scrutiny and therefore the map must be 

found unconstitutional.

148. There was no legitimate state interest in this partisan manipulation of district 

boundaries, much less a compelling one, nor was the gerrymander narrowly tailored to achieve 

any state interest.
45

Count II: Right to Vote

(Denial of the Right to Vote under the Fourteenth Amendment Pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983)

149. Plaintiffs rely upon and incorporate the facts alleged in paragraphs 1-136 of this 

Complaint.

150. The right of “qualified voters, regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their 

votes effectively . . . rank[s] among our most precious” rights. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 

30–31 (1968); see also Anderson, 460 U.S. at 787 (finding the right to cast a meaningful vote to 

be fundamental); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964) (“[t]he right to vote freely for the 

candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society”). The right to vote is 

fundamental and is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Obama for Am., 697 F.3d at 428–

29 (“The Equal Protection Clause applies when a state . . . places restrictions on the right to 

vote.”) (citations omitted). That right “can be denied by a debasement . . . of a citizen’s vote just 

as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 

555; see also Kasich Gill Amicus at 8. 

151. Since the right to vote is a fundamental right, before it “can be restricted,” the 

Court must engage in “close constitutional scrutiny” of the restriction. Evans v. Cornman, 398 

U.S. 419, 422 (1970). The question that the Court “must answer is what the ‘character and 

magnitude of the asserted injury’ on the right to vote is here.” Mich. State A. Philip Randolph 

Inst. v. Johnson, 833 F.3d 656, 663 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789). 

152. Partisan gerrymandering substantially burdens the right to vote. A voter is 

“deprive[d] . . . of the opportunity to cast a meaningful ballot” since the legislature constrains 

voters’ ability to “vote for the candidate of their choice.” Burdick, 504 U.S. at 447 (Kennedy, J, 

dissenting); see also Kasich Gill Amicus at 7 (noting that partisan gerrymandering “burden[s] 
46

citizens’ fundamental voting rights on the basis of their expressed ideological beliefs”) (citing 

Vieth, 541 U.S. at 312 (Kennedy, J., concurring)). In order to show a burden, a voter does “not 

need to show that they were legally prohibited from voting.” Obama for Am., 697 F.3d at 431; 

see also Mich. State A. Philip Randolph Inst., 833 F.3d at 663 (finding increased waiting times 

and voter confusion to be burdens on the right to vote). All a voter need show is that his or her 

exercise of the right to vote has been burdened. Id.

153. The Supreme Court has found similar burdens on the right to vote to be 

substantial. For example, in Williams, the Court found that electoral regulations that effectively 

created a state-sanctioned monopoly on political contests where a “vote may be cast only for one 

of two parties” to be a substantial burden on the right to vote. Williams, 393 U.S. at 30–31. 

Such a substantial burden on voting was found to be unconstitutional.

154. Where, as here, there is a substantial burden on a fundamental right, heightened 

scrutiny must be met. See, e.g., Cal. Democratic Party, 530 U.S. at 581–82; Norman v. Reed, 

502 U.S. 279, 288–89 (1992); Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789. 

155. Ohio’s actions cannot meet heightened scrutiny and therefore the map must be 

found unconstitutional. Ohio’s actions fail heightened scrutiny because the map and its

component districts were drawn with (1) an improper legislative intent to secure a partisan 

advantage, and (2) an impermissible effect of entrenching partisan advantage against likely 

changes in voter preference and in each individual district, making Democratic voters’ votes 

have less consequence than in a neutrally drawn district. There is and was no legitimate state 

interest in enacting a gerrymandered map. The map and each component district, therefore, must 

be found unconstitutional as a violation of individual Plaintiffs, Democratic members of the 

organizational Plaintiffs, and similarly situated citizens’ right to vote. 
47

Count III: Equal Protection

(Denial of Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment Pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983)

156. Plaintiffs rely upon and incorporate the facts alleged in paragraphs 1-136 of this 

Complaint.

157. “The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. 

Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise.” Obama for Am., 697 F.3d at 428

(quoting League of Women Voters v. Brunner, 548 F.3d 463, 477 (6th Cir. 2008)); see also Mich. 

State A. Philip Randolph Inst., 833 F.3d at 662. Courts have long held that a “citizen has a 

constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in 

the jurisdiction.” Obama for Am., 697 F.3d at 428 (quoting Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 

336 (1972)). 

158. Each individual Plaintiff was placed in a district where their vote carries less 

weight or consequence than it would under a neutrally drawn map. The districts were each 

drawn to privilege partisan outcomes at the expense of all other criteria. Each district was 

constructed to disfavor Democratic voters on the basis of their political affiliation, with no 

legitimate, let alone compelling, reason to do so. The map and its individual districts also have 

the “invidiously discriminatory” effect of “minimiz[ing] or cancel[ing] out the voting strength 

of . . . political elements of the voting population.” Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U.S. 735, 751 

(1973). 

159. “If [district lines] serve no purpose other than to favor one segment—whether 

racial, ethnic, religious, economic, or political—that may occupy a position of strength at a 

particular point in time, or to disadvantage a politically weak segment of the community, they 

violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.” Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 748 
48

(1983); see also Rucho, 279 F. Supp. 3d at 637 (“Partisan gerrymandering potentially runs afoul 

of the Equal Protection Cause because, by seeking to diminish the electoral power of supporters 

of a disfavored party, a partisan gerrymander treats individuals who support candidates of one 

political party less favorably than individuals who support candidates of another party.”).

160. The individual Plaintiffs, Democratic members of the organizational Plaintiffs, 

and Democratic voters in general are sufficiently ascertainable in their geographical distribution 

that they can be taken into account in drawing district boundaries. Instead of drawing each 

district according to politically neutral or traditional districting criteria, Defendants constructed 

each individual district to give the votes of each individual Plaintiff and Democratic voters, in 

general, less weight in their assigned district.

161. The legislature intended to discriminate against the individual Plaintiffs and the 

Democratic members of the organizational Plaintiffs in drawing each district the way it did. The 

Equal Protection Clause protects citizens from laws that can “be traced to a . . . discriminatory 

purpose.” Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 240 (1976); see also Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 

109, 127 (1986); Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455, 1463 (2017).

162. The “totality of the relevant facts” surrounding the construction of each of the 

congressional districts in Ohio make clear its “invidious discriminatory purpose.” Washington v. 

Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 242 (1976); see also Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 

429 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1977) (pointing to evidence such as the “historical background of the 

decision,” the “specific sequence of events leading up to the challenged decision,” and 

“legislative or administrative history”). See supra ¶¶ 43-85.
49

163. The map had the effect of cracking and packing the individual Plaintiffs and 

Democratic members of the organizational Plaintiffs into districts so as to dilute the power of 

their votes. See supra ¶¶ 86-121.

164. And the way the districts were drawn had the effect of causing each individual 

Plaintiff and any Democratic members of the organizational Plaintiffs who live in Districts 1, 2, 

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, or 16, including Plaintiffs Goldenhar, Burks, Libster, Deitsch, 

Boothe, Griffiths, Nadler, Megnin, Dagres, Hutton, Thobaben, and Rubin, to lack an opportunity 

to elect their congressional candidates of choice, and/or a meaningful opportunity to influence 

congressional elections, absent special circumstances.

Count IV: Article I

(Violation of Article I, Section II and Article I, Section IV of the Constitution Pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983)

165. Plaintiffs rely upon and incorporate the facts alleged in paragraphs 1-136 of this 

Complaint.

166. Article I limits states’ power in running elections. Rucho, 279 F. Supp. 3d at 684 

(“[U]nless the Elections Clause or another constitutional provision delegates to the States the 

authority to impose a particular type of election law or regulation, ‘such a power does not 

exist.’”) (quoting U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 805 (1995)). States are 

given limited power to regulate federal elections. Specifically, the Elections Clause, Article I, 

section 4, clause 1, confines states’ power to the regulation of the time, place, and manner of 

elections. U.S. Const. art. I, § 4, cl. 1 (“[T]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections 

for . . . Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the 

Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.”). The power granted under 

Article I has been interpreted by courts to limit states to the enactment of neutral procedural 
50

regulations. See Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510, 532 (2001) (Rehnquist, J., concurring); 

Thornton, 514 U.S. at 808–10; Rucho, 279 F. Supp. 3d at 684–85. 

167. States cannot use this limited power to constrain the free choice of the people. 

Article I, section 2 provides that the “House of Representatives shall be composed of Members 

chosen . . . by the People.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 1. As the Supreme Court in Thornton

found: “[t]he constitution expressly provides that the choice shall be by the people, which cuts 

off both from the general and state Legislatures the power of so regulating the mode of election, 

as to deprive the people of a fair choice.’” Thornton, 514 U.S. at 833 n.47 (quoting The 

Republican, Connecticut Courant (Hartford, Jan. 7, 1788), 1 Bailyn 710, 713). Courts have

further held that “the Elections Clause does not ‘immunize state congressional apportionment 

laws which debase a citizen’s right to vote.’” Rucho, 279 F. Supp. 3d at 685 (quoting Wesberry 

v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 6 (1964)).

168. Partisan gerrymandering is a non-neutral government regulation whereby the state 

and not the people select government representatives. Partisan gerrymandering “turn(s) 

republican government upside down, with politicians choosing their voters instead of voters 

electing their politicians.” Kasich Gill Amicus at 6. 

169. As discussed above, since Ohio’s map has both the intent and effect of a partisan 

gerrymander, it exceeds the state’s power under Article I of the Constitution. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: 

A. Declare that the 2011 Ohio U.S. congressional redistricting statute, HB 369, and 

each of the sixteen districts created by that statute are unconstitutional in violation of the 

First Amendment, the First and Fourteenth Amendment right to vote, and Article I; 
51

B. Declare that Congressional Districts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 16, 

deprive Democratic voters living in those Districts, including Plaintiffs Goldenhar, 

Burks, Libster, Deitsch, Boothe, Griffiths, Nadler, Megnin, Dagres, Hutton, Thobaben, 

Rubin, and the Democratic members of the organizational Plaintiffs currently living in 

Congressional Districts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, or 16, an opportunity to elect 

their preferred congressional candidates, and/or a meaningful opportunity to influence 

congressional elections, absent special circumstances;

C. Declare that under a nondiscriminatory redistricting arrangement, Plaintiffs

Goldenhar, Burks, Libster, Deitsch, Boothe, Griffiths, Nadler, Megnin, Dagres, Hutton, 

Thobaben, Rubin, and the Democratic members of the organizational Plaintiffs currently 

living in Congressional Districts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, or 16 could reside in a 

compact congressional district that comports with traditional redistricting principles, and 

that provides them with an equal opportunity to elect their preferred congressional 

candidates and/or meaningfully influence congressional elections;

D. Permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents, officers and employees, including 

clerks in all Ohio counties, from administering, preparing for, or moving forward with 

any future elections of Ohio U.S. congressional members using the plan enacted in 

HB 369; 

E. Permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents, officers and employees, including 

clerks in all Ohio counties, from administering, preparing for, or moving forward with 

any future elections of Ohio U.S. congressional members in Districts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 

10, 12, 14, 15, and 16;
52

F. Establish a congressional districting plan that complies with the United States 

Constitution and all federal and state legal requirements, if the Ohio State Legislature 

and/or Governor fail to enact a new and constitutional plan in a timely manner; 

G. Permanently enjoin the Ohio General Assembly and Defendants from creating 

any future legislative districts with the purpose or effect of burdening or penalizing an 

identifiable group, a political party, or individual voters based on their political beliefs, 

political party membership, registration, affiliations or political activities, or voting 

histories;

H. Make any and all orders that are just, necessary, and proper to preserve Plaintiffs’ 

constitutional rights to equally participate in elections of congressional representatives; 

I. Award Plaintiffs their costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys’ fees 

incurred in bringing this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 52 U.S.C. § 10310(e); 

and 

J. Grant any and all other relief this Court deems just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted,

T. Alora Thomas-Lundborg

Dale E. Ho

Theresa J. Lee

Emily Rong Zhang

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

New York, NY 10004 

Tel.: (212) 549-2500

athomas@aclu.org

dho@aclu.org

tlee@aclu.org

erzhang@aclu.org

/s/ Freda J. Levenson, trial attorney

Freda J. Levenson (0045916)

American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Fdtn.

4506 Chester Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44103

Tel.: (216) 472-2220

Facsimile: (216) 472-2210

flevenson@acluohio.org

Paul Moke (0014099) 

Cooperating Attorney for ACLU of Ohio 

Wilmington College*

1252 Pyle Center 

Wilmington, OH 45177 

Tel.: 937-725-7501 

paul.moke@gmail.com 

* Institutional affiliation for the purpose of identification only
53

Robert Fram

Nitin Subhedar

Jeremy Goldstein

Covington & Burling LLP

One Front Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel.: (415) 591-6000

rfram@cov.com

nsubhedar@cov.com

jgoldstein@cov.com

Michael Baker

Perrin Cooke

Peter Rechter

Isaac Wood

Covington & Burling LLP

850 Tenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

Tel.: (202) 662-6000

mbaker@cov.com

pcooke@cov.com

prechter@cov.com

iwood@cov.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: July 9, 2018