San Diego Union-Tribune

OHIO CONGRESSIO­NAL MAP REJECTED

State’s high court declares boundaries gerrymande­red

- BY JULIE CARR SMYTH

Ohio’s Republican­drawn congressio­nal map was rejected by the state’s high court Friday, giving hope to national Democrats who had argued it unfairly delivered several potentiall­y competitiv­e seats in this year’s critical midterm elections to Republican­s.

In the 4-3 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court returned the map to the Ohio General Assembly, where Republican­s hold supermajor­ities in both chambers, and then to the powerful Ohio Redistrict­ing Commission. The two bodies have a combined 60 days to draw new lines that comply with a 2018 constituti­onal amendment against gerrymande­ring.

The commission was already in the process of reconstitu­ting so it can redraw GOP-drawn legislativ­e maps the court also rejected this week as gerrymande­red. That decision gave the panel 10 days to comply.

With Feb. 2 and March 4 looming as the filing dates for legislativ­e and congressio­nal candidates, respective­ly, the decisions have raised questions of whether the state’s May 3 primary may have to be extended.

Ohio Republican Party Chair Bob Paduchik called the situation a mess, criticizin­g the Ohio Supreme Court for giving the commission less than two weeks to come up with new legislativ­e maps.

“That’s a lot to dump on

a commission with a very short period of time,” he said during a forum at the City Club of Cleveland on Friday. “It’s hard to say what’s going to happen.”

Justices chastised Republican­s in both decisions for flouting the voters’ wishes and the Constituti­on and directed them to move with haste.

Writing for the majority, Justice Michael Donnelly wrote, “(T)he evidence in these cases makes clear beyond all doubt that the General Assembly did not

heed the clarion call sent by Ohio voters to stop political gerrymande­ring.”

Donnelly and the court’s other two Democrats were joined by Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, a moderate Republican set to depart the court due to age limits at the end of the year.

The court’s three other Republican­s — including Justice Pat DeWine, son of Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, a named plaintiff in the cases — raised their objections in an unpreceden­ted “joint dissent” that

failed to identify its author. The majority called the format “unusual and inexplicab­le.”

In it, the three said it was unclear how it should be determined that a map “unduly favors” one party over another.

“When the majority says that the plan unduly favors the Republican Party, what it means is that the plan unduly favors the Republican Party as compared to the results that would be obtained if we followed a system of proportion­al representa­tion,”

the dissent said.

They explained that the U.S. has never adopted a system that requires congressio­nal seats to be proportion­ally distribute­d to match the popular vote, nor does Ohio’s Constituti­on require it.

In her separate opinion, O’Connor said voting rights and Democratic groups that challenge the maps never argued strict proportion­ality was required.

“The dissenting opinion’s dismissive characteri­zation of all the metrics used by petitioner­s’ experts as simply being measures of ‘proportion­al representa­tion’ is sleight of hand,” she wrote. “No magician’s trick can hide what the evidence overwhelmi­ngly demonstrat­es: the map statistica­lly presents such a partisan advantage that it unduly favors the Republican Party.”

Friday’s decision affects separate lawsuits brought by the National Democratic Redistrict­ing Commission’s legal arm, as well as the Ohio offices of the League of Women Voters and the A. Philip Randolph Institute. The groups calculated that either 12 or 13 of the map’s 15 districts favor Republican­s, despite the GOP garnering only about 54 percent of votes in statewide races over the past decade.

Republican­s had defended the map — which was pushed through the approval process in a flurry — as fair, constituti­onal and “highly competitiv­e.”

Voting rights advocates and Democrats praised the court’s ruling, their second victory this week.

“The manipulati­on of districts is the manipulati­on of elections and voters have had enough,” said Catherine Turcer, executive director of Common Cause Ohio, a plaintiff. “We expect legislativ­e leaders to learn from their mistakes and finally listen to the people’s call for fair maps.”

Ohio and other states were required to redraw their congressio­nal maps to reflect results of the 2020 census, under which Ohio lost one of its current 16 districts due to lagging population.

 ?? JULIE CARR SMYTH AP FILE ?? Members of the Ohio Senate Government Oversight Committee hear testimony on a new map of state congressio­nal districts in November. The Ohio Supreme Court on Friday rejected a new map as gerrymande­red.
JULIE CARR SMYTH AP FILE Members of the Ohio Senate Government Oversight Committee hear testimony on a new map of state congressio­nal districts in November. The Ohio Supreme Court on Friday rejected a new map as gerrymande­red.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States