Scribd

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

OHIO A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. LARRY HOUSEHOLDER et al.,

Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:18-cv-357 OPINION AND ORDER

Before: Moore, Circuit Judge; Black and Watson, District Judges. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND ………………………………………………………

.

………..……………..

5

A. General Overview of the Facts ……………………………………………………

.

..…

5 B. Procedural History

………………………………………………………………….... 28

II. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL

…………………………...… 30

A. Plaintiffs’ Fact Witnesses

……………………………………………………………

30

B. Defendants’ Fact Witnesses

…………………………………………………………. 45

C. Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses

……………………………………………………….… 55

D. Defendants’ and Intervenors’ Ex

pert Witnesses

………………………………...…… 93

III. STANDING

……………………………………………………………………………….. 114

A. Vote-Dilution Claims

…………………………………………………………...….. 115

B. First Amendment Associational Claim

……………………………………………... 134

C. Article I Claim

………………………………………………………………...……. 139

IV. JUSTICIABILITY, THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE, AND THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS IN REDISTRICTING

………………………………………………..… 139

A. Justiciability and The Political Question Doctrine

……………………………….… 139

B. Evidentiary Metrics and Statistics

………………………………………………..… 149

C. Pragmatic and Historical Considerations

…………………………………………… 154

V. LEGAL STANDARDS AND APPLICATION

……………………………………………. 166

A. Equal Protection Vote-Dilution Claim

…………………………………………...… 167

B. First Amendment Vote-Dilution Claim

………………………………………..…… 262

C. First Amendment Associational Claim

……………………………………………... 263

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 262 Filed: 05/03/19 Page: 1 of 301 PAGEID #: 23358

2 D. Article I Claim

……………………………………………………………………… 284

VI. LACHES

………………………………………………………………………………….. 288

VII. REMEDY AND ORDER

………………………………………………………………… 293

APPENDICES OF MAPS Plaintiffs have brought this action alleging that H.B. 369, the redistricting plan enacted by the Ohio General Assembly and signed into law by the Governor in 2011, constitutes an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and exceeds the powers granted to the states under Article I, § 4 of the United States Constitution. As to the First and Fourteenth Amendment district-specific claims, we find that Districts 1

–

16 were intended

to burden Plaintiffs’ constitutional righ

ts, had that effect, and the effect is not explained by other

legitimate justifications. Moreover, we find that that the plan as a whole burdens Plaintiffs’

associational rights and that burden is not outweighed by any other legitimate justification. Fin

ally, we find that the plan exceeds the State’s powers under Article I. Therefore, H.B. 369 is

an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. This opinion constitutes our findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1). Due to the length of this opinion, we provide the reader with the following, more concise summary:

“Partisan gerrymandering” occurs when the dominant party in government draws district

lines to entrench itself in power and to disadvantage the disfav

ored party’s voters.

Plaintiffs in this action are

individual Democratic voters from each of Ohio’s sixteen congressional districts,

two non-partisan pro-democracy organizations, and three Democratic-aligned organizations. They challenge the constitution

ality of Ohio’s 2012 redistricting map.

Defendants are Ohio officials, and Intervenors are Ohio Republican Congressmen; Defendants and Intervenors both argue that


3

the Plaintiffs’ claims are not properly before this Court and defend the map’s constitutiona

lity on the merits.

In 2011, when Ohio’s redistricting process began, Republican dominance in the Ohio

State government meant that Republican state legislators could push through a remarkably pro-Republican redistricting bill without meaningful input from their Democratic colleagues. Ohio Republicans took advantage of that opportunity, and invidious partisan intent

—

the intent to disadvantage Democratic voters and entrench Republican representatives in power

—

dominated the map-drawing process. They designed the 2012 map using software that allowed them to predict the partisan outcomes that would result from the lines they drew based on various partisan indices that they created from historical Ohio election data. The Ohio map drawers did not work alone, but rather national Republican operatives located in Washington, D.C. collaborated with them throughout the process. These national Republicans generated some of the key strategic ideas for the map, maximizing its likely pro-Republican performance, and had the authority to approve changes to the map before their Ohio counterparts implemented them. Throughout the process, the Ohio and national map drawers made decisions based on their likely partisan effects. The map drawers focused on several key areas of the Ohio map where careful map design could eke out additional safe Republican seats. They split Hamilton County and the City of Cincinnati in a strange, squiggly, curving shape, dividing its Democratic voters and preventing them from forming a coherent voting bloc, which ensured the election of Republican representatives in Districts 1 and 2. They drew a new District 3 in Franklin County, efficiently concentrating Democratic voters together in an area sometimes referred to as

the “Franklin County

Sinkh

ole.” This strategy allowed them to secure healthy Republican majorities in neighboring

Districts 12 and 15. They paired Democratic incumbent Representatives Kaptur and Kucinich to
