Thread by @DavidPepper

THREAD:

You want to read a Court decision absolutely throttling an out-of-control legislature that refuses follow the law but thinks Ohio voters are too dumb to figure them out?

Then read this opinion.

But in the meantime, highlights follow:

supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0…

"...the map drawers & the commission knew that their approach—starting w the invalidated map & switching competitive GOP-leaning districts to competitive Dem-leaning districts—would have the dual effect of eliminating weak GOP districts & creating weak Dem districts.

2/

"DiRossi and Springhetti still ultimately drafted the plan, and they answered only to Senate President Huffman and House Speaker Cupp. As before, “the commission itself did not engage in any map drawing or hire independent staff to do so.”

3/

"We clearly invalidated the entire original plan.... The commission’s choice to nevertheless start with that plan and change it as little as possible is tantamount to an intent to preserve as much partisan favoritism as could be salvaged from the invalidated plan."

4/

"It is also clear that the commission rejected, without explanation, easy and obvious changes that would have made the revised map more proportional."

5/

"[T]he commission knowingly adopted a plan in which all the House districts whose voters favor Republicans do so at vote shares of 52.6 percent and above, while more than a quarter (12 out of 42) of the House districts whose voters “favor” Democrats do so at a vote share..."

6/

"...between 50 and 51 percent (meaning that a 1 percent swell in Republican vote share would sweep 12 additional districts into the Republican column). Nine of those districts favor Democrats at a level under 50.5 percent."

7/

"While the Constitution does not require exact parity in terms of the vote share of each district, the commission’s adoption of a plan in which the quality of partisan favoritism is monolithically disparate is further evidence of a Section 6(A) violation."

8/

"The commission’s adoption of a plan that absurdly labels what are by any definition “competitive” or “toss-up” districts as “Dem-leaning”—at least when the plan contains no proportional share of similar “GOP-leaning” districts—is demonstrative of an intent to favor the [GOP]."

"[I]f a [GOP] candidate were to win in half of the 12 House districts in which the Dem vote share is between 50 & 51 percent, the GOP could expect to have a 63-36 majority...This is an even larger GOP majority than the one contemplated in the Sept. 2021 plan that we invalidated."

"Regardless, the revised plan’s structure guarantees that the 58 percent seat share for Republicans is a floor whereas the 42 percent seat share for Democrats is a ceiling."

11/

"[T]he commission members are all public servants...and they are entrusted with the solemn duty to draw a district plan that complies with the requirements of Article XI. They are charged with drawing a plan that inures to the benefit of not just one political party..."

12/

"...not just one constituency, but of Ohio as a whole...Members of the legislature selected to serve on the commission must be, in good faith, commission members first, setting aside their usual partisan modes. Section 6(A) directly prohibits actions in conflict w this principle"

"“By counting what are really toss-up districts as ‘Democratic-leaning’ in this way, the Commission’s methodology grossly overestimates the number of Democratic-leaning districts under the revised plan.”

13/

"Bluntly, the commission’s labeling of a district with a Democratic vote share between 50 and 51 percent (in one case, a district having a 50.03 percent vote share) as “Democratic-leaning” is absurd on its face."

14/

"When 12 of the 42 “Dem-leaning” House districts (i.e., more than 25%) are very close “toss-up districts” yet there are 0 “Republican-leaning” districts that are similarly close, the proportion of districts whose voters “favor” each party is not being assessed properly."

15/

"[C]ompetitive districts—which the 12 districts identified by Dr. Imai surely are, under any reasonable measure—must either be excluded from the proportionality assessment or be allocated to each party in close proportion to its statewide vote share."

16/

And this, at the end, is especially important: "The General Assembly established the date of the primary election, see R.C. 3501.01(E)(1), and it has the authority to ease the pressure that the commission’s failure to adopt a constitutional redistricting plan..."

17/

"....has placed on the secretary of state and on county boards of elections by moving the primary election, should that action become necessary."

In sum, gerrymandered legislative hacks...welcome to the woodshed!

END