Updated May 10, 2022 at 10:32 a.m.
The Ohio Supreme Court has once again ordered members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission to explain why they should not be held in contempt of court for failing to draw new, constitutional legislative maps. This order comes after voter rights groups that have challenged all of the commission's maps filed motions in court to require members of the commission to explain why they should not be held in contempt.
The Ohio Supreme Court ordered the commission to adopt a new set of maps by May 6, and suggested the commission use the work already completed by commission-hired mapmakers. Instead, the commission resubmitted a set of maps, known as Map 3, that was already rejected by the court in March.
"The commission's conduct was a power grab with the highest possible stakes: thwarting the expressed will of the people of Ohio about how they wish to be represented and openly defying this Court’s power to say what the law is," attorneys for the Ohio Organizing Collaborative wrote in the court filing.
The commission agreed to resubmit Map 3 by a 4-3 vote. Gov. Mike DeWine, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, both Republicans, along with Sen. Rob McColley (R-Napoleon), and Rep. Jeff LaRe (R-Violet Twp.) voted for the move.
The Ohio Organizing Collaborative asked the court to require those four members to show cause for why should not be held in contempt by May 13 at 9 a.m.
Attorneys representing the National Redistricting Action Fund, which is an affiliate of a national Democratic group, asked the court to find the commission and "as the court deems appropriate, individual respondents" in contempt unless they adopt a constitutional plan for Ohio General Assembly districts.
On Monday, LaRe and McColley filed a response to petitioners' objecting to the resubmitted Map 3. Attorneys for the lawmakers said the decision to resubmit the already rejected map was in the interest of holding a second primary by August 2.
State legislative races were removed from the May 3 ballot because Ohio did not have constitutional maps in place in time.
LaRe and McColley's court response stated that Map 3 was the only plan that would allow elections officials to hit certain deadlines for an August 2 primary.
"Election administration deadlines are not artificial, but rather a real-world acknowledgement of the incredible amount of time and work it takes to properly administer an election," the filing said.
The response from LaRe and McColley also asked the court to delay requiring any further action by the commission until after the November General Election, "at which time elections will determine which commission members return to the commission."
A federal court deadline is looming as the supreme court reviews the question of contempt and the resubmitted Map 3. If Ohio cannot implement a set of constitutional maps by May 28, federal judges will instate the unconstitutional Map 3.
Copyright 2022 The Statehouse News Bureau. To see more, visit The Statehouse News Bureau.
