Opinion ID: 6324095
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Majority Opinion’s Instructions

Text: {¶ 185} In invalidating the second revised plan, the majority opinion imposes new requirements for the commission to follow in adopting a fourth plan. First, the majority opinion requires that the commission retain an independent map drawer before drafting a new plan. Majority opinion at ¶ 30. Second, the majority opinion orders the commission, presumably along with this independent map drawer, to draft the plan in public and convene “frequent” meetings. Id. at ¶ 44. {¶ 186} These requirements are unprecedented in Ohio. They cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution, nor were they demanded of the commission when its other plans were invalidated the first two times the parties appeared before this court. The imposition of these judicially created requirements is troubling. The majority opinion quotes no constitutional text to support this order. And if these requirements are so critical to the redistricting process, then why are they being imposed only now, more than two months after the decision in League I, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-65, ___ N.E.3d ___, and after the commission has twice reconvened to adopt revised plans? {¶ 187} Equally troubling are the timing requirements imposed in the majority opinion. This court previously directed the commission to adopt a new plan within ten days. League I at ¶ 137; League II, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio- 63 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 342, ___ N.E.3d ___, at ¶ 68. In light of the new requirements imposed by the majority opinion, it seems logical that the commission should have more time to complete its task. Yet it does not. The approach set forth in the majority opinion seems to ignore the practical realities facing not only the commission but also Ohioans, who are now confronted with great uncertainty regarding their upcoming elections. {¶ 188} These unfortunate realities are a direct result of the approach taken by the majority opinion today and by the majority opinions in League I and League II. All of this could have been avoided had this court applied the language of Article XI, Section 8(C)(1)(a) of the Ohio Constitution as written, as I advocated in League I. See League I at ¶ 314 (Fischer, J., dissenting). B. Injunctive Relief {¶ 189} The majority opinion does not address the other remedies requested by the parties. In a sense, the approach set forth in the majority opinions in League I, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-65, ___ N.E.3d ___, and League II has encouraged the parties to seek these additional and baseless forms of relief. Because the majority opinion’s approach to these cases has not been properly grounded in the Ohio Constitution, one cannot necessarily fault the parties for asking this court to grant other remedies not grounded in the Constitution. Because these additional remedies must be addressed in some fashion to prevent further unconstitutional requests, I will proceed to explain why those remedies should not, and cannot, be granted. {¶ 190} On February 26, 2022, respondent Secretary of State Frank LaRose issued a directive to all county boards of elections, instructing them on how to prepare for the May 3, 2022 primary election using the second revised plan. The directive states: [D]ecisions in ongoing litigation may render some or all of this Directive moot. In that event, my Office will issue additional instruction. As you know, the redistricting process has been the subject of much litigation. This Directive is not contrary to any 64 January Term, 2022 order of the Ohio Supreme Court, nor should it be construed as such. This new General Assembly district plan adopted by the Ohio Redistricting Commission was filed with my office and is presumed valid. If there is additional litigation over this new district plan, the outcome of that litigation will be that the new plan is either valid or invalid. Because of the severe time constraints under which we are operating to hold Ohio House and Ohio Senate primary races with the May 3, 2022 Primary Election, we must begin preparations for those elections immediately in the anticipation that the Court will uphold the new plan. Obviously, if a few weeks from now the Court rules that the new plan is invalid, it will not be possible to conduct Ohio House and Ohio Senate primary elections with the May 3, 2022 Primary Election.