COLUMBUS, Ohio — There are several new updates in the Ohio congressional redistricting lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court.
What do you want to know
- The petitioners in the case want the Congressional card thrown out, however, different litigants are asking for different solutions to the issue.
- The common theme running through all the filings is what has been alleged in the past that the map unfairly favors the Republican Party
- National Democrats, led by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, are asking judges to throw away the map and have their own mapmakers draw a new one
- A nonpartisan voting rights group wants the map tossed out and altered, but only wants the General Assembly or Ohio Redistricting Commission to do the tweaking
The petitioners in the case want the Congressional card thrown out, however, different litigants are asking for different solutions to the issue.
The common theme running through all of the filings is what has been alleged in the past, which is that the card unfairly favors the Republican Party.
The map that passed favors Republicans in at least 10 of the state’s 15 congressional districts, or 66%, while Republicans have won just 54% of the vote statewide in the past 10 years.
National Democrats, led by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, are asking judges to throw away the map and have their own mapmakers draw a new one.
The group wants the court to appoint a special master to draw its own card if the General Assembly doesn’t make the card fairer to Democrats and closer to an 8-7 card.
Meanwhile, nonpartisan voting rights groups the ACLU of Ohio and the League of Women Voters of Ohio want the card tossed out and changed, but only want the General Assembly or the Ohio Redistricting Commission do the tweaking.
The attorneys said in their filing that if the districts around Hamilton and Franklin counties were changed, it would go with the rest of the map.
This sentiment has led to a lot of drama among fellow voters and advocates.
Spectrum News 1 legal analyst Rory Riley-Topping said there is legal precedent in this election cycle for what the petitioners are asking for.
“What they cite in the memoirs regarding this argument about a special master and concurrently working on remedial maps or situations that we saw in both North Carolina and New York, and those two states had factually similar ones occur where the state Constitution had deferred that power to the General Assembly,” Riley-Topping said. “The General Assembly has been declared unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court. And in this case, the special master has been appointed to oversee this process.
It remains to be seen how the commissioners will react. They have 20 days to do so.