Opinion ID: 6103646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The congressional-redistricting process

Text: {¶ 112} In February 2018, the General Assembly enacted legislation to place on the ballot an amendment to the Ohio Constitution providing a new process for drawing congressional districts. The people of Ohio ratified the amendment in May 2018 with an effective date of January 1, 2021. {¶ 113} Article XIX is designed to incentivize the political branches to reach bipartisan compromise on redistricting plans. It does this by providing that a plan that garners bipartisan, supermajority support lasts ten years while a plan passed by only a simple majority lasts four years. Article XIX, Sections 1(A), 1(C)(2), and 1(C)(3), Ohio Constitution. The amendment places primary 10. The majority says the joint authorship of a dissent is “unusual and inexplicable.” Majority opinion at ¶ 70, fn. 9. It’s not. See, e.g., Natl. Fedn. of Indep. Business v. Dept. of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, __ U.S. __, __ S.Ct. __, __ L.Ed.2d __, Nos. 21A244 and 21A247, Slip Opinion, 2022 WL 120952,  (Jan. 13, 2022) (joint dissent of Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ.). 44 January Term, 2022 responsibility for congressional redistricting on the General Assembly. See Section 1(A). Section 1(A) requires the General Assembly to pass a congressional-district plan by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the members of each house in the legislature, including the affirmative vote of at least one-half of the members of each of the two largest political parties. If the plan is enacted by the required vote, it remains effective until the next year ending in the numeral one, i.e., ten years. Id. {¶ 114} If the General Assembly fails to enact a plan by the requisite vote in September of a redistricting year, then the redistricting commission established in Article XI must adopt a congressional-district plan by a majority vote including at least two members of the commission who represent each of the two largest political parties. Section 1(B). If that happens, the plan remains in effect for ten years. Id. {¶ 115} If the commission fails to agree on a plan by October 31, then the General Assembly must pass a congressional-district plan in the form of a bill not later than November 30. Section 1(C)(1). The plan is effective for ten years if it is passed by a three-fifths vote in each house, including an affirmative vote of at least one-third of the members of each of the two largest political parties. Section 1(C)(2). {¶ 116} Should the legislature fail to reach bipartisan consensus, Article XIX authorizes the General Assembly to pass a congressional-district plan by a simple majority vote of both houses. Section 1(C)(3). The penalty is that the plan lasts just four years. See Section 1(C)(3)(e). Such a plan must not “unduly favor[ ] or disfavor[ ] a political party or its incumbents,” Section 1(C)(3)(a), or “unduly split governmental units,” Section 1(C)(3)(b). {¶ 117} The process repeats itself once the four-year plan expires. Article XIX, Section 1(D), (E), and (F). Further, when a congressional-district plan ceases to be effective, “the district boundaries described in that plan shall continue in 45 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO operation for the purpose of holding elections until a new congressional district plan takes effect.” Section 1(J). {¶ 118} Article XIX, Section 2 provides additional requirements for a congressional-district plan. All plans must include single-member districts divided by population according to the congressional ratio of representation. Section 2(A)(1) and (2). The ratio is the population of Ohio (11,799,448 according to the 2020 federal decennial census) divided by the number of House seats apportioned to this state (15), which equals 786,629 or 786,630 people per district. Section 2(A)(2). Section 2 further states that the plan “shall comply with all applicable provisions of the constitutions of Ohio and the United States and of federal law,” Section 2(B)(1), that “[e]very congressional district shall be composed of contiguous territory,” Section 2(B)(3), and that “the boundary of each district shall be a single nonintersecting continuous line,” id. Ten-year plans must contain compact districts, Section 2(B)(2), but a four-year plan requires only an attempt to make districts compact, Section 1(C)(3)(c). {¶ 119} Section 2 of Article XIX also includes requirements for dividing counties, townships, and municipal corporations. When the county has a municipality or township with a population that exceeds the size of a congressional district, the authority drawing the districts “shall attempt to include a significant portion of that municipal corporation or township in a single district and may include in that district other [governmental units] that are located in that county and whose residents have similar interests as the residents of the municipal corporation or township.” Section 2(B)(4)(a). When the population of a municipality or township falls between 100,000 and the size of a congressional district, the city or township “shall not be split,” unless the county contains two or more such governmental units, in which case only the most populous “shall not be split.” Section 2(B)(4)(b). 46 January Term, 2022 {¶ 120} “The authority drawing the districts may determine which counties may be split.” Section 2(B)(5). However, “sixty-five counties shall be contained entirely within a district, eighteen counties may be split not more than once, and five counties may be split not more than twice.” Id. Further, “[n]o two congressional districts shall share portions of the territory of more than one county, except for a county whose population exceeds four hundred thousand,” Section 2(B)(7), and “[t]he authority drawing the districts shall attempt to include at least one whole county in each congressional district,” unless compliance would violate federal law or the district is entirely within one county, Section 2(B)(8). {¶ 121} Article XIX, Section 3(A) vests this court with “exclusive, original jurisdiction in all cases arising under this article.” If a court invalidates a congressional-district plan, a congressional district, or group of districts, then the General Assembly must pass a new district plan that remedies the legal defects the court identified in the previous plan. Section 3(B). However, if the General Assembly fails to enact a new plan within a 30-day period, the Ohio Redistricting Commission is reconstituted and must adopt a compliant congressional-district plan within 30 days. Section 3(B) and (C). Once the General Assembly or the redistricting commission produces a new plan, it is to be used until the next time for redistricting. Id. B. The legislature enacts a redistricting plan that purports to maximize the number of competitive districts {¶ 122} Based on the most recent census, Ohio is allotted 15 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, one fewer than in the previous census cycle. The census data arrived late and in unconsumable format, see Ohio v. Raimondo, 848 Fed.Appx. 187, 188 (6th Cir.2021), and the General Assembly failed to meet the September 30 deadline to pass with bipartisan support a congressional-district plan good for ten years, see Article XIX, Section 1(A). The redistricting commission 47 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO then had the month of October to enact a bipartisan redistricting plan but was unable to do so. Section 1(B). {¶ 123} This left the General Assembly the month of November to enact a plan “in the form of a bill.” Section 1(C)(1). After attempts to reach bipartisan consensus in the legislature failed, both houses passed a plan with simple-majority support. The bill was signed into law by the governor soon thereafter. See R.C. 3521.01 et seq. Because the plan was enacted by only a simple majority, the plan is to remain in effect for four years. Section 1(C)(3)(e). {¶ 124} The General Assembly included in the legislation “an explanation of the plan’s compliance with” Section 1(C)(3). Section 1(C)(3)(d). The following constitute its legislative findings: “The plan contains six Republican-leaning districts, two Democratic-leaning districts, and seven competitive districts”; only one district pairs incumbents, and they are members of the Republican party; “[t]he plan splits only twelve counties and only fourteen townships and municipal corporations”; and “visual inspection of the congressional district plan demonstrates that it draws districts that are compact.” 2021 Sub.S.B. No. 258, Section 3, 733-734, available at https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/ solarapi/v1/general_assembly_134/bills/sb258/EN/05/sb258_05_EN?format=pdf (accessed Jan. 12, 2022) [https://perma.cc/DF75-WC9K]. The General Assembly reports that on each score, this plan improves upon the congressional-district plan enacted in 2011. The governor added his approval: SB 258 makes the most progress to produce a fair, compact, and competitive map. The SB 258 map has fewer county splits and city splits than these recent proposals and the current congressional map. The SB 258 map keeps Lucas and Stark counties, as well as the Mahoning Valley, whole within single congressional districts for the first time in decades, and also keeps the cities of Akron, Canton, 48 January Term, 2022 Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, and Toledo all whole within the same congressional map for the first time since the 1840s. With seven competitive congressional districts in the SB 258 map, this map significantly increases the number of competitive districts versus the current map. Governor of Ohio News Releases, Governor DeWine Signs Senate Bill 258 (Nov. 20, 2021), https://governor.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/governor/media/news-andmedia/governor-dewine-signs-senate-bill-258-11222021 (accessed Jan. 12, 2022) [https://perma.cc/9JLS-X2W6]. {¶ 125} Here is the plan: 49 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 126} Start with the basics. Each of the 15 districts are virtually equipopulous, containing either 786,629 or 786,630 people. The plan splits 12 counties, down from 23 in the 2011 plan. Two counties—Hamilton and Cuyahoga—are split twice. Lucas and Stark counties are kept whole for the first time in decades. The plan splits 14 townships and municipalities, down from 35 in the 2011 plan. Of Ohio’s cities not naturally split by county lines, 98 of the largest 101 are unsplit. Columbus accounts for one split because the state and federal Constitutions require it. See Sections 2(B)(1) (incorporating the one-person, onevote requirement) and 2(B)(4)(a); see also Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) (same). {¶ 127} The seven competitive districts are District 1, District 6, District 9, District 10, District 13, District 14, and District 15. Those districts respectively encompass greater Cincinnati, Ohio’s eastern corridor, Toledo and surrounding counties, greater Dayton, greater Akron, northeast Ohio, and central Ohio between Cincinnati and Columbus. District 6, notably, was adjusted to keep the entire Mahoning Valley (all of Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana counties) in a single district. {¶ 128} By any measure, several of the districts are hypercompetitive. In the Cincinnati-area District 1, for example, statewide federal-election data from 2012 through 2020 (“FEDEA”) show a district with a 51.5 percent Republican advantage; yet in the most recent election, the Democratic presidential candidate won the district. The Toledo-area District 9, in contrast, shows only a 47.7 percent Republican average, yet the Republican presidential candidate carried the district in the most recent election. The Dayton-area District 10 has a 52.2 percent Republican federal average and gave the Republican presidential candidate 51.8 percent of the vote in the last election. The Akron-area District 13 may be the most competitive of all, manifesting a 48.6 percent Republican average and giving the 50 January Term, 2022 Democratic presidential candidate a razor-thin 50.4 percent majority in the last presidential election. {¶ 129} Each of the seven competitive districts, whether it leans left or right, is more competitive than it was in the 2011 plan. That leaves as noncompetitive the eight districts encompassing Cleveland, Columbus, Canton, and Ohio’s rural regions. More than 46 percent of Ohioans live in competitive districts where candidate strength and voter turnout will dictate results; the rest are overwhelmingly likely to live in districts where their party has a decided advantage. {¶ 130} Two groups of petitioners filed complaints in this court asserting that the enacted plan violates Article XIX of the Ohio Constitution. Petitioners assert the same two causes of action: first, the plan “unduly favors or disfavors a political party or its incumbents” in contravention of Section 1(C)(3)(a); second, the plan “unduly split[s] governmental units,” contravening Section 1(C)(3)(b). The primary thrust of their claims is that under the plan, Democratic candidates will fail to win what they consider to be a fair number of seats in Ohio and the plan thus “unduly” favors the Republican party. They also claim that the plan unduly splits governmental units in Hamilton, Cuyahoga, and Summit Counties, creating competitive seats in those areas rather than seats where Democrats have an electoral advantage. II. ANALYSIS {¶ 131} The two questions before this court—whether the enacted congressional-district plan “unduly favors or disfavors a political party or its incumbents” or “unduly split[s] governmental units,” Article XIX, Section 1(C)(3)(a) and (b), Ohio Constitution—are questions of first impression. Words in the Ohio Constitution mean what they meant to the layperson at the time of enactment. We are to accord Article XIX its original public meaning, free from policy-oriented gloss. Accord Rutherford v. M’Faddon (1807) (unpublished), available at https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2001/2001-Ohio- 51 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 56.pdf (jury-trial right has the meaning it had “at the time of the framing [of] the constitution”).