APPENDIX A 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 1 of 39 PAGEID #: 7051
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts ......................................................................... 1

A. Redistricting in Ohio ....................................................................................................... 1

B. Ohio was a centerpiece of a national Republican plan to maximize Republican 

control of the U.S. House of Representatives. ................................................................ 1

C. Ohio Republicans sought and obtained assistance from national Republicans in 

their redistricting efforts. ................................................................................................ 3

D. The map drawers and legislative staff briefed the Republican legislative 

leadership on the proposed districts. ............................................................................... 5

E. National Republicans were also heavily involved in the drafting of Ohio’s map. ......... 6

F. The legislative history of HB 319. .................................................................................. 7

G. The legislative history of HB 369. .................................................................................. 8

H. The Ohio Map has had the effect of advantaging Republicans and disadvantage 

Democrats as demonstrated by both election results and partisan bias metrics. .......... 10

I. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Remedial Plan .............................................................................. 16

J. The Plaintiffs are Ohio organizations and voters. ......................................................... 18

1. Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute ............................................................................ 18

2. League of Women Voters of Ohio ............................................................................ 19

3. Northeast Ohio Young Black Democrats ................................................................. 20

4. Hamilton County Young Democrats ........................................................................ 21

5. The Ohio State University Democrats ...................................................................... 22

6. Individual Plaintiffs .................................................................................................. 23

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 2 of 39 PAGEID #: 7052
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

1 

I. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

A. Redistricting in Ohio 

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

drawing Ohio’s U.S. congressional districts, and the bipartisan Joint Legislative Task 

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

tasked with advising the General Assembly. 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. 

2. In Ohio, 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. 

B. Ohio was a centerpiece of a national Republican plan to maximize 

Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives. 

3. The Republican State Leadership Committee (“RSLC”) is a national Republican 

political organization dedicated to electing Republicans in “down-ballot” state offices, 

including state legislatures. 

4. During the 2010 election, the RSLC sought to gain Republican control of the state 

legislatures across the country that would have the greatest impact on redistricting 

during the 2011 redistricting cycle. 

5. The RSLC stated that drawing congressional districts to ensure reliably 

Republican districts would relieve Republicans of the burden of competing with 

Democrats in contested elections. 

6. The RSLC told donors that investing in state races in 2010 was a cheaper 

alternative to spending money on competitive congressional elections over five election 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 3 of 39 PAGEID #: 7053
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

2 

cycles. According to the RSLC, Republicans could save millions of dollars by creating 

20-25 new Republican congressional districts through redistricting by investing a 

relatively modest $31.5 million on state legislative races in 2010, instead of spending an 

estimated $255 million over 10 years winning those 20-25 seats in competitive, swing, 

or Democratic-leaning congressional districts. 

7. In support of that goal, the RSLC began raising money for an initiative known as 

the REDistricting Majority Project (“REDMAP”) in mid-2010. Ohio’s House of 

Representatives was a key target of national Republicans, since Republicans only 

needed to “flip” four seats to have a majority and Ohio’s Senate was already controlled 

by Republicans. 

8. In Ohio, 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. 

9. To help Republicans win control of the Ohio House, the RSLC spent 

approximately $1 million, initially targeting 12 seats before focusing its spending on six 

seats—five of which were ultimately won by Republicans. 

10. Republicans won control of the Ohio House and governorship and increased their 

majority in the Ohio Senate in 2010. 

11. As the RSLC later reported, the GOP effectively controlled the redrawing of 

Ohio’s 16 congressional districts the following year. Indeed, the RSLC later stated that 

their $1 million investment in Ohio House races in 2010 built a Republican firewall 

through redistricting that “allowed a 12/4 Republican majority to return to the U.S. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 4 of 39 PAGEID #: 7054
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

3 

House of Representatives [in 2012]—despite voters casting only 52 percent of their vote 

for Republican congressional candidates.” 

12. The RSLC, following up on its success through REDMAP, encouraged state 

legislators to take advantage of a redistricting team retained by the Republican National 

Committee (“RNC”) and the State Government Leadership Foundation (“SGLF”), a 

501(c)(4) organization affiliated with the RSLC. 

13. The team was led by Thomas Hofeller, a seasoned redistricting expert who spent 

years working for the RNC and on behalf of Republicans. 

14. The team’s services were offered to state legislative leaders for free. 

15. The National Republican Campaign Committee (“NRCC”) hired Adam Kincaid 

as its redistricting coordinator in February 2011. 

C. Ohio Republicans sought and obtained assistance from national Republicans 

in their redistricting efforts. 

16. In May 2010, several Ohio Republicans who would later be responsible for 

redistricting attended the RNC’s “Redistricting and Election Law Seminar” in 

Washington, D.C. 

17. Mike Lenzo, Chief Legal Counsel for the Ohio House Republican Caucus, 

attended this seminar at the instruction of William Batchelder, then the Ohio House 

Minority Leader. 

18. Matt Schuler, Chief of Staff of Senate President Thomas Niehaus, attended as 

well. So did Ray DiRossi, an Ohio Republican operative, who was later retained by the 

Republican caucus as a map drawer. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 5 of 39 PAGEID #: 7055
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

4 

19. At the May 2010 conference, Ohio Republicans made connections with key 

national Republican redistricting operatives, including Mark Braden, Thomas Hofeller, 

and John Morgan. 

20. Lenzo attended a training session on redistricting called “Drawing the Lines” by 

John Morgan, a Republican map drawing expert. The first substantive screen of the 

PowerPoint presentation was titled “keep it secret, keep it safe.” The presentation 

detailed measures that map drawers should use such as “controlled access to location (a 

door with a key.)” and “machine...plan...and personnel security.” It stated that state map 

drawers should involve counsel in the map drawing process. It instructed map drawers to 

“score the plans” and determine “the likely partisan outcome.” 

21.

22.

23.

 

24. In January 2011, Lenzo, Schuler, and DiRossi again attended a national 

redistricting seminar organized by the National Conference of State Legislatures 

(NCSL). They were joined by several other Ohio Republicans responsible for 

redistricting, including then-State Representative Matt Huffman and Heather Mann (now 

Heather Blessing), the other Ohio Republican operative who was later retained by the 

Republican caucus as a map drawer. 

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 6 of 39 PAGEID #: 7056
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

5 

25. Hofeller also attended the conference and spoke on several panels. He presented 

on the need for secrecy and to “never travel without counsel” in addition to other advice 

for Republican map drawers. 

D. The map drawers and legislative staff briefed the Republican legislative 

leadership on the proposed districts. 

26. Mann and DiRossi were the two Republican staffers who worked on drawing the 

maps. 

27. Schuler and Judy, two of the highest-ranking Republican staffers in the state, 

engaged DiRossi and Mann as consultants to undertake research and other activities 

deemed necessary for drafting the congressional map. 

28. DiRossi and Mann 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. 

29. According to Batchelder, Mann’s job was to draw “friendly” districts. 

30. It was Republican operatives, DiRossi and Mann, along with national 

Republicans, rather than any members of the Ohio General Assembly or the Task Force, 

who drafted the congressional map. 

31. Mann directly reported to Batchelder, who had selected her as the Redistricting 

Director. She would report to Batchelder about progress of her work and share draft 

maps for review. 

32. Mann would also share progress updates with Judy. Judy also reviewed draft 

maps. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 7 of 39 PAGEID #: 7057
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

6 

33. Mann also shared progress updates and draft maps with Huffman. Huffman was 

part of Republican leadership in the Ohio House, and he sponsored both redistricting 

bills. 

34. DiRossi reported to Niehaus. He would share with him progress of his work and 

send draft maps for review. 

35. DiRossi would also update Schuler on the progress of his work and share draft 

maps. 

E. National Republicans were also heavily involved in the drafting of Ohio’s 

map. 

36. Six national Republican figures were actively involved in the drawing of Ohio’s 

map: Braden, Morgan, Clark Bensen, Hofeller, Tom Whatman, and Kincaid. 

37. Braden and his law firm, Baker Hostetler, were retained in June 2011 by the 

General Assembly to provide legal services on redistricting issues. 

38. Braden retained Bensen and Morgan to help the Republicans in their redistricting 

efforts. 

39. Morgan helped Mann and DiRossi with the initial set up so that they could start 

drawing maps. 

40. Morgan made a trip to Ohio on July 25-26, 2011, to provide follow-up assistance 

to the map drawers, including technical support on the map drawing software. Morgan 

also drew districts. 

41. Bensen was retained to provide election results data to Ohio Republican map 

drawers for their use in scoring proposed congressional districts. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 8 of 39 PAGEID #: 7058
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

7 

42. Specifically, Bensen provided Mann, DiRossi, Morgan, and Braden with election 

results data in 2011 in a form that could be loaded into Maptitude, the software used by 

Republicans to draw maps in 2011. 

F. The legislative history of HB 319. 

43. HB 319, the bill that included the first enacted congressional map, was introduced 

two days before the full Ohio House voted on the bill on September 15, 2011, and just 

eight days before its final passage on September 21, 2011. 

44. On September 8, 2011, the House State Government and Elections Committee 

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

introduced bill. The bill was considered at hearings of the House State Government and 

Elections Committee on September 13 and 14. Huffman gave sponsor testimony at the 

September 13 hearing. At the September 14 hearing, the committee voted HB 319 out of 

committee to the full House by a vote of 14 to 8 on a straight party line vote. 

45. The bill was debated on the floor of the House on September 15, 2011, and 

approved the same day with a 56-36 vote. 

46. Huffman gave testimony in favor of the map. In his testimony, he discussed the 

traditional redistricting criteria, and stated that protection of incumbents was 

“subservient” to other criteria. 

47. In the House, Democrats gave testimony against the map. They argued that the 

two days between the map being introduced and voted on was insufficient. Democrats 

introduced an amendment where the maps would be discussed at public hearings around 

the state. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 9 of 39 PAGEID #: 7059
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

8 

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

Reform, chaired by Senator Keith Faber, held a hearing on the proposed congressional 

map. 

49. On September 21, 2011, the Senate Committee on Government Oversight and 

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

appropriation for local boards of elections, which was added in order to make HB 319 

immediately effective and to shield the law from the possibility of a voter referendum. 

After adding the appropriation, the Committee then voted to approve the map on a 

straight party line vote. 

50. Faber—on the floor of the Senate—said that an effect of the appropriation was 

that “if the appropriation is included in a bill, it becomes effective immediately and is 

not subject to referendum.” 

51. Senate Democrats, including Edna Brown and Nina Turner, argued that the map 

was a 12-4 Republican map. 

52. HB 319, as amended with the appropriation added, passed the Senate later that 

same day—September 21, 2011—by a vote of 24-7. 

53. HB 319, as amended with the appropriation added, returned to the House for a 

vote on September 21, without going to any committee. The House passed the amended 

bill with a 60-35 margin on September 21, 2011. 

54. HB 319 was signed into law by Governor Kasich on September 26, 2011. 

G. The legislative history of HB 369. 

55. Huffman introduced HB 369 in the House on November 3, 2011. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 10 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7060
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

9 

56. HB 369 was sent to the House Rules and Reference Committee for consideration, 

not to the House State Government and Elections Committee, which had heard 

testimony regarding HB 319. 

57. On November 9, 2011, Huffman gave sponsor testimony before the House Rules 

and Reference Committee. 

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

members of the Ohio House spoke out against the bill. 

59. 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 one hour before the vote and that more people should have been involved in the 

map drawing process. 

60. 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, as 

well as the partisan tilt of the map as a whole. 

61. On December 14, 2011, the map was introduced in the Ohio Senate by Faber. As 

in the Ohio House, Ohio Democratic Senators spoke out against the map. 

62. 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. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 11 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7061
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

10 

House and presidential elections) into a single primary date. This change was projected 

to save the State approximately $15 million per year. 

63. 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. 

H. The Ohio Map has had the effect of advantaging Republicans and 

disadvantage Democrats as demonstrated by both election results and 

partisan bias metrics. 

64. Republicans have won 12 (75%) of Ohio’s U.S. congressional seats in the last 

four election cycles held under the map. 

65. Republicans won 12 (75%) of Ohio’s U.S. congressional seats in 2012 with 51% 

of the congressional vote. 

66. Republicans won 12 (75%) of Ohio’s U.S. congressional seats in 2014 with 59% 

of the congressional vote. 

67. Republicans won 12 (75%) of Ohio’s U.S. congressional seats in 2016 with 57% 

of the congressional vote 

68. Republicans won 12 (75%) of Ohio’s U.S. congressional seats in 2018 with 52% 

of the congressional vote. 

69. Republicans won the same 12 districts in all four election cycles: the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 

5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 15th, and 16th Districts. 

70. Democrats have won only four (25%) of Ohio’s U.S. congressional seats in the 

last four election cycles held under the map. 

71. Democrats won only four (25%) of Ohio’s U.S. congressional seats in 2012 

although they obtained 47% of the congressional vote. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 12 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7062
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

11 

72. Democrats won only four (25%) of Ohio’s U.S. congressional seats in 2014 

although they obtained 39% of the congressional vote. 

73. Democrats won only four (25%) of Ohio’s U.S. congressional seats in 2016 

although they obtained 41% of the congressional vote. 

74. Democrats won only four (25%) of Ohio’s U.S. congressional seats in 2018 

although they obtained 47% of the congressional vote. 

75. Democrats won the same four districts in all four election cycles: the 3rd, 9th, 

11th, and 13th Districts. 

76. In all four election cycles, voters in the 3rd, 9th, 11th, and 13th Districts cast 

many more votes for the Democratic congressional candidate above and beyond the 

50%+1 majority needed to win each district. 

77. In the 3rd District, the Democratic candidate won by 68.8% in 2012, 64.05% in 

2014, 68.57% in 2016, and 73.6% in 2018. 

78. In the 9th District, the Democratic candidate won by 73.04% in 2012, 67.74% in 

2014, 68.89% in 2016, and 67.8% in 2018. 

79. In the 11th District, the Democratic candidate was unchallenged in 2012 and won 

by 79.45% in 2014, 80.25% in 2016, and 82.2% in 2018. 

80. In the 13th District, the Democratic candidate won by 72.77% in 2012, 68.49% in 

2014, 67.73% in 2016, and 61.0% in 2018. 

81. There are four commonly used metrics to measure partisan bias: the efficiency 

gap, mean-median, declination, and the Gelman-King asymmetry measure. 

82. The efficiency gap is defined as “the difference between the parties’ respective 

wasted votes, divided by the total number of votes cast in the election.” All of a party’s 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 13 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7063
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

12 

votes are wasted if they lose the election. When a party wins an election, the wasted 

votes are those above 50%+1 needed to win. The efficiency gap aggregates both kinds 

of wasted votes for each party. According to the efficiency gap analysis, the ratio of the 

parties’ excess votes reveals the discrepancy between how the map treats the parties. 

83. The efficiency gap can be pro-Republican or pro-Democrat. A pro-Republican 

efficiency gap is denoted with a negative number and a pro-Democrat with a positive 

number. 

84. Ohio had a pro-Republican efficiency gap in every election held under the map. 

85. Ohio’s pro-Republican efficiency gap was -22.4% in 2012, -9% in 2014, -8.7% in 

2016, and -20% in 2018. 

86. The 2012 efficiency gap in Ohio was more extreme than 98% of previous plans in 

states with more than six seats over the past 45 years, and it was more Republicanleaning than 99% of previous congressional districting plans. 

87. The 2018 efficiency gap in Ohio was -20%. This was more extreme than 96% of 

previous plans in states with more than six seats over the past 45 years, and it was more 

Republican-leaning than 98% of previous congressional districting plans. 

88. The mean-median gap is the difference between a party’s vote share in the median 

district and their average vote share across all districts. 

89. If a party wins more votes in the median district than in the average district, they 

have an advantage in the translation of votes to seats. 

90. Ohio has a mean-median gap in all four elections, which shows an advantage for 

Republicans in the congressional election. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 14 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7064
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

13 

91. Ohio’s mean-median gap in 2012 was 7.8%. The mean-median difference in 2012 

was larger than in 83% of previous elections and more pro-Republican than the meanmedian difference in 92% of previous congressional elections. 

92. Ohio’s 2012 mean-median gap of 7.8% was a sharp increase from Ohio’s meanmedian gap in 2010, which was 1.7%. 

93. Ohio had a gap between the mean and median district of 5.0% in 2018. Ohio’s 

mean-median gap in 2018 was more extreme than the mean-median difference in 62% of 

previous elections and more pro-Republican than the mean-median difference in 81% of 

previous elections. 

94. The symmetry metric captures whether each party receives the same share of seats 

for identical shares of votes. 

95. Gelman and King propose two ways to measure partisan bias in the symmetry of 

the vote-seat curve. First, it can be measured using counter-factual election results in a 

range of statewide vote shares between .45 and .55. Across this range of vote shares, 

each party should receive the same number of seats when they obtain the same vote 

share. The Symmetry measure captures any departures from the standard that each party 

should receive the same seat share across this range of plausible vote shares. Second, 

symmetry can be measured based on the seat share that each party receives when they 

split the statewide vote 50-50. In an unbiased system, each party should receive 50% of 

the seats in a tied statewide election. Here, the partisan bias statistic is the “expected 

proportion of the seats over 0.5 that the Democrats receive when they receive exactly 

half the average district vote.” 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 15 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7065
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

14 

96. Both partisan symmetry measures indicate a pro-Republican advantage in all four 

elections under the map. 

97. Measure 1: Based on the standard that each party should receive the same seat 

share across a range of plausible vote shares, the asymmetry between Democrats and 

Republicans was more extreme than 96% of previous elections and more proRepublican than 97% of previous U.S. congressional elections over the past 45 years. 

98. Measure 2: In hypothetically tied statewide elections, the level of bias in Ohio’s 

2012 election was more extreme than 96% of previous elections and more proRepublican than 97% of previous U.S. congressional elections over the past 45 years. 

99. Measure 1: Ohio’s 2018 elections were more asymmetric than 92% of previous 

elections and more pro-Republican than 94% of previous U.S. congressional elections 

over the past 45 years. 

100. Measure 2: The level of bias in 2018 was more extreme than 95% of previous 

elections and more pro-Republican than 96% of previous U.S. congressional elections 

over the past 45 years. 

101. The declination metric treats asymmetry in the vote distribution as indicative of 

partisan bias in a redistricting plan. If all the districts in a plan are lined up from the least 

Democratic to the most Democratic, the mid-point of the line formed by one party’s 

seats should be about as far from the 50 percent threshold for victory on average as the 

other party’s victory. 

102. The declination metric can be quantified using a number between -1 and 1 

(positive values favor Democrats and negative values favor Republicans.) 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 16 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7066
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

15 

103. All four declination metrics in the last four election cycles show a pro-Republican 

advantage. 

104. The 2012 congressional election in Ohio had a more extreme declination than 

99% of previous elections and a more pro-Republican declination than any previous 

U.S. congressional election over the past 45 years. 

105. Ohio’s 2018 congressional election had a declination score of -0.69. This was 

more extreme than 98% of previous elections and more pro-Republican than 99% of 

previous U.S. congressional elections. 

106. Ohio’s congressional elections grew less competitive after the 2011 plan went 

into place. 

107. None of Ohio’s congressional elections were competitive in 2014 and 2016, 

meaning no candidate won their election by less than 55%. 

108. In 2018, Ohio had only two competitive elections, meaning the candidates won 

their elections by less than 55%. 

109. The responsiveness of a map indicates how many seats change hands as vote 

shares rise and fall. 

110. An unresponsive map ensures that the bias in a districting plan toward the 

advantaged party is insulated against changes in voters’ preferences, and thus is durable 

across multiple election cycles. 

111. Gelman and King propose a technique that measures responsiveness based on 

uniform swings in two parties’ counterfactual vote shares. 

112. Ohio’s post-2011 districting plans had some of the least responsive election 

results in the country. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 17 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7067
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

16 

113. Performing a uniform swing analysis based on the 2018 election results, 

Republicans win 75% of the seats across most of the range of plausible election swings. 

I. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Remedial Plan 

114. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Remedial Plan betters the Ohio congressional map on all 

traditional redistricting criteria. 

115. The Proposed Remedial Plan splits 14 counties; the Ohio congressional map splits 

23 counties. 

116. The Proposed Remedial Plan splits 27 municipal civil divisions; the Ohio 

congressional map splits 73 municipal civil divisions. 

117. The Proposed Remedial Plan is more compact than the Ohio congressional map. 

118. The Proposed Remedial Plan has a Voting Rights Act-compliant district in its 

District 11. 

119. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, District 3 has a Black Voting Age Population 

of 30.31%. 

120. Under the Proposed Remedial Plan, District 1 has a Black Voting Age Population 

of 26.74%. 

121. The Proposed Remedial Plan complies with the requirements of Issue 1. 

122. The Proposed Remedial Plan has the following Democratic congressional vote 

percentages of the two-party vote: 

 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 18 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7068
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

17 

 2012 2014 2016 2018 

CD Proposed 

Plan 2012 Plan Proposed 

Plan 2012 Plan Proposed 

Plan 2012 Plan Proposed 

Plan 2012 Plan 

1 48.5% 39.5% 44.2% 36.7% 48.3% 40.7% 57.2% 47.8% 

2 30.6% 41.4% 25.4% 34.1% 25.0% 33.5% 31.1% 41.7% 

3 66.9% 71.4% 58.2% 63.6% 63.1% 68.2% 68.3% 73.6% 

4 29.6% 38.5% 24.2% 32.3% 22.3% 31.7% 26.6% 34.7% 

5 62.3% 40.6% 51.2% 30.4% 52.6% 28.8% 54.3% 36.1% 

6 44.4% 46.8% 33.7% 39.8% 28.6% 29.4% 33.0% 30.8% 

7 39.3% 43.6% 21.2% 0.3% 28.5% 31.4% 35.5% 41.3% 

8 2.0% 0.0% 29.2% 28.9% 28.5% 28.2% 34.0% 33.4% 

9 59.4% 76.0% 44.6% 67.7% 48.9% 68.6% 55.1% 67.8% 

10 37.8% 38.6% 32.7% 32.6% 33.9% 33.8% 43.0% 43.0% 

11 95.7% 99.7% 81.5% 79.2% 81.7% 80.3% 83.5% 82.3% 

12 39.7% 36.6% 33.3% 29.0% 38.4% 31.7% 54.3% 47.9% 

13 62.6% 72.9% 54.4% 68.4% 54.2% 67.6% 51.4% 61.0% 

14 48.6% 41.8% 27.0% 34.4% 37.5% 37.4% 43.8% 44.8% 

15 42.3% 38.6% 35.8% 34.1% 31.2% 33.7% 33.9% 40.5% 

16 59.1% 48.0% 48.5% 36.2% 51.0% 35.2% 55.8% 43.3% 

123. Imputed election results for the uncontested races in 2012 and 2014 give the 

following results in the Proposed Remedial Plan: 

CD 2012 2014 

1 48.5% 44.3% 

2 30.6% 25.2% 

3 66.9% 59.1% 

4 29.6% 24.2% 

5 62.3% 51.3% 

6 44.4% 36.6% 

7 39.3% 29.6% 

8 2.0% 29.2% 

9 59.4% 47.4% 

10 37.8% 32.7% 

11 95.7% 81.5% 

12 39.7% 32.5% 

13 62.6% 59.7% 

14 48.6% 41.4% 

15 42.3% 35.8% 

16 59.1% 51.6% 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 19 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7069
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

18 

124. With these imputations calculated, in 2012, there were 6 districts with a 

Democratic majority, plus two additional competitive districts. In 2014, there were 5 

districts with a Democratic majority, plus one additional competitive district. In 2016, 

there were 5 districts with a Democratic majority, plus two additional competitive 

districts. In 2018, there were 8 districts with a Democratic majority, with no additional 

competitive districts. 

125. Under the correction to the Proposed Remedial Plan, the only changes to these 

election results are between .03-.04% difference in the Democratic two-party vote share 

between District 4 and District 8. The rest of the proposed districts remain the same. 

126. Under the correction to the Proposed Remedial Plan, incumbents are not paired 

except for Representatives Chabot and Wenstrup. These incumbents are only paired to 

keep the city of Cincinnati whole and thus comply with Issue 1. 

J. The Plaintiffs are Ohio organizations and voters. 

1. Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute 

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

Randolph Institute. 

128. It has eight chapters across Ohio—in Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, 

Warren, Youngstown, Akron/Canton, and Dayton, seven of which are currently active, 

and has members living in nearly every congressional district throughout the state. 

129. APRI’s activities are funded in part by membership dues. 

130. The bulk of APRI’s work consists of voter education, voter registration, civic 

engagement, voter outreach, and encouraging people to vote. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 20 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7070
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

19 

131. APRI’s executive board, all of its chapters, and representatives from each chapter 

unanimously made the decision to join the lawsuit. The goal was to obtain fair 

congressional districts, to put an end to the practices of packing and cracking. 

132. APRI’s state executive board endorsed Ballot Issue 1. 

133. Andre Washington has been the President of APRI for ten years and was the 

organization’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee. 

134. Stephanie White is a member of APRI. She is a United States citizen, registered to 

vote in the State of Ohio, and an active Ohio voter. She is Vice President of APRI’s 

Toledo Chapter. 

2. League of Women Voters of Ohio 

135. League of Women Voters of Ohio (“LWVO” or “the League”) is the Ohio chapter 

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

136. The LWVO is a non-partisan membership organization with 2,700 to 2,800 

members. 

137. Its members join by paying annual membership dues. There are LWVO duespaying members residing in each of Ohio’s congressional districts. 

138. “In its core function,” the LWVO “is about democracy,” and “fair maps and fair 

districts are key to that democracy.” The League’s work “is making our democracy 

function for every voter.” 

139. Much of the League’s mission is carried by volunteers. 

140. The LWVO works to educate voters about voting, candidates and issues, to 

register voters, to get out the vote, and to empower and educate voters in a nonpartisan 

way. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 21 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7071
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

20 

141. Fair districts is a priority issue for the LWVO, specifically voted upon by member 

delegates at its biennial convention. 

142. The decision to join this lawsuit was made by the LWVO’s elected board. 

143. LWVO Executive Director Jennifer Miller was designated as the group’s Rule 

30(b)(6) witness. 

144. John Fitzpatrick is a member of LWVO. He is a United States citizen, registered 

to vote in the State of Ohio, and an active Ohio voter. He is Treasurer of the League of 

Women Voters of the Akron Area. 

145. The LWVO ran a citizen map making contest in 2011, utilizing significant 

resources. 

146. The LWVO published a report on Ohio’s 2011 redistricting process, documenting 

the lack of transparency in the process and the partisan gerrymander that resulted, titled 

The Elephant in the Room. It later produced a sequel, The Elephant in the Room II. 

147. The LWVO supported Ballot Issue 1. 

3. Northeast Ohio Young Black Democrats 

148. Plaintiff Northeast Ohio Young Black Democrats (“NEOYBD”) is a regional 

organization dedicated to “mentor, empower and recruit the next generation of young 

people of color who want to be involved in the political process” in Northeast Ohio. 

149. NEOYBD is a Democratic organization that supports Democratic candidates for 

all offices for which their membership is eligible to vote, including the U.S. House of 

Representatives. It is a chapter of the Ohio Young Black Democrats. 

150. NEOYBD has about sixty members, all Democrats and regular voters, who 

currently live in 9th, 11th, 13th, and 14th Districts. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 22 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7072
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

21 

151. Central to NEOYBD’s mission is “voter education, training, and informationsharing,” including “informing voters on important issues and candidates in ways that 

they can get involved.” 

152. This includes canvassing, phone banking, and social media engagement to get out 

the vote and support Democratic issues in Northeast Ohio communities. It also includes 

training other Democrats and progressives on organizing tools including fundraising and 

running for office, and holding events to support Democratic candidates. 

153. For example, in 2018, NEOYBD, through its board, members, and volunteers, 

held four training events to educate people about organizing for Democratic candidates; 

monthly phone banks to support Democratic candidates; and regular canvassing 

including in conjunction with other Democratic groups for the same purpose. 

154. NEOYBD supported Ballot Issue 1 and canvassed to get it on the ballot in 2017. 

155. NEOYBD’s board unanimously voted to become a Plaintiff in this litigation. 

Based on the “conversations we’ve had with our community,” the board believed “[t]he 

current map does not represent us, and we don’t have a fair, equal voice.” 

4. Hamilton County Young Democrats 

156. Hamilton County Young Democrats is a Democratic organization that engages 

young people to be involved in politics and elections. 

157. Hamilton County Young Democrats is a membership organization, in which 

members self-identify as Democrats. 

158. Hamilton County Young Democrats has approximately 150 members, who pay 

dues to be a member of the organization. 

159. Hamilton County Young Democrats does not know who each of its members has 

voted for, but has no concern that the organization is infiltrated by non-Democrats. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 23 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7073
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

22 

160. Nathaniel Simon has been the President of the Hamilton County Young 

Democrats since 2017 and was the organization’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee. 

161. The members of Hamilton County Young Democrats live in the 1st and 2nd 

Districts. 

162. Hamilton County Young Democrats does voter engagement and education, holds 

events with candidates and on issues important to Young Democrats, and works on 

behalf of Democratic candidates, including for Congress. 

163. Hamilton County Young Democrats conducts voter registration and canvassing, 

including canvassing for Democratic candidates running for Congress. 

164. The members of the Hamilton County Young Democrats support Democratic 

candidates for office, including for Congress. 

165. The Board of the Hamilton County Young Democrats makes decisions on behalf 

of the organization, including becoming a party in this suit. 

5. The Ohio State University Democrats 

166. The Ohio State University College Democrats (“OSU College Democrats”) is a 

student organization at the Ohio State University whose aim is to “advocate, educate, 

and engage people on the Ohio State campus in alignment with the [Democratic] party 

platform.” 

167. The OSU College Democrats is chartered with the Ohio Democratic Party, Ohio 

College Democrats, and College Democrats of America. 

168. The OSU College Democrats is a membership organization made up of OSU 

students who self-identify as Democrats. Students who have attended at least thirty 

percent of the meetings in a year are “voting members” of the organization. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 24 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7074
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

23 

169. The OSU College Democrats does not know who each of its members has voted 

for, but has no concern that the organization is infiltrated by non-Democrats. 

170. Alexis Oberdorf was the President of the OSU College Democrats from 

December 2017 to December 2018 and was the organization’s Rule 30(b)(6) designee. 

171. The members of the OSU College Democrats generally live in the 3rd, 12th or 

15th Districts. While some members are registered to vote at their home address, the 

bulk of the members are registered to vote at their school addresses. 

172. The OSU College Democrats does voter engagement and education, works to 

register students to vote for the first time or to have them update their voter registration 

to their current address, canvasses on behalf of candidates including for Congress, hosts 

events with Democratic candidates, including for congressional office, and has done 

phone banking, including on behalf of the Democratic-coordinated campaign which 

works on behalf of, among other offices, congressional candidates. 

173. The members of the OSU College Democrats support Democrats running for 

office, including for Congress. For example, the Danny O’Connor campaign for 

Congress in the 12th District was a key focus for 2018. 

174. The “small executive board” makes decisions for the OSU College Democrats, 

including the vote to join this lawsuit. 

175. The OSU College Democrats is concerned about congressional redistricting, and 

has held events and collected petition signatures for the fair districting initiative. 

6. Individual Plaintiffs 

176. Linda Marcy Goldenhar resides in the 1st District. 

177. Ms. Goldenhar is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter 

who has voted in every congressional and presidential election since moving to and 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 25 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7075
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

24 

registering to vote in Ohio in 1992, and in each of these elections, she voted for a 

Democratic candidate. 

178. Ms. Goldenhar only votes in Democratic primary elections. 

179. Ms. Goldenhar has canvassed and held fundraisers for Democratic candidates. 

180. In the 2018 elections, Ms. Goldenhar was a part of a group of acquaintances who 

wrote postcards to Democratic voters encouraging them to get out and vote. 

181. Douglas John Burks resides in the 2nd District. 

182. Dr. Burks is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter. 

183. In the almost 40 years Dr. Burks has resided at his current address, he has been in 

both the 1st and 2nd Districts. 

184. Steve Chabot, incumbent Representative for District 1, represented Dr. Burks in 

the 2000s. 

185. Since the early 1980s, Dr. Burks has always voted and exclusively for Democratic 

candidates in federal, state and local elections. 

186. Dr. Burks works with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a nonpartisan advocacy group that aims to move government to support Quaker values, to 

lobby representatives. As a part of his work with the Friends Committee on National 

Legislation, Dr. Burks has lobbied Ohio Representatives Steve Chabot, Brad Wenstrup, 

and Senators Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown. 

187. Dr. Burks lobbied Representative Wenstrup on the War Powers Act; 

Representative Wenstrup did not sponsor the legislation. 

188. Dr. Burks protested Jean Schmidt, a previous Representative for District 2, over 

the war in Iraq. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 26 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7076
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

25 

189. Sarah Marie Inskeep resides in the 3rd District. 

190. Ms. Inskeep is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every congressional election since 2012. 

191. Ms. Inskeep is a Democratic voter and has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past. 

192. Ms. Inskeep is politically active and has participated in electoral activities in both 

her personal and professional capacities. 

193. During the 2016 election, as part of work at Planned Parenthood, Ms. Inskeep ran 

“door-to-door canvassing, phone bank operations, [and] direct voter contact operations 

with volunteers.” 

194. During the 2018 election, as part of her work with the super PAC, Planned 

Parenthood Voters Ohio, Ms. Inskeep engaged in voter education on reproductive rights 

issues. 

195. Also during the 2018 election, in her personal capacity, Ms. Inskeep canvassed 

every weekend. 

196. Cindy Libster resides in the 4th District. 

197. Ms. Libster is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in almost every election she can recall, including elections for U.S. 

Congress. 

198. Ms. Libster is a “lifelong Democrat,” and has voted for a Democrat in almost 

every election she can recall, including always having voted for a Democratic U.S. 

congressional representative. 

199. Ms. Libster’s current representative is Republican Jim Jordan. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 27 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7077
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

26 

200. As a Democrat, Ms. Libster has both campaigned for and held office herself, and 

has been involved in canvassing and GOTV efforts for presidential and local elections 

for almost 30 years. 

201. Despite calling and emailing Representative Jordan’s office to express her 

concerns over his policy positions, Ms. Libster has never spoken to or seen Jim Jordan. 

She is aware of a League of Women Voters bipartisan candidate forum that happened in 

her community that he did not attend despite an invitation. 

202. Kathy Deitsch resides in the 5th District. 

203. Ms. Deitsch is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter. 

204. Ms. Deitsch has always identified as a Democrat since she was “first able to 

vote,” and has voted for a Democrat in almost every election she can recall, including 

always having voted for a Democratic U.S. congressional representative. 

205. Ms. Deitsch’s current representative is Republican Bob Latta. 

206. Ms. Deitsch has been involved in Democratic organizing for many years, has 

campaigned for office herself, and regularly works to get out the vote, fundraise, and 

support other Democratic candidates. She has also canvassed to put partisan 

gerrymandering reform on the Ohio ballot in 2017 and educate voters about 

gerrymandering. 

207. LuAnn Boothe resides in the 6th District. 

208. Ms. Boothe is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every election she can recall including elections for U.S. Congress. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 28 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7078
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

27 

209. Ms. Boothe identifies as a Democrat, and has voted for a Democrat in almost 

every election she can recall, including always having voted for a Democratic U.S. 

congressional representative. 

210. Ms. Boothe’s current representative is Republican Bill Johnson. 

211. Ms. Boothe has been involved in Democratic politics, including canvassing in 

support of the Clinton campaign, since 2012. 

212. Mark John Griffiths resides in the 7th District. 

213. Mr. Griffiths is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every congressional election since 2012 except for 2014 when the 

Republican congressional candidate Bob Gibbs was unopposed. 

214. Mr. Griffiths is a Democratic voter and has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past. 

215. Mr. Griffiths is a member of a number of several civic and political organizations. 

216. As a member of the Indivisible group, Mr. Griffiths has visited Congressman Bob 

Gibbs’s offices on three occasions. 

217. The first time, Mr. Griffiths met with Congressman Gibbs as part of the 

Indivisible Wellington group at the congressman’s office in Canton to discuss healthcare 

and the opioid epidemic. During this meeting, Congressman Gibbs joked that Mr. 

Griffiths and his wife had travelled the furthest to attend the meeting. 

218. The second time Mr. Griffiths met with Congressman Gibbs as part of the 

Indivisible Wellington group was in April 2017 to discuss healthcare at the 

congressman’s Ashland office. During this meeting, Mr. Griffiths offered to participate 

in a “study group” on healthcare to “research, advise, develop” policies related to 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 29 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7079
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

28 

healthcare given his background in employee benefits and human resources, but his 

offer was not accepted by Congressman Gibbs. 

219. The third time, Mr. Griffiths just dropped off a letter advocating against the 

deportation of an immigrant on behalf of the HOLA organization within the Indivisible 

group. The immigrant ended up getting deported. 

220. As a member of the Indivisible group in Wellington, Mr. Griffiths has sent letters 

advocating for automatic voter registration in Ohio. 

221. As a member of the Indivisible group in Wellington, Mr. Griffiths researched 

gerrymandering, educated the group about gerrymandering, and circulated petitions to 

members of the group to get the fair districting initiative on the ballot. 

222. Mr. Griffiths along with his wife circulated pamphlets on gerrymandering 

provided by the League of Women Voters and gathered signatures in their community to 

place the fair districting initiative on the ballot. 

223. As a member of Lorain County Rising, Mr. Griffiths participated in a candlelight 

vigil in Oberlin during the Charlottesville riots and attended a demonstration organized 

by the Moms Against Gun Violence. 

224. Mr. Griffiths worked to revitalize the North Ridgeville Democratic Club. 

225. As part of the North Ridgeville Democratic Club, Mr. Griffiths phone banked and 

sent postcards on behalf of Democratic congressional candidate Ken Harbaugh. Mr. 

Griffiths also worked a booth at the North Ridgeville Corn Festival to support 

Democratic candidates. 

226. Mr. Griffiths also volunteered for Democratic candidate Ken Harbaugh’s 

campaign in his personal capacity and engaged in door-to-door canvassing and phone 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 30 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7080
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

29 

banking. In addition, Mr. Griffiths organized a meet-and-greet and a food pantry drive 

with the Indivisible group in Wellington on behalf of Mr. Harbaugh. 

227. As a member of the League of Women Voters’ Oberlin Chapter, Mr. Griffiths 

was involved in voter registration activities. 

228. Mr. Griffiths has contacted Congressman Gibbs through emails, letters, calls, and 

voicemails on a number of occasions. 

229. When Mr. Griffiths has called Congressman Gibbs’ office, he has asked 

Congressman Gibbs’ aides to have the Congressman call him back. However, Mr. 

Griffiths never received a call from the Congressman. 

230. When Mr. Griffiths contacted Congressman Gibbs through his website on one or 

two occasions, he did not receive a response 

231. Mr. Griffiths and his wife sent letters to Senator Larry Obhof and Cliff 

Rosenberger urging them to get involved in redistricting reform. 

232. On January 24, 2018, Mr. Griffiths and his wife gave a statement against political 

gerrymandering to the Government Oversight and Reform Committee. 

233. Mr. Griffiths and his wife wrote a Letter to the Editor that was published in the 

Elyria Chronicle on November 3, 2017 criticizing political gerrymandering. Mr. 

Griffiths testified that he was “moved to write this letter” after attending a hearing by the 

Congressional Redistricting Reform Working Group where he heard a number of people 

speak against political gerrymandering. 

234. Larry Nadler resides in the 8th District. 

235. Mr. Nadler is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every election he can recall including elections for U.S. Congress. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 31 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7081
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

30 

236. Mr. Nadler identifies as a Democrat, and has voted for a Democrat in almost 

every election he can recall, including always having voted for a Democratic U.S. 

congressional representative. 

237. Mr. Nadler’s current representative is Republican Warren Davidson. 

238. Mr. Nadler is active with the Democratic Party in multiple ways, including as “a 

member ... involved in a couple of PACs ... I have done everything from ... standing 

outside at a protest ... to the women’s march, to signing petitions, to writing letters, oped-type pieces that appeared in a couple of places.” 

239. Mr. Nadler is also a precinct executive in Oxford, Ohio, and a member of the 

Democratic Party’s Central Committee for Butler County. 

240. Chitra Muliyil Walker resides in the 9th District. 

241. Ms. Walker is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter; she 

believes she has voted in every congressional election since 2008 except when she was 

out of the country. 

242. Ms. Walker is a Democratic voter and has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past. 

243. Ms. Walker is a member of a number of several civic and political organizations. 

244. As a member of the Lakewood Democratic Club, Ms. Walker has voted to 

endorse Democratic candidates for political office. 

245. As a member of the League of Women Voters’ Lakewood Chapter, Ms. Walker 

participated in voter registration efforts, organized candidate nights, educated voters on 

various issues, and petitioned for Issue 1. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 32 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7082
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

31 

246. As a member of the Cuyahoga Women’s Democratic Caucus, Ms. Walker attends 

meetings and supports Democratic candidates. 

247. As part of the executive committee for the Cuyahoga Democratic Party, Ms. 

Walker votes on whether to support candidates for political office. 

248. Ms. Walker served as the treasurer for Democrat Cindy Marx’s 2013 and 2017 

campaigns for Lakewood City Council At-Large. 

249. Ms. Walker sends Congresswoman Kaptur letters and attends Congresswoman 

Kaptur’s constituent meetings. 

250. Tristan Rader resides in the 9th District. 

251. Mr. Rader is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every congressional election at least since moving to his current 

residence in October 2013. 

252. Mr. Rader is a Democratic voter and has supported Democratic candidates for 

Ohio’s congressional delegation in the past. 

253. Mr. Rader has worked on numerous campaigns for Democratic candidates, 

including his own campaign for Lakewood City Council. 

254. Mr. Rader ran for Lakewood City Council in 2017. Mr. Rader has served on 

Lakewood City Council since January 2018. 

255. As part of his work for MoveOn.org, Mr. Rader conducted volunteer recruitment 

and field organizing on behalf of the Unite Against Hate campaign’s Democratic slate of 

candidates, which included Hillary Clinton for President and Ted Strickland for Senate. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 33 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7083
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

32 

256. As part of his work for the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign, Mr. Rader 

was responsible for making sure that Senator Sanders was on the ballot in every county 

in New Jersey and Ohio. 

257. Mr. Rader worked on Democrat Mitch Fallis’s campaign for Mayor of the city of 

Lorain. 

258. Mr. Rader worked on Democrat Michael Skindell’s campaign for Mayor of the 

city of Lakewood. 

259. Mr. Rader worked on Democrat Keith Mundy’s campaign for Congress in the 

16th District. 

260. Mr. Rader worked on Democrat John Wisniewski’s campaign for governor of 

New Jersey. As part of this campaign, Mr. Rader engaged in field organizing and 

volunteer recruitment. 

261. Mr. Rader also has worked for and is a member of a number of different civil and 

political organizations. 

262. As part of his work at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Mr. Rader organized a 

national phone bank campaign to persuade voters to support a drug cost savings 

initiative. 

263. As part of his work with SEIU, Mr. Rader organized volunteers and paid 

canvassers for the Democratic slate of candidates supported by the organization. 

264. Mr. Rader re-activated Cleveland State University’s Young Democrats chapter. 

As a member of this organization, Mr. Rader tabled around the school and organized an 

event for an Ohio Senate candidate. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 34 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7084
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

33 

265. As a member of the Cuyahoga County Progressive Caucus, Mr. Rader 

campaigned against a county initiative to rehab the Q Arena in Cleveland. 

266. Mr. Rader spoke at a meeting of the League of Women Voters about Issue 1. 

267. Mr. Rader also campaigned on behalf of Issue 1 by posting on social media and 

he supported those individuals collecting signatures to place the fair districting initiative 

on the ballot. 

268. Ria Megnin lives in the 10th District. 

269. Ms. Megnin is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every election she can recall including elections for U.S. Congress. 

270. Ms. Megnin identifies as a Democrat. She almost always votes Democrat, 

including having voted for a Democratic U.S. congressional representative in every 

election in her recent memory. 

271. Ms. Megnin’s U.S. congressional Representative is Republican Michael Turner. 

272. Ms. Megnin is “part of various groups, loosely, that have raised concerns with 

[Turner] in the past and have shared that he has not responded to them.” For example, a 

faith group she is a part of planned a rally “outside of Congressman Turner’s office and 

it is called We’re Dying to See Our Congressman, again, because he has not held a town 

hall in sixteen years. There’s going to be skeletons sitting in cars.” 

273. Andrew Harris has resided, during the last 10 years, at 3 addresses in the 11th 

District. 

274. Mr. Harris is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter. He 

registered to vote in the State of Ohio when he turned 18 in 2008, as a Democrat. He is 

an active Ohio voter and votes “Democrats up and down the ballot.” 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 35 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7085
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

34 

275. Aaron Dagres resides in the 12th District; he is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in 

Ohio and is an active voter. 

276. Mr. Dagres registered to vote in the State of Ohio in 1997. Mr. Dagres is a 

Democratic voter and has always voted for the Democratic candidates Congress. 

277. He has always affiliated with the Democratic Party, except in 2012 when he 

pulled a Republican ballot in the primary in order to vote for a Republican underdog in 

order to extend the Republican primary process. 

278. Mr. Dagres was the President of the Licking County Democratic Club PAC from 

January 1, 2018 to January 1, 2019, and he is a Central and Executive Committee 

member of the official party within Licking County. 

279. Mr. Dagres has been closely involved in numerous Democratic campaigns, 

including his own pursuit of his party’s nomination to Congress in 2008. He helps 

support candidates who run for office. He raises money for Democratic candidates, 

including for Danny O’Connor, the recent Democratic candidate for Congress in District 

12. He was very involved in canvassing for Danny O’Connor’s campaign for Congress 

in the August 2018 special election. 

280. Mr. Dagres recruits other people to vote for Democratic candidates through 

personal conversations, phone banking, door-to-door canvassing, mailings, and other 

avenues. He also registers voters. 

281. Mr. Dagres voted in support of Issue 1. 

282. Liz Myer lives in the 13th District. 

283. Dr. Myer is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, having 

voted in every election she can recall including elections for U.S. Congress. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 36 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7086
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

35 

284. She identifies as a Democrat, and has voted for a Democrat in most elections she 

can recall, including always having voted for a Democratic U.S. congressional 

representative. 

285. Dr. Myer’s U.S. Congressional Representative is Democrat Tim Ryan. 

286. Dr. Myer is active in Democratic Party organizing. For example, she has 

canvassed, phone banked, and attended fundraisers in her district and the surrounding 

area for both Clinton and Obama presidential campaigns and for GOTV efforts. 

287. Beth Ann Blewitt Hutton resides in the 14th District. 

288. Ms. Hutton is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every single election since registering to vote around 1971. She has 

always voted for a Democratic candidate in statewide races. With the exception of 

Representative Steve LaTourette, Ms. Hutton has always voted for Democratic 

candidates at the federal level. 

289. Ms. Hutton only votes in Democratic primary elections. 

290. Since around 1983, Ms. Hutton has been actively involved with the League of 

Women Voters, serving as President of the Lake County League several times and has 

served, for the last 12 years, as the Voter Service Chair. 

291. One of Ms. Hutton’s main responsibilities as Voter Services Chair for the League 

is to put together the Voter Service Guide, which collects information from 

questionnaires sent to all candidates. The Republican candidate for District 14 did not 

respond to the League’s survey. 

292. As Voter Services Chair for the League, Ms. Hutton also hosts candidate forums. 

In the 2018 election cycle, Ms. Hutton invited both the Democratic and Republican 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 37 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7087
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

36 

candidates for District 14 to attend the forum. Both candidates attended one forum, 

although the Republican candidate did not RSVP. 

293. Terri Thobaben lives in Clinton County in the 15th District. 

294. Ms. Thobaben is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter, 

having voted in every election she can recall including elections for U.S. Congress. 

295. Ms. Thobaben identifies as a Democrat, and has voted for a Democrat in most 

elections that she can recall, including always having voted for a Democratic U.S. 

congressional representative. 

296. Ms. Thobaben’s Congressional Representative is Republican Steve Stivers. 

297. Ms. Thobaben is a member of the Democratic Party and is on the Clinton County 

Party Executive Committee. She testified that through this affiliation, “[w]e help to run 

the elections in the–in the county. We support candidates. The committee helps to raise 

money at our dinners.” 

298. Ms. Thobaben has also canvassed, “door to door and did literature drops, some 

phone calls” for several political campaigns for presidential and local Democratic 

candidates, and she herself ran as a Democrat for Clinton County Commissioner in 2008 

and 2010. 

299. Constance Rubin has resided, during the last 10 years, at two addresses in the 16th 

District. 

300. Ms. Rubin is a U.S. citizen registered to vote in Ohio and is an active voter. She 

registered to vote in Ohio in 1973, at which time she voted Republican. She voted 

Republican a number of times in that era, but is now a Democrat, who finds it “highly 

doubtful” that she would ever vote for a Republican again. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 38 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7088
APPENDIX A: Plaintiffs’ Proposed Uncontroverted Facts 

37 

301. Ms. Rubin is a member of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, and has been 

since 1973. She was co-president from June 2011 to January 2014. 

302. She has been a member of the Stark County Democratic Party since 1984, and a 

member of the Central Committee from 2004 to 2010, and from 2016 to the present. 

303. Ms. Rubin has been a member of the Northern Stark County Democratic Club 

since 2006, was president from 2008 to 2010, first vice president from 2015 to February 

2017, and vice president again from March 2016 to March 2016. She is currently the 

second vice president. 

304. Ms. Rubin has supported Democratic candidates over many election cycles, and 

was the Party’s 2014 nominee for the State Senate in her district, District 29. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 157-1 Filed: 01/18/19 Page: 39 of 39 PAGEID #:

 7089