Sixth Circuit Reopens Litigation Over Ohio’s Congressional Map

A map of Ohio congressional districts is displayed during a committee hearing at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio, on Nov. 16, 2021. Julie Carr Smyth/AP Photo

A suit challenging Ohio’s congressional maps as being racially gerrymandered was revived on Tuesday, April 9, by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The suit was previously dismissed by a lower district court judge in October and appealed shortly thereafter to the appellate court, which said on Tuesday the lower court erred in denying the defendants three-judge panel to review their claims and summarily dismissing the case.

The appellate court (pdf) remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, ordering them to immediately initiate procedures to convene such a three-judge panel which is the normal course for a federal challenge to racial gerrymandering.

The original 2022 lawsuit alleges that Ohio’s congressional districts are racially gerrymandered and violate the Voting Rights Act, along with the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.

The Original Suit

At the heart of the legal battle is the redrawing of Ohio’s congressional districts following the 2020 Census, a process that has not been without its controversies and legal challenges.

In November 2021, the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated a congressional map that had been signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine.

The Court’s ruling pointed to a violation of the Ohio Constitution, asserting that the map unduly favored a political party, thereby undermining the principles of equitable representation.

This judicial intervention necessitated the proposal of a new congressional map, known as the “March 2 Map,” which has since become the focus of the lawsuit recently reopened by the appellate court.

The plaintiffs in the case argue that the new redistricting plans fall short of adhering to the Voting Rights Act and constitutional protections, particularly in their consideration of racial demographics and the historical context of racial discrimination in prior redistricting efforts.

A specific point of contention highlighted in the suit is the failure to combine certain geographic areas, such as the cities of Youngstown and Warren, Ohio, and the eastern suburbs of Cleveland, into a single district. This, the plaintiffs assert, neglects the need for districts that reflect the demographic and racial diversity of the state’s population.

To support their allegations, the plaintiffs include testimony from hearings held by the Ohio Redistricting Commission, where Ray DiRossi, representing the defendants in the redistricting process, acknowledged that racial and demographic data were intentionally omitted from consideration in drawing up the maps.

This admission has been pointed to as clear evidence of a disregard for the Voting Rights Act and previous judicial findings on racial discrimination in Ohio’s legislative redistricting efforts.

The complaint elaborates on the consequences of the proposed Congressional Redistricting Plan, particularly for the district encompassing Youngstown, Ohio.

It argues that the new configuration dilutes the black vote by extending the district over 160 miles to areas where “racial bloc voting” is prevalent, thus impairing black voters’ ability to elect a representative “of their choice.” This, according to the plaintiffs, constitutes a violation of both the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act by neglecting the impact of racial bloc voting and other factors significant to the Voting Rights Act.

Plaintiffs’ further allege that a detailed history of official discrimination in the Mahoning Valley, which, they argue, should have been a crucial consideration for the defendants in the redistricting process.

The complaint cites allegations of discrimination affecting black individuals’ rights to register and vote, as well as their participation in the democratic process more broadly.

It also points to racially polarized voting patterns, the effects of discrimination on black individuals’ ability to participate in the political process, and a lack of responsiveness from elected officials to the black community’s needs in Mahoning County.

State Response in Appellate Filings

In contrast, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, representing the state in the appellate brief, contends that the plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged intentional discrimination on the basis of race.

He maintains that the absence of consideration for racial or demographic data in creating the challenged plan cannot be equated with intentional discrimination.

The plaintiffs now seek a comprehensive review of Ohio’s congressional redistricting efforts by the three-judge panel, advocating for a declaration that the current process and the congressional map violate key federal laws and constitutional protections.

In their original suit, they also call for the appointment of a special master to oversee the creation of a new and in their opinion lawful redistricting plan.