Opinion ID: 6215878
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The commission’s January 20 meeting

Text: {¶ 8} The commission met again on January 20. Speaker of the House Robert Cupp, who cochaired the commission with Senator Vernon Sykes, said that staff for each of the commission members—both the legislative members and the statewide-officeholder members—had been working together but that the commission had not yet reached an agreement. House Speaker Cupp further said that “[w]e”—presumably referring to himself and President of the Senate Matthew Huffman or to Republican members of the commission—had proposals for Franklin and Hamilton Counties and their surrounding areas, which had been posted to the commission’s website. In an affidavit submitted to this court, Senator 3. On January 12, the House Democratic Caucus elected Russo as the House Minority Leader, and on January 26, she was sworn into that office. 4 January Term, 2022 Sykes stated that he was “caught off guard” by that statement because he did not know that the Republican commission members would be submitting their own county maps on the commission’s website before the commission had reached a consensus on how those districts would be drawn. Senator Sykes requested a recess. {¶ 9} House Speaker Cupp’s proposal included a map of the areas in and around Franklin and Hamilton Counties, the boundaries of the proposed districts in those areas, and the “index”—i.e., the partisan leaning—for each district. For example, under his proposal, Franklin and Union Counties would include 11 Democratic-leaning House districts, 1 Republican-leaning House district, 4 Democratic-leaning Senate districts, and 0 Republican-leaning Senate districts— which was one fewer Republican-leaning House district and one fewer Republicanleaning Senate district than in the same territory under the commission’s original district plan. But some of the Democratic-leaning districts favored Democratic candidates by very slim margins, including a Senate district with a 50.08 Democratic index and a House district with a 50.14 Democratic index. House Speaker Cupp’s proposal for Hamilton and Warren Counties included one fewer Republican-leaning House district than in the commission’s original district plan. But again, one House district had a 50.14 Democratic index. {¶ 10} After the recess, House Speaker Cupp gave a brief presentation of his proposal. He said that the maps were drawn to keep the districts compact and competitive and “to take a step towards the proportionality requirement of the Constitution, as explained by the Ohio Supreme Court.” Senator Sykes introduced Glassburn to present a “counter” on behalf of the Democratic members of the commission. Glassburn distributed his own maps for Franklin and Hamilton Counties—which by that point had also been posted on the commission’s website—and explained the similarities with and differences from the “Republicans’ proposal.” Significantly, he noted that in the Democratic proposal, 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO both Senate districts within Hamilton County leaned Democratic, while the Republican proposal included only one Democratic-leaning Senate district. Senator Sykes repeatedly said that reconfiguring those Hamilton County Senate districts would be a simple way for the commission to move toward proportionality. Glassburn also cautioned that if one political party had a disproportionate number of districts in which the party was favored by just over 50 percent, the “court’s concerns regarding the asymmetry of districts    will come into play.” {¶ 11} In response to a question from Auditor of State Keith Faber, Glassburn said it was “more than possible” to comply with Article XI, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Ohio Constitution, to draw compact districts, and to “meet the ratio established by the court” under Section 6(B).4 Auditor Faber noted that in League of Women Voters of Ohio, see __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-65, __ N.E.3d __, at ¶ 112, we had cited a proposed plan submitted by one of petitioners’ experts, Dr. Jonathan Rodden, that purportedly complied with all of Article XI’s requirements and was more proportional to statewide voter preferences than the plan originally adopted by the commission. But that plan, Auditor Faber said, “was not a 54 or 55 map” but a “57 or 58 map.” {¶ 12} After questioning Glassburn, Senator Sykes said that instead of adjourning, the commission would recess “because our time is short and we want to make sure we provide adequate notice.” The commission therefore recessed until 9:30 a.m. the following day, Friday, January 21. The commission, however, did not meet on January 21. 4. In League of Women Voters of Ohio, we found that votes cast in statewide elections over the relevant period showed that “about 54 percent of Ohio voters preferred Republican candidates and about 46 percent of Ohio voters preferred Democratic candidates. Accordingly, under Section 6(B), the commission is required to attempt to draw a plan in which the statewide proportion of Republican-leaning districts to Democratic-leaning districts closely corresponds to those percentages.” __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-65, __ N.E.3d __, at ¶ 108. 6 January Term, 2022 {¶ 13} Throughout the January 20 meeting, commission members noted that their staffs had been working together to comply with this court’s order. Senator Sykes stated: “This is the first time I believe in the history of the state that Republican and Democrat staff have been working together on maps. It’s a herculean task, but I think we’re up to trying to make sure we comply with the court order   .” But Senator Sykes’s optimism did not last long. In affidavits filed in this litigation, he and House Minority Leader Russo averred that the Republican commission members and/or their staffs ultimately would not commit to the goal of drawing a proportional plan and refused to collaborate with them or consider their suggestions to make the plan more proportional. C. Petitioners submit a proposed plan and the commission releases more regional maps {¶ 14} On January 20, counsel for the petitioners in Bennett v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. (Supreme Court case No. 2021-1198) submitted to the commission a revised version of a proposed General Assembly–district plan drafted by Dr. Rodden (the “Rodden II plan”).5 {¶ 15} On January 21, the commission posted a proposal for Lorain County to its website. In comparison to the commission’s original plan, the proposal changed one Republican-leaning House district and one Republican-leaning Senate district to Democratic-leaning districts. The proposal included a House district with 5. In October 2021, the Bennett petitioners submitted an expert report from Dr. Rodden in which he claimed that he had drafted a district plan that complied with Article XI’s line-drawing requirements and was more proportional than the commission’s original plan. In their merit briefs, respondents did not contest Dr. Rodden’s assertion, and in League of Women Voters of Ohio, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-65, __ N.E.3d __, at ¶ 126, we noted that Dr. Rodden’s district plan “complied with Article XI” and resulted in a partisan split favoring Republican candidates by 57 percent to 43 percent in the House and 55 percent to 45 percent in the Senate. Dr. Rodden, however, later discovered that his plan included splits that are impermissible under Article XI, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution, and he therefore submitted a revised version during the commission’s redrawing process. 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO a Democratic index of only 50.003 and a Senate district with a Democratic index of 50.030. {¶ 16} Also on January 21, DiRossi sent to staff representatives a proposal for changes to Cuyahoga and Summit Counties and again asked for feedback. That proposal was posted to the commission’s website on January 22. Compared to the commission’s original plan, the proposal changed two Republican-leaning House districts and one Republican-leaning Senate district to Democratic-leaning districts. Under this proposal, six of the region’s Democratic-leaning House districts had indexes between 50 and 51 percent. {¶ 17} Early on January 22—the tenth day after this court’s decision invalidating the original plan—DiRossi and Glassburn each distributed their final proposed General Assembly–district plans to staff representatives for the commission members. D. The commission adopts a district plan on January 22 {¶ 18} In the afternoon of January 22, the commission resumed the meeting it had commenced on January 20. House Speaker Cupp said that he and Senator Sykes had agreed that the respective map drawers for the “Republicans” and the “Democrats” would each present their proposed district plans to the commission and that the commission members could discuss the proposals after the presentations. {¶ 19} During DiRossi and Springhetti’s presentation, Springhetti noted that they had been instructed to use the “base map”—i.e., the plan that we had invalidated in League of Women Voters of Ohio—as a “starting point” because it was familiar to them and complied with Article XI, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. DiRossi said that he had been “actively engaged daily and around the clock with the staff of all seven members of the Commission,” and he explained how DiRossi and Springhetti had incrementally proposed changes regarding urban areas of the state to comply with this court’s order. In total, they had changed five House districts in the commission’s 8 January Term, 2022 original plan from Republican-leaning to Democratic-leaning and had changed three Senate districts from Republican-leaning to Democratic-leaning. Their proposal had 57 Republican-leaning and 42 Democratic-leaning House districts and 20 Republican-leaning and 13 Democratic-leaning Senate districts. DiRossi said that they could not devise a plan containing fewer than 57 Republican-leaning House districts without otherwise violating another section of Article XI. {¶ 20} House Minority Leader Russo noted that under DiRossi and Springhetti’s proposal, 14 of the 42 Democratic-leaning House districts had a Democratic index between 50 and 52 percent but none of the Republican-leaning House districts had an index between 50 and 52 percent. That result, she noted, appeared to evince “an intentional approach to drive as many of those close to 50 to technically say that you have created a Democratic leaning district without actually in good faith creating as many Democratic leaning districts that are possible” under the Constitution’s proportionality standard. In response to those comments, DiRossi explained the process for changing a district from Republicanleaning to Democratic-leaning and noted, “[W]hether we ended at 49.2, or 49.8, or 49.9, or 48.2, when you finally get over the hurdle to go under 50, and everything else balances, and everything else matches, I would move on to another district.” {¶ 21} Senator Sykes repeatedly asked DiRossi and Springhetti to identify what prevented them from achieving a more proportional plan and from changing the Senate pairings in Hamilton County to create another Democratic-leaning Senate district in that county—as he had previously recommended. In varying ways, DiRossi and Springhetti responded that they had attempted to comply with this court’s order and that any alternative proposals coming closer to providing perfect proportionality contained constitutional defects. But they did not specifically explain what prevented them from reconfiguring the Hamilton County Senate districts. When Senator Sykes pressed DiRossi and Springhetti about the 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Hamilton County districts, House Speaker Cupp cut off the questioning and said that DiRossi and Springhetti had responded in the best way they could. {¶ 22} Glassburn claimed during his presentation that his proposal met the proportionality standard in Article XI, Section 6(B) and that it complied with Article XI’s other requirements. Senate President Huffman, however, identified what he considered to be constitutional defects in Glassburn’s plan, including possible violations of Article XI, Section 3(D)(3), Section 5, and Section 6(C). {¶ 23} Auditor Faber expressed concerns about not having received a proposal from the Democratic members until the day of the commission’s deadline and said, “It appeared to many of us that because we wouldn’t say that we absolutely were going to do a 45-54 map, that somebody took their ball and went home.” Auditor Faber also expressed concerns about intentionally placing Republican voters in Democratic-leaning districts to “hit some superficial ratio.” In his words, Glassburn’s proposal was “effectively taking districts and gerrymandering them to hit some Democratic ratio.” Later in the meeting, Auditor Faber explained why he believed “this arbitrary percentage    is a little bit suspect.” And he again noted that Dr. Rodden had had 57 Republican-leaning House districts in his original plan and that we had cited that plan in League of Women Voters of Ohio; therefore, according to Auditor Faber, this court had already indicated that a plan with 57 Republican-leaning House districts would be constitutional.6 {¶ 24} After the commission members had finished questioning Glassburn, Senator Sykes said that it was never his or House Minority Leader Russo’s “intention to produce a map because we were directed by the court for the 6. In actuality, we cited the Rodden plan as an example of a plan that met Article XI’s line-drawing requirements and was more proportional than the original plan; we did not state that a plan potentially providing any specific number of House seats for a particular political party would pass constitutional muster. League of Women Voters of Ohio, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-65, __ N.E.3d __, at ¶ 126, 130-131. 10 January Term, 2022 commission to produce a map, not to have the Democratic map and a Republican map.” He had recommended the “regional” approach to the map-drawing process, he said, because the commission members could not initially agree on which plan to use as a starting point. He also said that he had been informed only a day or two before the January 22 meeting that other commission members or their staff believed that Article XI, Section 6(B)’s proportionality requirement could not be met. Therefore, he—and presumably House Minority Leader Russo—had asked Glassburn to put together a district plan to show that by employing a different strategy, the commission could adopt a map that meets Section 6(B)’s proportionality standard. {¶ 25} After a recess, the commission voted five to two, along party lines, to adopt DiRossi and Springhetti’s proposal as the final General Assembly–district plan. Because the majority vote adopting the plan did not have the level of bipartisan support required by Article XI, Section 8(B) of the Ohio Constitution for the plan to remain in effect for ten years, the plan can remain in effect for no more than four years. Ohio Constitution, Article XI, Section 8(C)(1)(a). {¶ 26} The Article XI, Section 8(C)(2) statement adopted by the five commission members who voted for the revised plan said that neither the Ohio Constitution nor this court’s decision in League of Women Voters of Ohio required the commission to adopt a plan that achieves strict proportionality.7 The statement indicated that the commission was required to attempt to draw a plan that closely corresponds to statewide voter preferences and that the commission had met that standard. The statement also indicated that the revised plan was the only submitted 7. As noted in League of Women Voters of Ohio, if the commission adopts a four-year plan, the plan must include a statement explaining how the commission complied with Article XI, Section 6(B)—that is, explaining what the commission determined to be the statewide preferences of Ohio voters and how the commission’s plan corresponds to those preferences. __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022Ohio-62, __ N.E.3d __, at ¶ 8, 25. 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO plan that fully complied with Article XI, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 and with all subsections of Section 6. {¶ 27} Senator Sykes and House Minority Leader Russo submitted a separate statement. Among other things, they indicated that the commission had failed to comply with Section 6 as interpreted by this court and that it is not impossible to draw a proportional map that is compliant with the Constitution’s line-drawing requirements. They also cited Republican commission members’ failures to properly instruct their staff to comply with the proportionality requirement, and they stated that the Republican members did not consider proposed maps submitted by the public and rejected their offers to work together on the plan. They stated, “It is possible to meet the Court’s order; it just appears that the majority of Commissioners do not want to.” E. Petitioners file objections {¶ 28} On January 25, petitioners filed objections to the commission’s revised plan. The petitioners in all three cases argue that the revised plan violates Article XI, Sections 6(A) and 6(B). The Bennett petitioners argue that the revised plan also violates Article XI, Section 1(C) and Section 3(D)(3). With their objections, petitioners have collectively submitted five new expert reports. On January 28, the commission filed a response to the objections, which included a new affidavit from DiRossi. Senator Sykes and House Minority Leader Russo filed a separate pro se response to the objections, which included affidavits from Senator Sykes, House Minority Leader Russo, and Glassburn.