Ohio Supreme Court to hear arguments Tuesday over state’s new Congressional districts –

On Dec 27, 2021

COLUMBUS — The state Supreme Court will review arguments over the drawings of Ohio’s new congressional map with opponents saying it “unduly favors” one party and is unconstitutional.

>>PREVIOUS REPORT: Ohio’s new Congressional map heads to Governor for approval

Tuesday’s oral arguments in the Supreme Court are the latest in the congressional district battle, after the state legislature approved the map by a simple majority in November and the bill was signed by Gov. Mike DeWine days later.

The court will hear 30 minute arguments Tuesday at 9 a.m. from both sides arguing the constitutionality of the approved maps. The lawsuits filed after the November approval by the legislature argue the map violates the mandates voters approved in 2018 constitutional amendments, according to a Supreme Court news report.

Opponents of the new map argue the maps approved during the process are in violation of the state constitution, saying the approved four-year map for the U.S. House districts “unduly favors” the Republican Party and “unduly disfavors” the Democratic Party, the state Supreme Court report states. Opponents argue in their lawsuits the plan creates 11 Republican-safe districts, two Democratic safe, and only two competitive districts.

Court filings by the opponents also argue that 12 of Ohio’s 15 Congressional seats will likely go to Republican’s due to the way the districts were drawn. Groups included in the opposition lawsuits include the League of Women Voters of Ohio, and the A. Philip Randolph Institute of Ohio.

“Based on an expert’s analysis, the voters maintain in their brief that the plan dilutes Democratic votes around cities, ‘often cracking communities of color and submerging them in overwhelmingly white, Republican districts’ to achieve the desired result,” the Supreme Court report said, citing the lawsuits filed by opponents.

Supporters of the congressional district plan, including Senate President Matt Huffman and House Speaker Robert Cupp, who are both Republicans, contend the approved map doesn’t contain any “undue favoritism.” Those supporters contend the district maps create six Republican-leaning districts, two Democratic-leaning districts, and seven competitive districts, per the Supreme Court news report.

“(Supporters) maintain they used the federal election data to support their map because it is the more appropriate metric for districts in federal elections,” the Supreme Court report said.

Opponents argue the federal election results only used a limited set of data that excluded U.S. House races, and therefore made the districts appear more competitive.

“That data understates Republican strength in all districts, allowing the legislative leaders to claim more districts are competitive – but when other statewide election results are considered, those districts are likely to be won by Republicans, the LWV asserts,” according to the Supreme Court news report.

Additionally, supporters of the approved maps said the state constitution “offers no definitive standard for determining such favoritism.” Citing a 2012 Supreme Court ruling, supporters argue it is up to the state’s General Assembly to determine if a map “unduly favors or disfavors a political party.”