Groups Launch Legal Challenge Over Ohio Partisan Gerrymandering
Newly Drawn Maps Give Blatantly Unfair Advantage to One Political Party
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The ACLU of Ohio, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Covington & Burling LLP filed a lawsuit today in Ohio Supreme Court challenging Ohio’s newly drawn maps for state House and Senate districts that give extreme and unfair advantage to the Republican Party.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, the Ohio chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, and several individuals. This is the first litigation in the country challenging a passed statewide map this cycle.
The Ohio Redistricting Commission — which is dominated by Republicans — approved the maps last week in a 5-2 party-line vote, disrespecting the letter and spirit of the constitutional reforms passed overwhelmingly by Ohio voters in 2015. The maps lock in Republican veto-proof supermajorities in both chambers of the Ohio General Assembly.
“If you want a clear lesson in partisan gerrymandering, this is it. This is a brazen abuse of power by the political party that is in control. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse,” said Alora Thomas-Lundborg, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “Redistricting should not be a one-sided, rigged political process. Voters should pick their politicians. Politicians should not pick their voters.”
New maps are drawn from a once-in-a-decade redistricting process that determines the allocation of political power and representation at every level of government across the country for the next 10 years.
According to the lawsuit, over the past decade, Republicans have received between 46.2% and 59.7% of the statewide vote. But the enacted map draws 67% of the House districts and 69% of the Senate districts to favor Republicans, assuring Republican veto-proof supermajorities in both chambers.
“This extreme partisan gerrymander is a flagrant violation of the Ohio Constitution. Several majority members of the Redistricting Commission candidly admitted as much, even as they voted to enact this manipulative scheme. The blatant defiance of the reforms that were overwhelmingly passed by Ohio voters just six years ago is not only a violation of law, but is also a slap in the face to the people of this state. We are going to this state’s highest court to ensure that Ohio voters are able to have a voice in their government,” said Freda Levenson, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio.
According to the lawsuit, “This brazen manipulation of district lines for extreme partisan advantage doubly dishonors the voters of this state: by adopting a map that utterly fails to correspond with voters’ preferences as manifested by the vote share of the two major parties’ candidates over the past decade; and by openly defying a constitutional amendment adopted overwhelmingly by Ohio voters just six years ago, which sought to put an end to precisely this kind of extreme partisan gerrymandering.”
“The recently adopted Ohio Senate and Ohio House legislative maps disrespect voters and the Ohio Constitution. Ohioans demonstrated their support for fair, responsive legislative districts overwhelmingly at the ballot box in 2015 and recently through robust participation in the Ohio Redistricting Commission's rushed and chaotic process. After decades of working to end partisan gerrymandering in the Buckeye State, the League of Women Voters of Ohio asks the Ohio Supreme Court to defend the rights of everyday Ohioans to have legislative districts that serve and represent them rather be rigged to favor the short-sighted and selfish interests of political parties and candidates,” said Jen Miller, president of the League of Women Voters of Ohio.
“The gerrymandered map that was enacted disproportionately affects minority voters and minority communities and prevents people of color from having a meaningful impact in Ohio politics,” said Andre Washington, president of the Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute.
“The enacted map is a gross violation of the Ohio Constitution,” said Robert Fram of Covington & Burling. “The Ohio Constitution requires that the partisan balance of House and Senate districts correspond closely to the statewide preferences of the voters of Ohio. This is an illegal map, plain and simple.”
The case is League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission.
PRESS BRIEFING TODAY at 3:30 p.m. ET: Lawyers and plaintiffs in this case will offer brief remarks on today’s lawsuit, followed by a question-and-answer period for media. Watch at .
Complaint:
Statement:
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission (State House and Senate Challenge)
Voting Rights
League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission (State House and Senate Challenge)
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”