Opinion ID: 5821172
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: {¶ 3} In Wilson v. Kasich, 134 Ohio St.3d 221, 2012-Ohio-5367, 981 N.E.2d 814, we rejected a challenge to the 2011 apportionment of General Assembly districts adopted under a former version of Article XI of the Ohio Constitution. We stated that former Article XI did not require political neutrality, politically competitive districts, or representational fairness in the creation of state legislative districts. Id. at ¶ 14. Accordingly, we held that there was nothing 2 January Term, 2022 unconstitutional about the apportionment board—the body then responsible for drawing the state legislative-district maps—considering partisan factors in its apportionment. Id. at ¶ 13-14. The General Assembly–district map that we upheld in Wilson was in effect through the 2020 general election. {¶ 4} In November 2015, Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that repealed former Article XI and replaced it with a new version, which established a new process for creating General Assembly districts. The amendment provided for the creation of a seven-member Ohio Redistricting Commission, composed of the governor, the auditor of state, the secretary of state, one person appointed by the speaker of the House of Representatives, one person appointed by the House minority leader, one person appointed by the Senate president, and one person appointed by the Senate minority leader. Ohio Constitution, Article XI, Section 1(A). The commission is responsible for redistricting the boundaries of the 99 districts of the House of Representatives and the 33 Senate districts in any year ending in the numeral one—after the release of the federal decennial census.1 Id. at Section 1(C). The commission “shall draft the proposed plan in the manner prescribed in” Article XI. Id. {¶ 5} Article XI of the Ohio Constitution imposes various requirements for a General Assembly–district plan. For example, Section 3(A) provides that the state’s population is to be divided by 99 and by 33 and that those “quotients shall be the ratio of representation in the house of representatives and in the senate, respectively.” Section 3(B)(1) specifies that no district shall contain a population of less than 95 percent or more than 105 percent of the applicable ratio of representation set forth in Section 3(A). Section 3(B)(2) provides that a General Assembly–district plan “shall comply with all applicable provisions of the 1. If the federal decennial census “is unavailable,” Article XI, Section 3(A) of the Ohio Constitution provides an alternative way to determine the state’s population by “such other basis as the general assembly may direct.” 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO constitutions of Ohio and the United States and of federal law.” Sections 3(C), (D), and (E) control the complex process for creating and numbering House districts, with rules relating to the splitting of counties, municipal corporations, and townships. Section 4 controls the process for drawing Senate districts, and Section 5 relates to senators whose district boundaries change due to redistricting under Article XI before their terms expire. {¶ 6} Of particular relevance to this litigation, Section 6 provides: The Ohio redistricting commission shall attempt to draw a general assembly district plan that meets all of the following standards: (A) No general assembly district plan shall be drawn primarily to favor or disfavor a political party. (B) The statewide proportion of districts whose voters, based on statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years, favor each political party shall correspond closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio. (C) General assembly districts shall be compact. Nothing in this section permits the commission to violate the district standards described in Section 2, 3, 4, 5, or 7 of this article. Ohio Constitution, Article XI, Section 6. {¶ 7} The commission must adopt a final plan under Section 1(C) by September 1 of any year ending in the numeral one. To adopt a plan under Section 1(C), at least two members of each of the two largest political parties represented in the General Assembly must be in the majority voting for the plan. Ohio Constitution, Article XI, Section 1(B)(3). A plan adopted under Section 1(C) is effective for ten years. See Ohio Constitution, Article XI, Section 1(C) (the 4 January Term, 2022 governor must convene the commission only in a year ending in the numeral one, a plan is effective upon filing with the secretary of state, and the commission is automatically dissolved four weeks after adoption of a General Assembly–district plan or congressional-district plan, whichever is later). But if the commission does not meet the September 1 deadline to adopt a plan by the requisite bipartisan vote, Section 8 provides an alternative route for adopting a final plan—what the parties here refer to as an “impasse procedure.” {¶ 8} Under the impasse procedure, the commission must introduce a district plan proposed by a simple majority vote of the commission, hold a public hearing on the proposed plan, and adopt a final plan no later than September 15. Ohio Constitution, Article XI, Section 8(A)(1) through (3). If the majority adopting the plan includes at least two members of each political party, the plan will remain in effect for ten years. Id. at Section 8(B). Without that level of bipartisan support, the plan will remain in effect “until two general elections for the house of representatives have occurred under the plan”—i.e., four years. Id. at Section 8(C)(1)(a). If the commission adopts a four-year plan, the plan must include a statement explaining what the commission determined to be the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio and the manner in which the statewide proportion of districts in the plan whose voters, based on statewide state and federal partisan general election results during the last ten years, favor each political party corresponds closely to those preferences, as described in division (B) of Section 6 of this article. Id. at Section 8(C)(2). {¶ 9} Under Section 9(A), this court has “exclusive, original jurisdiction in all cases arising under” Article XI. 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
1. The commission, the map-drawing process, and the September 1 deadline {¶ 10} On August 6, 2021, the governor convened the first meeting of the Ohio Redistricting Commission. See Ohio Constitution, Article XI, Section 1(C). The commission consisted of respondents Governor Mike DeWine, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Auditor of State Keith Faber, Speaker of the House Robert Cupp, and President of the Senate Matthew Huffman—who are members of the Republican party—and House Minority Leader Emilia Sykes and Senator Vernon Sykes—who are members of the Democratic party. House Speaker Cupp and Senator Sykes were appointed as commission cochairs. Other than administering oaths of office and announcing that the commission would schedule public hearings, the commission did not conduct any business on August 6. {¶ 11} Between August 23 and August 27, the commission held multiple hearings during which members of the public gave input about the redistricting process. {¶ 12} The commission held its second meeting on August 31—one day before the deadline to adopt a final district plan. See Ohio Constitution, Article XI, Section 1(C). Senator Sykes presented a proposed district plan drafted by the Senate Democratic Caucus. After a presentation by a map drawer from the caucus, the commission members had a discussion that suggested that they had not yet agreed on a process for drafting a district plan. House Minority Leader Sykes asked when the commission intended to present a proposed plan for public comment. House Speaker Cupp replied that a district plan was “being developed” but would not be available by the September 1 deadline due to a delay in receiving census data. Leader Sykes asked who was participating in drafting that plan and when she could expect to participate in the process. She also quoted the portion of Section 1(C) stating that the “commission shall draft the proposed plan.” 6 January Term, 2022 {¶ 13} House Speaker Cupp explained that the commission itself would not be drafting a plan, that anyone may present a plan for consideration, and that he did not know when other maps would be presented but that the commission had a September 15 deadline. Senate President Huffman stated that the Republican members of the Senate were working on a proposal. He also expressed his expectation that each of the legislative caucuses would present a proposed plan and that the commission would then consider those proposals along with plans submitted by the public. The commission adjourned without adopting a plan by the September 1 deadline. 2. The commission adopts a proposed plan on September 9 {¶ 14} On September 8, the commission announced that it would meet at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. the following day. {¶ 15} At the 10:00 a.m. meeting, Senate President Huffman offered a proposed plan and introduced Ray DiRossi and Blake Springhetti, who worked for the Senate and House Republican Caucuses, respectively, to talk about the proposal. Senator Sykes asked DiRossi how the plan satisfied the requirements of Article XI, Section 6(B), the standard regarding whether the partisan proportion of the plan closely corresponds to the statewide preference of voters. DiRossi stated that their proposal complied with all constitutional requirements but also noted that their analysis of election data was not yet complete and was “ongoing.” Leader Sykes asked how the proposal complied with the Voting Rights Act. DiRossi indicated that the legislative leaders had instructed them not to use racial or demographic data and that therefore, they did not do so. {¶ 16} At the 2:00 p.m. meeting, Senate President Huffman moved the commission to select the plan introduced by the Republican caucuses as the commission’s proposed plan. Senator Sykes and House Minority Leader Sykes expressed concerns, including that the map drawers had not considered the proportionality provision in Article XI, Section 6(B). Other members expressed 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO their beliefs that Senate President Huffman’s plan was merely a “first draft” and that the commission members could now start negotiations. The commission voted five to two, along party lines, to introduce Senate President Huffman’s plan as the commission’s proposed plan. 3. The commission adopts a four-year plan on September 16 {¶ 17} On September 12, 13, and 14, the commission held lengthy public hearings regarding its proposed plan. During the September 13 hearing, Senator Sykes and House Minority Leader Sykes offered an amendment that they believed would move the plan closer to the proportionality standard articulated in Article XI, Section 6(B). {¶ 18} On the morning of September 15, the commission commenced its final meeting. Senate President Huffman immediately moved for a recess until 3:00 p.m. so that the members could continue consulting with each other. The commission, however, did not reconvene until approximately 11:15 p.m. {¶ 19} Upon reconvening, Senate President Huffman introduced an amendment to the commission’s proposed plan. He stated that the changes were based on conversations between commission members and feedback from the public hearings. He also noted that his amendment would move the commission’s proposed plan closer to the amended plan offered by the Sykeses on September 13. Senate President Huffman opined that the commission’s proposed plan, with his amendment, was the only submitted plan that met Article XI’s requirements. {¶ 20} The commission voted five to two, along party lines, to adopt the amendment. Senate President Huffman then moved the commission to adopt his amendment as the final plan. Senator Sykes and House Minority Leader Sykes gave lengthy statements explaining why they would be voting against the plan. {¶ 21} Secretary LaRose expressed disappointment in the commission’s failure to reach a ten-year plan. He stated: 8 January Term, 2022 I’m casting my yes vote with great unease. I fear, I fear we’re going to be back in this room very soon. This map has many shortcomings, but they pale in comparison to the shortcomings of this process. It didn’t have to be this way. It didn’t have to be this way. Some of us worked in good faith, in a bipartisan way, to try to get a compromise. There are members of this committee who I do not believe worked in good faith to try to reach that compromise, but here we are. {¶ 22} Governor DeWine similarly stated that he was disappointed and “very, very sorry” about where the commission ended up. He said: I will vote to send this matter forward. But it will not be the end of it. We know that this matter will be in court. I’m not judging the bill one way or another. That’s up for, up to a court to do. What I do, what I am sure in my heart is that this committee could have come up with a bill that was much more clearly, clearly constitutional. I’m sorry we did not do that. {¶ 23} Auditor Faber also expressed disappointment about the process. He noted that “the reality is, compared to some of the other maps we’ve had a choice to go with, this map isn’t that bad. It’s not that good either.” He intended to “vote yes with some apprehension.” {¶ 24} Sometime after midnight on September 16, the commission voted five to two, along party lines, to adopt the amendment as its final General Assembly–district plan. President Huffman estimated that under the plan, 62 seats in the Ohio House of Representatives would lean in favor of Republican candidates and 37 seats would lean in favor of Democratic candidates. In the Ohio Senate, 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO they estimated that 23 seats would lean Republican and 10 seats would lean Democratic. 4. The commission adopts a statement required under Article XI, Section 8(C)(2) {¶ 25} After the vote, Senate President Huffman moved for the adoption of a statement, required under Article XI, Section 8(C)(2), explaining what the commission determined to be the statewide preferences of Ohio voters and how the commission’s plan corresponded to those preferences. The statement indicated that after considering the results of 16 statewide state and federal partisan elections in the preceding ten years, the Commission determined that Republican candidates won thirteen out of sixteen of those elections resulting in a statewide proportion of voters favoring statewide Republican candidates of 81% and a statewide proportion of voters favoring statewide Democratic candidates of 19%. When considering the number of votes cast in each of those elections for Republican and Democratic candidates, the statewide proportion of voters favoring statewide Republican candidates is 54% and the statewide proportion of voters favoring statewide Democratic candidates is 46%. Thus, the statewide proportion of voters favoring statewide Republican candidates is between 54% and 81% and the statewide proportion of voters favoring statewide Democratic candidates is between 19% and 46%.    [T]he Commission adopted the final general assembly district plan, which contains 85 districts (64.4%) favoring Republican candidates and 47 districts (35.6%) favoring Democratic candidates out of a total of 132 districts. Accordingly, the statewide proportion of districts whose voters favor each political party corresponds closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio. 10 January Term, 2022 The statement further noted that the final plan complied with all the “mandatory requirements” in Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 and that the commission’s “attempt to meet the aspirational standards” of Section 6 did not result in any violation of the “mandatory requirements.” {¶ 26} House Minority Leader Sykes submitted a statement on behalf of herself and Senator Sykes. Among other things, their statement opined that the commission’s final plan failed to comply with Section 6 and that the majority’s statement laid out an “absurd description of how it allegedly meets the requirements of Section 6(B).” {¶ 27} The commission then accepted the majority’s Section 8(C)(2) statement. 5. Petitioners file three actions in this court2 {¶ 28} Within 12 days of the commission’s having adopted its final plan, three separate lawsuits were filed in this court against the commission and its members. First, the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the A. Philip Randolph Institute of Ohio, and six individual voters3 filed a complaint alleging that the plan violates Sections 6(A) and 6(B) of Article XI. Second, ten individual voters4 filed a complaint similarly alleging that the commission’s plan violates Sections 6(A) and 6(B). Third, the Ohio Organizing Collaborative (“OOC”), the Ohio chapter of the 2. The parties refer to themselves as relators and respondents. However, these actions were not brought in the name of the state. See R.C. 2731.04; S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.03 (the party filing an action in mandamus, prohibition, procedendo, or quo warranto is referred to as a “relator”). Therefore, this opinion will refer to the parties bringing the actions as “petitioners.” 3. The six voters in case No. 2021-1193 are Tom Harry, Tracy Beavers, Valerie Lee, Iris Meltzer, Sherry Rose, and Bonnie Bishop. 4. The ten voters in case No. 2021-1198 are Bria Bennett, Regina C. Adams, Kathleen M. Brinkman, Martha Clark, Susanne L. Dyke, Carrie Kubicki, Meryl Neiman, Holly Oyster, Constance Rubin, and Everett Totty. 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Ohio Environmental Council, and six individual voters5 filed a complaint, also alleging that the commission’s plan violates Sections 6(A) and 6(B). The third group further alleges that the plan violates Section 3(B)(2), which requires the plan to “comply with all applicable provisions of the constitutions of Ohio and the United States and of federal law.” {¶ 29} Pursuant to a court-ordered schedule, the parties conducted discovery and submitted evidence and merit briefing. See 164 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2021-Ohio3424, 173 N.E.3d 1248; 164 Ohio St.3d 1457, 2021-Ohio-3607, 174 N.E.3d 805. This court heard oral arguments in the cases on December 8, 2021. Following oral arguments, we sua sponte ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on the question whether Article XI, Section 8(C)(1) of the Ohio Constitution has any effect on this court’s authority to grant the relief requested by petitioners. 165 Ohio St.3d 1476, 2021-Ohio-4381, 177 N.E.3d 986; 165 Ohio St.3d 1476, 2021-Ohio-4381, 177 N.E.3d 986; 165 Ohio St.3d 1476, 2021-Ohio-4381, 177 N.E.3d 987. The parties filed their supplemental briefs on December 16 and 17.
{¶ 30} As evidence, the parties filed ten depositions, nine expert reports, multiple fact affidavits, and a voluminous number of additional documents. This evidence elucidates the activity that took place both before and in between the commission meetings.
{¶ 31} The commission had no employees and did not itself engage in any map drawing. Instead, each pair of legislative caucuses was allocated $150,000 for redistricting purposes. Later, the Democratic caucuses requested and received an additional $200,000. No funds were allocated to the governor, the secretary of state, or the auditor. 5. The six voters in case No. 2021-1210 are Pierrette Talley, Samuel Gresham Jr., Ahmad Aboukar, Mikayla Lee, Prentiss Haney, and Crystal Bryant. 12 January Term, 2022 {¶ 32} The expectation—at least for the majority of the commission members—was that the legislative caucuses would draft and propose maps and that the commission members would thereafter negotiate and adopt a final plan. For example, Governor DeWine believed that the best way to adopt a ten-year plan was for the Democratic and Republican members of the commission to each come forward with their own maps “and then see where everybody was and then [he would] be a person that could try and pull this together.” Senator Sykes and House Minority Leader Sykes, however, believed that the commission itself, not the political caucuses, should draw the maps. Secretary LaRose and Auditor Faber expected the caucuses to draw the initial maps, but they also assumed that they would have access to map-drawing software. Secretary LaRose also expected that he would have access to the map drawers.
{¶ 33} Although the United States Census Bureau was required to release Ohio’s population data by April 1, 2021, it did not do so until August 12. The delay required the commission to adopt a plan under a significantly shortened timeframe. In June 2021, House Minority Leader Sykes and Senate Minority Leader Kenny Yuko asked Governor DeWine to convene the commission—despite the census delays—in order to address preliminary issues such as staffing and the adoption of procedural rules. The governor did not do so, because he did not see a reason to convene the commission long before the receipt of the census data.
{¶ 34} Senate President Huffman and House Speaker Cupp oversaw the process of drawing the district plan that the commission ultimately adopted. Senate President Huffman assigned DiRossi, the finance director for the Ohio Senate, and House Speaker Cupp assigned Springhetti, the finance director for the Ohio House of Representatives, as the map drawers. Springhetti had no prior map-drawing experience, but DiRossi was actively involved in drawing the maps for the 2001 13 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO and 2011 apportionment processes. Senate President Huffman did not think that hiring outside consultants was necessary, because according to him, DiRossi “might be the most qualified person in the United States.” {¶ 35} Before receiving the census data for their work on the map, Springhetti and DiRossi obtained licenses for Maptitude, mapping software that would help them design and draw districts. After receiving the census data, they began the map-drawing process.
{¶ 36} Senate President Huffman and House Speaker Cupp instructed DiRossi and Springhetti to comply with certain provisions of the Constitution, but they did not instruct the map drawers to comply with Article XI, Section 6. {¶ 37} Senate President Huffman testified during his deposition that because Article XI, Section 6 “is not mandatory” but is “aspirational,” he did not have any specific conversations with DiRossi about that section. In distinguishing between mandatory and aspirational provisions in Article XI, Senate President Huffman explained: “Mandatory means you have to do it; aspirational means you don’t. And of course that’s why the word ‘attempt’ is in [Section 6].” When asked whether he “understood that as a commissioner [he] had a mandatory obligation to attempt to do the items that are listed in 6(A), (B), and (C),” Senate President Huffman responded, “No, I don’t think that’s correct.” He believed that his “job was to attempt to draw a ten-year map through sincere and active negotiations with the other side.” DiRossi testified that he did not know how to interpret Section 6, that Senate President Huffman told him not to focus on it, and that it was not DiRossi’s “responsibility.” {¶ 38} According to Springhetti, House Speaker Cupp identified the mandatory sections of Article XI as Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. Springhetti did not have any communications with House Speaker Cupp about the meaning of “attempt” in Section 6. House Speaker Cupp testified that he was focused on the 14 January Term, 2022 “line drawing part” and the population requirements; he acknowledged that he did not specifically instruct Springhetti to follow or “look at Section 6.” House Speaker Cupp believed that he had complied with Section 6 by attempting to negotiate with the Democratic members of the commission after the Republican-drawn plan was introduced on September 9.
{¶ 39} Throughout the process, DiRossi and Springhetti reported their progress to Senate President Huffman and House Speaker Cupp, who occasionally visited the map drawers’ office to view information on their computer screens. Other commission members had no direct access to DiRossi and Springhetti and had no role in drafting or creating the maps adopted by the commission. This frustrated some of the commission members, especially Secretary LaRose, who testified that he repeatedly asked to collaborate with, and have access to, the Republican-designated map drawers but was excluded from the process.
{¶ 40} In their depositions, DiRossi and Springhetti explained that when using Maptitude to draw district boundaries, a display window appeared on the computer screen showing information about the proposed district, including the partisan leaning of the district. When they changed the district’s lines, that information also would change. {¶ 41} DiRossi claims that he had not yet completed a partisan analysis of the Republicans’ proposed plan before it was introduced at the commission’s September 9 meeting. Therefore, when Senator Sykes inquired about the plan’s compliance with Article XI, Section 6(B) on September 9, DiRossi answered that the analysis was “ongoing.” DiRossi testified that he was unsure whether he ever completed that analysis; after the September 9 meeting, his focus shifted to supporting Senate President Huffman in his negotiations with the other commission members. 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 42} Senate President Huffman testified that when the commission met on September 9, he was unaware of the proportion of districts that favored each political party and had not conducted his own analysis regarding whether the plan complied with Article XI, Section 6(B). The partisan breakdown of the plan became more important, Senate President Huffman said, when negotiating with the Democratic members of the commission. After September 9, Senate President Huffman asked DiRossi to change some Senate districts from Republican-leaning to Democratic-leaning and some competitive districts to Democrat-leaning in his effort to obtain a ten-year map. {¶ 43} House Speaker Cupp and Springhetti similarly testified that before the September 9 plan was introduced, they had some conversations about the political leanings of certain House districts, but Springhetti had not yet analyzed— and they had not discussed—the overall partisan makeup of the plan. After September 9, Springhetti determined the number of seats favoring each political party. House Speaker Cupp testified that after receiving the expected partisan breakdown, he was surprised by the number of Republican-leaning House districts and was concerned that it would be unacceptable to the Democratic commission members. Out of 99 House districts, 67 leaned Republican.6
{¶ 44} The Senate Democratic Caucus contracted with Project Govern— owned by Christopher Glassburn—to provide redistricting services. The House Democratic Caucus contracted with HaystaqDNA. According to Glassburn, very few of HaystaqDNA’s suggestions were incorporated in the final maps proposed by the Democratic caucuses. The Democratic caucuses’ maps were proposed to the other commission members on August 31, September 1, September 13, and 6. Currently, the Ohio House of Representatives consists of 64 Republican members and 35 Democratic members. See Ohio House of Representatives, 134th General Assembly, available at https://ohiohouse.gov/members/directory (accessed Dec. 21, 2021) [https://perma.cc/5ABV-TQ43]. 16 January Term, 2022 September 15. After the Democratic commission members proposed their initial map, Secretary LaRose and Auditor Faber met with Glassburn and Democratic staffers. Senator Yuko and Senator Sykes asked Glassburn to integrate as many of Secretary LaRose’s and Auditor Faber’s requested changes as possible.
{¶ 45} Although accounts vary about the sincerity of the negotiations, most commission members testified that between September 9 and 15, they met with other members of the commission with the goal of compromising to adopt a tenyear bipartisan map. The negotiations centered mostly around the acceptable number of Democratic- and Republican-leaning seats in the House of Representatives. {¶ 46} All parties agreed that in statewide partisan elections over the past decade, Republican candidates had won 54 percent of the vote share and Democratic candidates had won 46 percent of the vote share. The Democrats’ August 31 proposed plan almost exactly mirrored those percentages, with 44 out of 99 House seats leaning Democratic and 55 out of 99 House seats leaning Republican. By contrast, the Republicans’ proposed plan—which the commission adopted as its proposed plan—predicted 32 Democratic-leaning House seats and 67 Republican-leaning House seats. The Sykeses’ September 13 proposal decreased the number of Democratic-leaning House seats from their initial plan of 44 to 42 and increased the number of Republican-leaning House seats from 55 to 57.7 {¶ 47} At some point on September 14 or 15, House Speaker Cupp and Senate President Huffman circulated a proposed amendment reducing the number of Republican-leaning House seats from 67 to 62 and increasing the number of 7. The Sykeses also circulated a proposal on September 15, incorporating changes to certain district lines suggested by Secretary LaRose and Auditor Faber. But the partisan percentage breakdown did not change from the Sykeses’ September 13 proposed plan. The Sykeses’ September 15 proposal was not formally submitted during a commission meeting. 17 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Democratic-leaning House seats from 32 to 37. According to House Speaker Cupp, they were prepared to go even further, but the Sykeses stopped negotiating. Senate President Huffman testified that they waited all day on September 15 for a counteroffer, but Senator Sykes and House Minority Leader Sykes refused to participate—even though Huffman’s amendment had moved closer to the Democrats’ proposal. {¶ 48} Secretary LaRose, Auditor Faber, and Governor DeWine testified that in those final days, they attempted to mediate between the Republican and Democratic legislative camps but eventually concluded that neither side would budge from their positions. Secretary LaRose believed that the four legislative leaders were the least open to compromise. Auditor Faber believed that some commission members were posturing for litigation. He also testified that House Minority Leader Sykes had essentially shut down the negotiations by the night of September 14. {¶ 49} For their part, both Senator Sykes and House Minority Leader Sykes believed that they had already compromised by accepting less than the Democraticleaning proportion of the statewide voter share and that to agree to even fewer seats might be contrary to Article XI, Section 6. Leader Sykes testified that Governor DeWine had asked her if there was a specific number of seats that she would be willing to vote for but that she told him that her goal was to comply with Article XI, Section 6. Leader Sykes inquired whether Governor DeWine, Secretary LaRose, and Auditor Faber would be willing to “break ranks” with the Republican legislative leaders to join the Democratic commission members and adopt a tenyear plan. Auditor Faber acknowledged that Leader Sykes had suggested that idea, but he did not believe that such a deal was possible; he believed that the better approach was for Senate President Huffman, House Speaker Cupp, Leader Sykes, and Senator Sykes—the commission’s legislative-branch members—to compromise. 18 January Term, 2022 {¶ 50} Senator Sykes was particularly frustrated with Secretary LaRose. According to the senator, the secretary admitted that Senate President Huffman’s plan was unfair but said that he would not vote against his Republican colleagues. When the Sykeses realized that the statewide officeholders were unwilling to vote contrary to the Republican legislative leaders, they saw no reason to continue negotiating.
{¶ 51} According to Senate President Huffman, when it became clear that the commission likely would be passing a four-year map, someone on his staff—it is unclear who—drafted the statement required under Article XI, Section 8(C)(2). Regardless of who drafted the statement, Senate President Huffman acknowledged that at some point, he suggested the idea of using the number of statewide elections won by Republican candidates over the last ten years—i.e., the 81 percent figure— as a way of determining the statewide preference of voters under Section 6(B). But he stated that he did not know that this idea would be included in the Section 8(C)(2) statement until the afternoon of September 15. Senate President Huffman also testified that September 15 was when he first learned what percentages of seats favoring each political party’s candidates would be included in the statement. {¶ 52} Governor DeWine had no role in drafting the Section 8(C)(2) statement and although he agreed with some of the statement’s rationale, he did not believe that 81 percent was “any kind of mark that would indicate statewide preferences.” But the governor voted for the statement because, he said, “it was the rationale that had been put forward by [the] [R]epublican legislative leaders.” Secretary LaRose did not see the statement until one minute before voting on it and was not involved in drafting it. He voted in favor of the statement, he noted, merely to accept it into the record—not because he agreed with it. In a text-message exchange with his chief of staff before the vote, Secretary LaRose called the 19 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO statement “asinine,” adding that it was the “second asinine thing I’m voting for tonight.”
{¶ 53} In addition to evidence relating to the commission’s adoption of the plan, the parties also included evidence relating to the passage of Issue 1, the 2015 ballot issue approving the amendment of Article XI of the Ohio Constitution. Many of the current commission members were involved in that effort. Senate President Huffman and Senator Sykes—while they were members of the House of Representatives—sponsored the House joint resolution that placed the constitutional amendment on the ballot. Auditor Faber and Secretary LaRose— while they served as senators—were cosponsors in the Ohio Senate. {¶ 54} During House debates, representatives stated that some portions of the new constitutional language were mandatory and some were “aspirational.” Then-Representative Huffman stated: And so, again, the purpose of this is to clarify the rules. There have been a variety of rules in the Constitution that were unclear.    So now we have a clear order of things that are mandatory. We have other things that are aspirational in nature. And it’s really the clarity in this, I think that will make sure that the majority must follow these rules or, of course, suffer a variety of penalties. Democratic Representative Kathleen Clyde, while urging other representatives to vote in favor of the resolution, noted the concessions that the Democratic side of the General Assembly had made. She said: “Another concession by our side is that the fairness criteria are not required but are aspirational.” 20 January Term, 2022 {¶ 55} After the legislature placed the issue on the ballot, Senate President Huffman and Senator Sykes formed Fair Districts for Ohio, an organization supporting Issue 1. The organization issued literature, including a flyer stating that the amendment would bring about the following reforms: Fairness  Protects against gerrymandering by prohibiting any district from primarily favoring one political party.  Requires districts to closely follow the statewide preferences of the voters. Accountable  Creates a process for the Ohio Supreme court to order the commission to redraw the map if the plan favors one political party. (Boldface and italics sic.) Although his name was on the flyer, Senate President Huffman testified that he had no recollection of being involved with the organization’s literature and that some portions were factually inaccurate. Senator Sykes did not recall Senate President Huffman disputing the contents of the flyer at the time. {¶ 56} The official ballot language, appearing as Issue 1 on the 2015 statewide general-election ballot, stated the following: Issue 1 Creates a bipartisan, public process for drawing legislative districts Proposed Constitutional Amendment Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly 21 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO To enact new Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Article XI and to repeal Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of Ohio.